So ITC clock rules had more light shed on them, or were released.

As I understand them: (and you should go read them yourself)
1. Clock starts soon as a die roll, or pregame action. (So I guess when you’re ready to play, have used your first pregame CP, or rolled for who is going first be the clock start?)
2. Ship the clock back and forth as someone is doing an action. If your waiting for your opponent ship it to his time.
3. In the Fight phase, starting with the player who’s turn it is, can decide to forgo an assault, and in that case the opponent can decide the outcome, from total wipeout of the other side, to leaving them all untouched, to leaving just one to consolidate to, to avoid getting shot.
4. If your clock runs out (and your opponent still has time) you can only roll saves (on your opponents time? Clock paused? Shipped over to guy with no time?) and count scores for scoring units in place.
5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

Overall, I think it’s a good setup for 40K. Not as ruthless as some of the other games, but it should really kill some of the slow play. I think that for some people just seeing that they took 15 minutes more to deploy than the other guy might be all they need to buckle down a little to get the game done.

So number 3 means the opponent gets to decide the result of an assault?

So if I have to (because of time) not roll my 30 daemonettes against 5 Tactical Marines, then he can say his 5 tactical marines wiped all of them out and consolidated further onto an objective?

Guess I'd better not run Slaanesh Daemons at Nova, because resolving the assaults for them takes ages. (In fact, resolving any large-ish assault takes ages).

Y not give either side 10 mins per turn so 3 turns is 1 hour and 6 is 2. Anything undone in 10 remains undone...

 jeff white wrote:
Y not give either side 10 mins per turn so 3 turns is 1 hour and 6 is 2. Anything undone in 10 remains undone...

Because then if a player takes say 5 minutes for their first 2 turns they're left with only 10 minutes for their third turn which could result in things getting hurried and a less tactically involved game and they're being punished for playing at a better pace. Whereas if they 30 minutes total and their first 2 turns take 5 minutes each it gives them some breathing room to better analyse the situation and make the correct plays.

This is a joke. If you don't have time to play the game properly, then don't play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So number 3 means the opponent gets to decide the result of an assault?

So if I have to (because of time) not roll my 30 daemonettes against 5 Tactical Marines, then he can say his 5 tactical marines wiped all of them out and consolidated further onto an objective?

Guess I'd better not run Slaanesh Daemons at Nova, because resolving the assaults for them takes ages. (In fact, resolving any large-ish assault takes ages).

Your opponent only decides the result if you forgo the combat, such as "I don't want to use my time to roll those saves".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
This is a joke. If you don't have time to play the game properly, then don't play.

Id say the joke was an ork player winning a Warhammer GT by slow playing and never getting past turn 3

Seems like a workable first pass. Problems will crop up with it that need adjustments, but it seems good enough for some field tests.

Just do the clock on a per turn basis, and not as a competitive tool. It is a great way of making slows players aware of how slow they are, without discussing it (they often dont feel slow because their mind is racing, but in my experience, their slowliness is often a result of not using the opponents turn to plan their own).

 Crimson wrote:
This is a joke. If you don't have time to play the game properly, then don't play.

I'd say me getting 1/2 the time allotted for the game by the tourney organizer is plenty of time to play properly.

 jeff white wrote:
Y not give either side 10 mins per turn so 3 turns is 1 hour and 6 is 2. Anything undone in 10 remains undone...

Turn 1 I have 50 models. turn 4 I have 10 models. My turn 1 will normally take longer then my turn 4.
By using a chess clock rather then a turn timer you can spend more time on your early turns and speed through your later turns allowing for a much more natural spending of time while reaching the same end point, both players having equal time for a game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So number 3 means the opponent gets to decide the result of an assault?

So if I have to (because of time) not roll my 30 daemonettes against 5 Tactical Marines, then he can say his 5 tactical marines wiped all of them out and consolidated further onto an objective?

Guess I'd better not run Slaanesh Daemons at Nova, because resolving the assaults for them takes ages. (In fact, resolving any large-ish assault takes ages).

Batch setup dice. Each Daemonette gets 2-3A. Set up your dice ahead of time so you can grab 12 or so dice and start rolling instead of having to count them out.

There are so gauges out there with a 3" and 1" side. Very easy to quickly Pile In, check who is in range, and start rolling.


Yes. A horde army is more affected by a clock than an elite army, but complaining when there are tricks/strategies available doesn't help anyone.

Northern85Star wrote:
Just do the clock on a per turn basis, and not as a competitive tool. It is a great way of making slows players aware of how slow they are, without discussing it (they often dont feel slow because their mind is racing, but in my experience, their slowliness is often a result of not using the opponents turn to plan their own).

Chess clocks work better than turn timers because they adapt to the natural flow of the game. 40k turns get faster and faster as the game progresses, so the game plays better if you can spend more time on the first turn at the cost of time for the last one. Chess clocks do this really organically regardless of army composition, though you generally have to play the army once on the clock to get a sense of pace first.

It really is simple. You buy a clock that has 2 buttons. Each player gets 1:15 minutes to play their game.

Any action you complete you shift the action to your opponent. If ether players 1:15 mins run out - they can no longer score points/move/cast powers/use abilities/ or play stratagems - all they can do is roll saves. If it is proven they are not rolling saves in a timely manner they are disqualified from the event and full points awarded to the other guy.

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.

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Good thing the clock stops when you do that then. At least it does in Steamroller format, which is what they're aping here.

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Seems like a slippery slope fallacy.

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

Just so everyone is aware, there is no argument you can make here. Marmatag has decided he hates chess clocks and he will never change his mind. Just don't bother.

That means your argument is good. If you can't argue it, but can label the opposition, that means you're a genius and win everything. Also, you won LVO with that post! Good job.

Naw dude, he is saying you answer every point with well I wanna win my way, and I don't care about the rule, the guidlines, or the event organizers.

You have demonstrated you are That Guy. Cool. Move along. This thread is clear, its not for the Faint Hearted.

Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

Clarification on what counts as your time for a bunch of stuff that isn't dice rolling or model moving would be good. The game can be pretty granular with a lot of decisions on both sides throughout.

It's not even about people abusing it, they've just created a scenario where enabling your opponent to play faster by providing information freely is to your disadvantage.

I don't think this is the right step for a game like Warhammer. The game requires good faith gameplay to function. There are logical extremes, like Unit is pointing out, but also the simple fact that people will play within the rules and force their opponent to use their time.

Another example would be firing 72 shots into a unit. Normally you might just pull the unit and say "they're toast." However, in chess clock land, you'll require your opponent roll them all. This isn't breaking the rules in any way, it's just bad faith gameplay, and chess clocks reward it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

No, they also shed light on people who don't think they're slow playing, too.

Reemule wrote:
Naw dude, he is saying you answer every point with well I wanna win my way, and I don't care about the rule, the guidlines, or the event organizers.

You have demonstrated you are That Guy. Cool. Move along. This thread is clear, its not for the Faint Hearted.

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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

And then you pause clock, call the judge, he makes a ruling, game goes on.

So your both wrong?

The value in taking time off the clock only matters if that player was going to struggle with going to full time. If I can play my army in under half the time limit anyway, it doesn’t matter what you do or don’t make me roll for.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

No, they also shed light on people who don't think they're slow playing, too.

Fun fact. I play an assault army with about 100 models. (Dropped it in response to chess clocks, and also, because of the DS nerf).

I timed my turns in some practice games. Turn 1 & 2 i can get done in about 20-25 minutes, after that they're much faster.

Here's the problem. 25 minutes on turn 1 & 2 means i'm behind the 6-turn-game curve. You need to be 20 minutes and under. I can speed my game up further by being less courteous to my opponent. For example, I always let my opponents view my dice clearly before i scoop and continue rolling. I announce everything i'm doing and give them ample time to ask questions and understand, even while playing fast. What incentive do i have to do this when clocks are a factor? I'm punished for being a good opponent, because I play a list that lives on the razors edge of what amounts to arbitrarily chosen game length.

I can do a 5 turn game in 2.5 hours. I'm fast with deployment and i'm fast with movement, etc. But you can only be so fast with Tyranids unless you play full gunline.

Maybe now is a good time to play a Knight army.

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

And then you pause clock, call the judge, he makes a ruling, game goes on.

So your both wrong?

And then that happens every ten minutes while you wait around for 5 waiting for a judge, the game ends before both players have used up all their time (because it's a tournament, and the round still has to end in 2.5 hours whether or not both player's clocks are empty) and then we're back where we were: games not finishing on time.

Sounds ideal, sound plan, 10/10 implementation.

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

And then you pause clock, call the judge, he makes a ruling, game goes on.

So your both wrong?

Go ahead, pause the clock, round still ends on time.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Naw dude, he is saying you answer every point with well I wanna win my way, and I don't care about the rule, the guidlines, or the event organizers.

You have demonstrated you are That Guy. Cool. Move along. This thread is clear, its not for the Faint Hearted.

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.

Actually no. Your wrong again.

Your acting like this is a new wheel, and its all new territory.

Its not. Several games use Clocks. All the little worries, and fears about Slow play, horde armies, making civility go, have already been answered. It was found to be unfounded.

And to be preemptive, 40K isn't different, special, harder, use more models, have different expectations, or any of that.

And for the final point, you don't have to go to an event using them. If you don't think you can play the game as laid out, in the guidelines of the tourney organizer, DON"T GO. just that simple. Your not owned the experience of going.

If you can’t play your list within the time constraints, even with concerted effort and practice playing efficiently, you might want to use a dice app. Most of those lists throw enough dice that using the app will significantly speed up your army.

Chess clocks have the opportunity to introduce more issues than they solve in my experience. 40k is fundamentally not a game designed around time, time limits are imposed by the requirements of an event, not something actually inherent to the game. Armies and factions rather naturally have different sizes and play at different speeds and forcing time into a box with clocks takes no account of that fact (yeah, Warmahordes uses chess clocks in competitive play, its also a game tailor designed around a competitive paradigm and you're not getting armies with 7 models on one side fighting 200 on the other). Yes, slow play happens, but chess clocks open lots of doors to perceived slights/intentional gimmickry/forgotten passbacks/equipment failure/army bias/etc that all open up much more room for drama.

Chess clocks can shift the gimmickry, but arent going to eliminate it, if there are consistent issues with games finishing, lower the points level or expand the time available for games. If people cant get 1850 or 2000pt games done in 150 minutes, play 1500 for the next event or allot 3 hours for play, and have the TO's pay attention to tables getting long on time and issue warnings where appropriate.

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Naw dude, he is saying you answer every point with well I wanna win my way, and I don't care about the rule, the guidlines, or the event organizers.

You have demonstrated you are That Guy. Cool. Move along. This thread is clear, its not for the Faint Hearted.

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.

Actually no. Your wrong again.

Your acting like this is a new wheel, and its all new territory.

Its not. Several games use Clocks. All the little worries, and fears about Slow play, horde armies, making civility go, have already been answered. It was found to be unfounded.

And to be preemptive, 40K isn't different, special, harder, use more models, have different expectations, or any of that.

And for the final point, you don't have to go to an event using them. If you don't think you can play the game as laid out, in the guidelines of the tourney organizer, DON"T GO. just that simple. Your not owned the experience of going.

And this is why I said it's pointless to argue. Chess clocks are PROVEN to work but to Marmatag 40k is somehow an exception to the rule. There's no mental hoop he won't jump through to claim they won't work.

Apparently "not for the faint of heart" means that the original poster is entitled to be a jerk in all subsequent posts. I think this is a good example of how chess clocks break down.

You probably see yourself as a super nice guy in real life. But look at what's going on here, there is no contract between us that says you should be civil, so you're not.

Just like in a game with chess clocks, there is no contract, so why play in a manner that enables your opponent to play faster? If I *must* force you to spend your time to win, I will. Think about blitz chess. This is akin to repeatedly checking your opponent when you cannot win, because they're behind on time, and the logistics of moving a piece will run them out of time. Yeah, you have mate in 2 moves, i lost the game, but i can force you to burn time and lose.

I do find it funny that you point out "fears of horde armies."

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

By this statement - you quite literally are willing to use any possible advantage to win. You probably slow play too.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

By this statement - you quite literally are willing to use any possible advantage to win. You probably slow play too.

I don't slow play.

How is this any different than repeatedly putting someone in check in chess when you can't win? You're going to lose but you can force someone to burn time, running them out and therefore winning. This is a real strategy in blitz chess.

Clocks add a new layer to the game. You're in denial if you think they won't in 40k.

Maybe i'll charge a throwaway unit into one of your squads with high attacks. You can either roll the dice or let me decide the outcome (your only two options), and my throwaway squad might just take out your strong squad for time purposes.

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

"I'm mad that people now have a tool to stop my slow play so I'm going to act like a child to attempt to prove a point". I'm just glad a TO will get called over for your actions in every tournament with clocks that you attend and players like you will slowly be banned from every major GT. Look at clocks already taking out the trash

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

By this statement - you quite literally are willing to use any possible advantage to win. You probably slow play too.

I don't slow play.

How is this any different than repeatedly putting someone in check in chess when you can't win? You're going to lose but you can force someone to burn time, running them out and therefore winning. This is a real strategy in blitz chess.

Clocks add a new layer to the game. You're in denial if you think they won't in 40k.

Maybe i'll charge a throwaway unit into one of your squads with high attacks. You can either roll the dice or let me decide the outcome (your only two options), and my throwaway squad might just take out your strong squad for time purposes.

The rule to forego rolling dice is designed for when you jave 40 seconds on the clock and you're a guardsman fighting Guilliman. Where are you getting this untouched throwaway unit and squad with high attacks when there are literally only a few minutes left on the clock?

Goddammit I didn't take my own advice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

By this statement - you quite literally are willing to use any possible advantage to win. You probably slow play too.

He 100% slow plays or he wouldn't be so upset and trying to think of every conceivable way to slow play despite the clock. What he's really mad at is the clock now makes it blatantly obvious that he's attempting to slow play so people can now get a TO involved before the games all but over.

Well moving past all the arguments... I am not a competitive 40k player but I have played Warmachine extensively competitively with chess clocks... and while it is true you wont end up with 5 models vs 200 in War machine, I have definitely played my 50+ model horde list against double colossal lists with I believe 8 models... and since WM has templates/individual attack/facing positioning is so much more important that each extra model you need to move does add proportionally more time required so I feel it's comparable.

All the same criticisms came up prior to the chess clocks but in practice I almost never ran into people abusing it... and the ones that did the TOs shut it down very quickly...

The trick to playing the horde army? I would practice unpacking and moving my guys from my deployment zones, used the chess clock every game even on casual ones (I wouldn't enforce it from my opponent in casual but I would use it to get an idea of how much time I was using).... There are tons of ways to make it work... you just need to play smart and practice...

Then only when I could consistently complete games in my 50% of the time allotted would I bring my horde list to a serious tournament...and it was never an issue... and when I played warmachine back in the day it was a deathclock... so you ran out of time you just lost... no matter what the state was...

And as for comments about shifting the clock, when people ask stuff... If people are asking me questions about my models on my turn, I would answer the best I can while doing my turn... If It was becoming disruptive I would ask them to hold off till there turn or ship the clock over... Same thing for dice rolling or anything...

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

By this statement - you quite literally are willing to use any possible advantage to win. You probably slow play too.

I don't slow play.

How is this any different than repeatedly putting someone in check in chess when you can't win? You're going to lose but you can force someone to burn time, running them out and therefore winning. This is a real strategy in blitz chess.

Clocks add a new layer to the game. You're in denial if you think they won't in 40k.

Maybe i'll charge a throwaway unit into one of your squads with high attacks. You can either roll the dice or let me decide the outcome (your only two options), and my throwaway squad might just take out your strong squad for time purposes.

I am always amused by these arguments against chess clocks.
"I will become 'that guy' just to prove to you chess clocks are a bad idea".

All your doing is showing other people that your 'that guy'. We will bear it during the game and afterwards the rest of the field is happy chatting at the bar and your standing there being ignored because no one wants to hang out with 'that guy'.
If winning is that important to you, congratulation.

I see chess clocks as less of a tool to get rid of TFG, and more of a tool to nudge players to get their games past turn 3.

 Ordana wrote:
I am always amused by these arguments against chess clocks.
"I will become 'that guy' just to prove to you chess clocks are a bad idea".

All your doing is showing other people that your 'that guy'. We will bear it during the game and afterwards the rest of the field is happy chatting at the bar and your standing there being ignored because no one wants to hang out with 'that guy'.
If winning is that important to you, congratulation.

If you think that people in tournaments would not abuse the clock system if it allowed them to win you're deluded.

meleti wrote:
I see chess clocks as less of a tool to get rid of TFG, and more of a tool to nudge players to get their games past turn 3.

I agree, That guy will always be That guy. Clocks makes it harder and more obvious to be That guy and people play faster with a clock being a silent reminder of the time left in the game.
Most people don't intent to slow play. They just play most of their games in a casual environment where there is no time limit to worry about.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I am always amused by these arguments against chess clocks.
"I will become 'that guy' just to prove to you chess clocks are a bad idea".

All your doing is showing other people that your 'that guy'. We will bear it during the game and afterwards the rest of the field is happy chatting at the bar and your standing there being ignored because no one wants to hang out with 'that guy'.
If winning is that important to you, congratulation.

If you think that people in tournaments would not abuse the clock system if it allowed them to win you're deluded.

Ofcourse people will. That guy will always be That guy. But trying to abuse the clock tends to be a lot more obvious then other means.

But every time this discussion comes up people who pretend to be friendly gamers start bringing up how they will try to abuse every means possible just because there is a clock present.
As if its the clock fault that they turn into 'That guy', rather then their own personality being the problem.
Most people can play with a clock and still play a nice and friendly game. Even at high levels in a tournament.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

And then you pause clock, call the judge, he makes a ruling, game goes on.

So your both wrong?

And then that happens every ten minutes while you wait around for 5 waiting for a judge, the game ends before both players have used up all their time (because it's a tournament, and the round still has to end in 2.5 hours whether or not both player's clocks are empty) and then we're back where we were: games not finishing on time.

Sounds ideal, sound plan, 10/10 implementation.

Then any judge worth their salt will tell them to knock it the feth off and kick them out.

Why do people think they can get away with stuff like this in 40k? No wait, I can answer my own question looking at the Forgeworld thread, as people lack the balls to tell someone "no" in trying to play something they have no rules for and are "Honest guv. They're it's rules. Really." then what hope do we have for kicking someone out of a tournament for being a bellend?

 Crimson wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I am always amused by these arguments against chess clocks.
"I will become 'that guy' just to prove to you chess clocks are a bad idea".

All your doing is showing other people that your 'that guy'. We will bear it during the game and afterwards the rest of the field is happy chatting at the bar and your standing there being ignored because no one wants to hang out with 'that guy'.
If winning is that important to you, congratulation.

If you think that people in tournaments would not abuse the clock system if it allowed them to win you're deluded.

TFG will always attempt to be TFG (as demonstrated perfectly in this thread). With the clock, the difference is it makes it blatantly obvious that someone is being TFG so you can get a TO involved immediately. With no clock, you just have a "feeling" they are playing slow. As shown in previous posts slow playing this system requires you to be incredibly blatant and upfront that you are attempting to game the system.

I don't know. I see them as a tool that can be used by TFG just as well as against them.

It adds another thing that players can game to a game where some players try to game everything they can.

I've yet to see it in practice and hate to assume the worst in people but I've already listened to at least two pod casts where a host was gloating about not reminding their opponent to switch back the clock to their time or giggling about other ways they can game the system to screw their opponent.

I mean just the simple logistics of having to switch it back and forth that many times in a game (my shooting, your saves, my casting, your denies [who eats the clock while we measure if someone is in deny range], your strats...) it would be easy to forget to switch a clock easily in that chaos (especially for 90% of players who don't play 4-5 games a week).

Even though this will only be implemented day 2 when most of the competitive people have been separated from the novices I'm curious to see how many (if any) mistakes are made and what problems pop up. I personally wouldn't attend a tourney with chess clocks until this beta stage is over.

I'm still a proponent of 3 hour matches assumed to complete turn 4. More than 1 game that doesn't complete and you get a point penalty guaranteed to keep you out of the top tables. I'm willing to give it a try but there are going to be people out there who get their tournament ruined by something as simple as forgetting to click a button and that seems a bit harsh to me.

And could you guys tone it down with the personal insults? Just because someone doesn't think this is a good idea doesn't make them the spawn of Satan...

You need to do better than calling people "That Guy" for playing within the confines of a system that encourages certain abuses.

You can burn time in Blitz Chess by just putting your opponent in check repeatedly. It's a viable strategy and no one complains about it. You guys would call this slowplaying and being "that guy."

Being a good player means taking advantage of all of the rules at your disposal. If the clock ruleset allows people to play within the confines of the rules and gain an advantage, shouldn't you expect them to? That is the definition of tournament play - playing to win and using every trick and tool at your disposal.

You can't implement a system and then get mad when people break it. Create a better system.

 Marmatag wrote:
You need to do better than calling people "That Guy" for playing within the confines of a system that encourages certain abuses.

You can burn time in Blitz Chess by just putting your opponent in check repeatedly. It's a viable strategy and no one complains about it. You guys would call this slowplaying and being "that guy."

Being a good player means taking advantage of all of the rules at your disposal. If the clock ruleset allows people to play within the confines of the rules and gain an advantage, shouldn't you expect them to? That is the definition of tournament play - playing to win and using every trick and tool at your disposal.

You can't implement a system and then get mad when people break it. Create a better system.

You are going to have to do better than saying "I can easily break it by doing x". Show up to a GT using these rules and attempt to do any of these things a number of times to game the system and see how far you make it before a judge gets called over every game and you eventually get the boot. Make sure to video tape it as I'm sure all of Dakka is going to enjoy you getting called out and kicked out

As your okay with blitz play, surely your okay with auto losing warmachine style when your warlord dies? That is as relevant no?

ITT:
"Clocks will stop slowplaying, because people will get kicked out for gaming the clock."

In other threads:
"TOs won't kick out slow players because they're mean and they have to discuss it before hand and golly they're just so busy..."

The number of times I've seen people who should've been sanctioned/penalized for their behavior and weren't tells me that adding clocks won't actually make the TOs and judges actually adjudicate or facilitate anything.

And I'm not trying to be nice.

The premise of the game is fair play. The object of the game is to have fun. The goal of the game is to win. The rules of the game are laid out by the Rulebooks, FAQs, and the Tournament Organizer.

The only things allowed to influence the game outcome are luck and skill.

When you said your going to not allow luck and skill to influence the out come of the game, but deceit, and emotional outbursts, your just a cheat. I've never had much respect for cheats. Not sure I'm going to start having any now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:
"Clocks will stop slowplaying, because people will get kicked out for gaming the clock."

In other threads:
"TOs won't kick out slow players because they're mean and they have to discuss it before hand and golly they're just so busy..."

The number of times I've seen people who should've been sanctioned/penalized for their behavior and weren't tells me that adding clocks won't actually make the TOs and judges actually adjudicate or facilitate anything.

Will there be bad judges? of course. The issue before with slow play is that
1. It took a while for you to identify. even if you caught it the first turn they did it they now often soaked up a huge amount of time
2. In the past when someone slowplayed and you called over a judge there was no way to tell if someone slow played or you simply perceived it. With the introduction of the clock not only is it significantly harder (time is literally posted right there) any of the over the top methods to slow play mentioned in this thread are going to be obvious to the opponent and any TO or people watching the game

Right - when you have someone trying to game you - you have something to work with. Just the presence of chess clocks will discourage 90% of the slow players right off the bat - and the ones that still try will be identified quickly.

Seems fine to me (and I say that as a horde guard player who often uses over 200 models per game). If you can't finish your half of the game within your half of the time limit then you shouldn't have brought so many models. My biggest concern is what happens when you have a rules query asked about your force? If I get asked 20 questions challenging my every move in a game, I shouldn't pay for it in my time if each rule turns out to work as I stated.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Right - when you have someone trying to game you - you have something to work with. Just the presence of chess clocks will discourage 90% of the slow players right off the bat - and the ones that still try will be identified quickly.

Exactly, obviously no system is perfect and there will be people that do manage to cheat the system because of trusting opponents, bad TOs, clever slight of hand ect. But it's going to be significantly harder to pull off and it's going to increase the chances they get caught by a ton. All the clock does is give the person previously being cheated without recourse a tool to protect themselves.

 Marmatag wrote:
You need to do better than calling people "That Guy" for playing within the confines of a system that encourages certain abuses.

You can burn time in Blitz Chess by just putting your opponent in check repeatedly. It's a viable strategy and no one complains about it. You guys would call this slowplaying and being "that guy."

Being a good player means taking advantage of all of the rules at your disposal. If the clock ruleset allows people to play within the confines of the rules and gain an advantage, shouldn't you expect them to? That is the definition of tournament play - playing to win and using every trick and tool at your disposal.

You can't implement a system and then get mad when people break it. Create a better system.

If you want to win at all costs while completely ignoring your reputation in the very small 40k competitive community, sure. Most people acknowledge the importance of sportsmanship as well as being a strong player.

 DoomMouse wrote:
Seems fine to me (and I say that as a horde guard player who often uses over 200 models per game). If you can't finish your half of the game within your half of the time limit then you shouldn't have brought so many models. My biggest concern is what happens when you have a rules query asked about your force? If I get asked 20 questions challenging my every move in a game, I shouldn't pay for it in my time if each rule turns out to work as I stated.

If you watch the FLG guys weekly podcast they have answered this. If you feel that a person is asking too many questions you can start to swap it to their time when they ask and if the person refuses you stop the clock and call over a TO

 Crimson wrote:
This is a joke. If you don't have time to play the game properly, then don't play.

We all know why it is being put in place. So long as you are not INTENTIONALLY slow playing then you will not be hurt by this.

Reemule wrote:
So ITC clock rules had more light shed on them, or were released.

As I understand them: (and you should go read them yourself)
1. Clock starts soon as a die roll, or pregame action. (So I guess when you’re ready to play, have used your first pregame CP, or rolled for who is going first be the clock start?)
2. Ship the clock back and forth as someone is doing an action. If your waiting for your opponent ship it to his time.
3. In the Fight phase, starting with the player who’s turn it is, can decide to forgo an assault, and in that case the opponent can decide the outcome, from total wipeout of the other side, to leaving them all untouched, to leaving just one to consolidate to, to avoid getting shot.
4. If your clock runs out (and your opponent still has time) you can only roll saves (on your opponents time? Clock paused? Shipped over to guy with no time?) and count scores for scoring units in place.
5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

Overall, I think it’s a good setup for 40K. Not as ruthless as some of the other games, but it should really kill some of the slow play. I think that for some people just seeing that they took 15 minutes more to deploy than the other guy might be all they need to buckle down a little to get the game done.

I think it needs some safeguards/counter-balances to discourage people from using clocks and the anti-slow play efforts to cheat through fast-rolling .

E.g.

- You roll/pick up your dice too quickly, not giving your opponent sufficient time to check results, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You do not declare chosen units, targets, attacks, bonuses, etc.. appropriately for an attack, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You move models hastily, knock over terrain and/or opponents models, create messy situations in close combats through pile-ins/fall/backs, etc.., you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You try to fast-talk/pressure your opponent into "theory-turns" without playing them fully, die-roll for die-roll, you auto-lose the game.
- etc...

Asmodios wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
Seems fine to me (and I say that as a horde guard player who often uses over 200 models per game). If you can't finish your half of the game within your half of the time limit then you shouldn't have brought so many models. My biggest concern is what happens when you have a rules query asked about your force? If I get asked 20 questions challenging my every move in a game, I shouldn't pay for it in my time if each rule turns out to work as I stated.

If you watch the FLG guys weekly podcast they have answered this. If you feel that a person is asking too many questions you can start to swap it to their time when they ask and if the person refuses you stop the clock and call over a TO

100% this. I've judged plenty of games with chess clocks and for the most part, all that happens when TFG tries to abuse their opponents time is rapidly make me aware who TFG is and bring his games under the scrutiny they've always needed faster. When we added clocks to our event it drastically cut down on the post tournament grumbling and player conflicts that I wasn't aware of until long after it was too late for me to do anything about them.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Reemule wrote:
So ITC clock rules had more light shed on them, or were released.

As I understand them: (and you should go read them yourself)
1. Clock starts soon as a die roll, or pregame action. (So I guess when you’re ready to play, have used your first pregame CP, or rolled for who is going first be the clock start?)
2. Ship the clock back and forth as someone is doing an action. If your waiting for your opponent ship it to his time.
3. In the Fight phase, starting with the player who’s turn it is, can decide to forgo an assault, and in that case the opponent can decide the outcome, from total wipeout of the other side, to leaving them all untouched, to leaving just one to consolidate to, to avoid getting shot.
4. If your clock runs out (and your opponent still has time) you can only roll saves (on your opponents time? Clock paused? Shipped over to guy with no time?) and count scores for scoring units in place.
5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

Overall, I think it’s a good setup for 40K. Not as ruthless as some of the other games, but it should really kill some of the slow play. I think that for some people just seeing that they took 15 minutes more to deploy than the other guy might be all they need to buckle down a little to get the game done.

I think it needs some safeguards/counter-balances to discourage people from using clocks and the anti-slow play efforts to cheat through fast-rolling .

E.g.

- You roll/pick up your dice too quickly, not giving your opponent sufficient time to check results, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You do not declare chosen units, targets, attacks, bonuses, etc.. appropriately for an attack, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You move models hastily, knock over terrain and/or opponents models, create messy situations in close combats through pile-ins/fall/backs, etc.., you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You try to fast-talk/pressure your opponent into "theory-turns" without playing them fully, die-roll for die-roll, you auto-lose the game.
- etc...

All of these happen without a clock already and are solved the same way, with or without a clock.
Tell them to play clean and clear and if they don't you call a judge.

If someone is doing things unintentionally, which can happen with fast rolling, forgetting to declare or sloppy movement they will 99% of the time go "I'm sorry, I will do better". No hard feelings.
Its the intentional ones that will protest. And then you call over a judge.

Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

 Ordana wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Reemule wrote:
So ITC clock rules had more light shed on them, or were released.

As I understand them: (and you should go read them yourself)
1. Clock starts soon as a die roll, or pregame action. (So I guess when you’re ready to play, have used your first pregame CP, or rolled for who is going first be the clock start?)
2. Ship the clock back and forth as someone is doing an action. If your waiting for your opponent ship it to his time.
3. In the Fight phase, starting with the player who’s turn it is, can decide to forgo an assault, and in that case the opponent can decide the outcome, from total wipeout of the other side, to leaving them all untouched, to leaving just one to consolidate to, to avoid getting shot.
4. If your clock runs out (and your opponent still has time) you can only roll saves (on your opponents time? Clock paused? Shipped over to guy with no time?) and count scores for scoring units in place.
5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

Overall, I think it’s a good setup for 40K. Not as ruthless as some of the other games, but it should really kill some of the slow play. I think that for some people just seeing that they took 15 minutes more to deploy than the other guy might be all they need to buckle down a little to get the game done.

I think it needs some safeguards/counter-balances to discourage people from using clocks and the anti-slow play efforts to cheat through fast-rolling .

E.g.

- You roll/pick up your dice too quickly, not giving your opponent sufficient time to check results, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You do not declare chosen units, targets, attacks, bonuses, etc.. appropriately for an attack, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You move models hastily, knock over terrain and/or opponents models, create messy situations in close combats through pile-ins/fall/backs, etc.., you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You try to fast-talk/pressure your opponent into "theory-turns" without playing them fully, die-roll for die-roll, you auto-lose the game.
- etc...

All of these happen without a clock already and are solved the same way, with or without a clock.
Tell them to play clean and clear and if they don't you call a judge.

If someone is doing things unintentionally, which can happen with fast rolling, forgetting to declare or sloppy movement they will 99% of the time go "I'm sorry, I will do better". No hard feelings.
Its the intentional ones that will protest. And then you call over a judge.

Sure, but 99% of the time when people take a bit too much time or the game doesn't quite get to turn 5, it's not intentional either.

If you forsake the "gentleman's agreement" as the default solution to issues of playing a bit too slow and formalise the rules, you need to also forsake the "gentleman's agreement" as the default solution to playing a bit too quickly and formalise the rules. Otherwise, you have an asymmetric ruleset that will very much encourage people to abuse the one half that isn't written down.

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

To give Marmatag the benefit of the doubt here. I will point out that some of his points are valid.

In basketball for example - it is common practice to foul your opponents late in the game when they have an easy shot - because 2 easy shots (2 free throws) harder to make than 1 easy shot. If you have a big enough lead - you can win the game a lot easier just by fouling them every-time they go to shoot.

If you have fouls to spare - it is perfectly legal to do. Though it is technically cheating. Basketball as a whole decided they were going to tolerate this. We as a whole do not have to tolerate it. TO's in general should not tolerate any gaming of the clock situation and reserve the right to DQ any player who they think is trying game the system. It should be spelled out in rules of the tournament that - the goal of both players is to finish the game. Any intentional disruption of that goal can result in DQ.

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

Playing a horde army gives you the right to field more models though. So why not more time.

Or if symmetry in all things is the rule you want to enforce, the logical equivalent would be equal model count for all armies.

I played in a team tournament (16 teams, 64 players) that had optional rules for chess clocks if people wanted. They where used for some people (Normally in the most competitive games or when one elite army faced an horde one or two horde armies), but they generated 0 problems. They actually worked as they should, because all games that used chess clocks ended in turn 4-5.

Players play much faster when the clock is on the table. Yeah is more stresfull, but as it was optional, only the top tables used it... so only people that whas there to win.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Reemule wrote:
So ITC clock rules had more light shed on them, or were released.

As I understand them: (and you should go read them yourself)
1. Clock starts soon as a die roll, or pregame action. (So I guess when you’re ready to play, have used your first pregame CP, or rolled for who is going first be the clock start?)
2. Ship the clock back and forth as someone is doing an action. If your waiting for your opponent ship it to his time.
3. In the Fight phase, starting with the player who’s turn it is, can decide to forgo an assault, and in that case the opponent can decide the outcome, from total wipeout of the other side, to leaving them all untouched, to leaving just one to consolidate to, to avoid getting shot.
4. If your clock runs out (and your opponent still has time) you can only roll saves (on your opponents time? Clock paused? Shipped over to guy with no time?) and count scores for scoring units in place.
5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

Overall, I think it’s a good setup for 40K. Not as ruthless as some of the other games, but it should really kill some of the slow play. I think that for some people just seeing that they took 15 minutes more to deploy than the other guy might be all they need to buckle down a little to get the game done.

I think it needs some safeguards/counter-balances to discourage people from using clocks and the anti-slow play efforts to cheat through fast-rolling .

E.g.

- You roll/pick up your dice too quickly, not giving your opponent sufficient time to check results, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You do not declare chosen units, targets, attacks, bonuses, etc.. appropriately for an attack, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You move models hastily, knock over terrain and/or opponents models, create messy situations in close combats through pile-ins/fall/backs, etc.., you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You try to fast-talk/pressure your opponent into "theory-turns" without playing them fully, die-roll for die-roll, you auto-lose the game.
- etc...

All of these happen without a clock already and are solved the same way, with or without a clock.
Tell them to play clean and clear and if they don't you call a judge.

If someone is doing things unintentionally, which can happen with fast rolling, forgetting to declare or sloppy movement they will 99% of the time go "I'm sorry, I will do better". No hard feelings.
Its the intentional ones that will protest. And then you call over a judge.

Sure, but 99% of the time when people take a bit too much time or the game doesn't quite get to turn 5, it's not intentional either.

If you forsake the "gentleman's agreement" as the default solution to issues of playing a bit too slow and formalise the rules, you need to also forsake the "gentleman's agreement" as the default solution to playing a bit too quickly and formalise the rules. Otherwise, you have an asymmetric ruleset that will very much encourage people to abuse the one half that isn't written down.

I agree, most people do not aim to slow play. Casual play often doesn't care about timelimits so many players never practice finishing a match within 2-3 hours.
But you would be amazed how much faster these people play with a clock present. Not because they can't game the system anymore but because having a visual representation of your time remaining works subconsciously and makes you play faster.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

Playing a horde army gives you the right to field more models though. So why not more time.

Or if symmetry in all things is the rule you want to enforce, the logical equivalent would be equal model count for all armies.

No, that doesn’t follow. “Everyone gets equal time” doesn’t mean 40k should have symmetry in all things, lol.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

I think it needs some safeguards/counter-balances to discourage people from using clocks and the anti-slow play efforts to cheat through fast-rolling .

E.g.

- You roll/pick up your dice too quickly, not giving your opponent sufficient time to check results, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You do not declare chosen units, targets, attacks, bonuses, etc.. appropriately for an attack, you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You move models hastily, knock over terrain and/or opponents models, create messy situations in close combats through pile-ins/fall/backs, etc.., you lose 15 minutes from your clock.
- You try to fast-talk/pressure your opponent into "theory-turns" without playing them fully, die-roll for die-roll, you auto-lose the game.
- etc...

Most of these are extremely harsh and far more likely to be abused the other way around. Really, all you need to do is understand that the TO is a tool and a resource and should regularly be called proactively to mediate a game before a conflict escalates. I generally encourage people to call me over as soon as there's a disagreement. It's way easier to get a read on things at the moment of impasse than after things have escalated. Also, most things on this list have more reasonable solutions than heavy clock penalties and should be something judges discuss and have standard responses for. None of them really demand harshly punishing the offender unless they refuse to correct their behavior.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

Playing a horde army gives you the right to field more models though. So why not more time.

Or if symmetry in all things is the rule you want to enforce, the logical equivalent would be equal model count for all armies.

I have never seen a rules pack that had a limt, min or max, on the number of models in your army.
But they do talk about point limits and time limits.

I make the choice not to bring 200 models.
Just as 'you' make the choice to bring an army you can't play 5 turns with in 1.5 hours.

 Ordana wrote:

I agree, most people do not aim to slow play. Casual play often doesn't care about timelimits so many players never practice finishing a match within 2-3 hours.
But you would be amazed how much faster these people play with a clock present. Not because they can't game the system anymore but because having a visual representation of your time remaining works subconsciously and makes you play faster.

Matches don't need to be "finished" (as in all turns played). That's an arbitrary new requirement introduced by ITC because their weird missions don't scale nearly as well to shorter/fewer-turn games as the GW ones.

And you'd be surprised at how every tournament-game on the clock, especially ITC games where people seem to have absorbed this perverse of entitlement of "a 40k game must always have 5 turns" abuse the "slow play controversy" to cheat the living hell out of dice rolls, re-rolls, plie-ins, consolidation moves, etc.., etc.

 Marmatag wrote:
Apparently "not for the faint of heart" means that the original poster is entitled to be a jerk in all subsequent posts. I think this is a good example of how chess clocks break down.



Just like in a game with chess clocks, there is no contract, so why play in a manner that enables your opponent to play faster? If I *must* force you to spend your time to win, I will. Think about blitz chess. This is akin to repeatedly checking your opponent when you cannot win, because they're behind on time, and the logistics of moving a piece will run them out of time. Yeah, you have mate in 2 moves, i lost the game, but i can force you to burn time and lose.

I do find it funny that you point out "fears of horde armies."

If as you say, you can just burn my time by eternally calling check that is a valid win/draw condition. Congratulations you have just learned basic chess tactics?

 Ordana wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

Playing a horde army gives you the right to field more models though. So why not more time.

Or if symmetry in all things is the rule you want to enforce, the logical equivalent would be equal model count for all armies.

I have never seen a rules pack that had a limt, min or max, on the number of models in your army.
But they do talk about point limits and time limits.

I make the choice not to bring 200 models.
Just as 'you' make the choice to bring an army you can't play 5 turns with in 1.5 hours.

I can make that choice, because 40K fundamentally allows you to make asymmetric choices. If you wanna remove the asymmetric choices, you need to do that in all aspects (model count, model sizes, army selection, no of phases the army is active in, etc..), not just the time available.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

Playing a horde army gives you the right to field more models though. So why not more time.

Or if symmetry in all things is the rule you want to enforce, the logical equivalent would be equal model count for all armies.

I have never seen a rules pack that had a limt, min or max, on the number of models in your army.
But they do talk about point limits and time limits.

I make the choice not to bring 200 models.
Just as 'you' make the choice to bring an army you can't play 5 turns with in 1.5 hours.

I can make that choice, because 40K fundamentally allows you to make asymmetric choices. If you wanna remove the asymmetric choices, you need to do that in all aspects, not just the time available.

Both players bring the same number of points, does that mean they need the same number of models? Of course not.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

I agree, most people do not aim to slow play. Casual play often doesn't care about timelimits so many players never practice finishing a match within 2-3 hours.
But you would be amazed how much faster these people play with a clock present. Not because they can't game the system anymore but because having a visual representation of your time remaining works subconsciously and makes you play faster.

Matches don't need to be "finished" (as in all turns played). That's an arbitrary new requirement introduced by ITC because their weird missions don't scale nearly as well to shorter/fewer-turn games as the GW ones.

And you'd be surprised at how every tournament-game on the clock, especially ITC games where people seem to have absorbed this perverse of entitlement of "a 40k game must always have 5 turns" abuse the "slow play controversy" to cheat the living hell out of dice rolls, re-rolls, plie-ins, consolidation moves, etc.., etc.

People cheat, who knew!

ITC missions are not the reason the tournament scene is moving towards clocks. Remember one of the big 'slow play' discussions this year was an Ork army winning the GW Grand Tournament by parking 180 boys on objectives and ending the game on turn 2-3.

meleti wrote:


Both players bring the same number of points, does that mean they need the same number of models? Of course not.

If the game allows equal points and different model counts, it can also allow equal points and different time counts.

Precisely because of the first, the conclusion that time needs to be equal because points are equal does not follow.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

Playing a horde army gives you the right to field more models though. So why not more time.

Or if symmetry in all things is the rule you want to enforce, the logical equivalent would be equal model count for all armies.

I have never seen a rules pack that had a limt, min or max, on the number of models in your army.
But they do talk about point limits and time limits.

I make the choice not to bring 200 models.
Just as 'you' make the choice to bring an army you can't play 5 turns with in 1.5 hours.

I can make that choice, because 40K fundamentally allows you to make asymmetric choices. If you wanna remove the asymmetric choices, you need to do that in all aspects (model count, model sizes, army selection, no of phases the army is active in, etc..), not just the time available.

Right, so since the game is about asymmetric choices I should bring 2200 points to a 2000 point tournament right?
Because we can't be symmetrical.

Seriously. take a second and think about what your arguing there because it makes no sense at all.

 Xenomancers wrote:
To give Marmatag the benefit of the doubt here. I will point out that some of his points are valid.

In basketball for example - it is common practice to foul your opponents late in the game when they have an easy shot - because 2 easy shots (2 free throws) harder to make than 1 easy shot. If you have a big enough lead - you can win the game a lot easier just by fouling them every-time they go to shoot.

If you have fouls to spare - it is perfectly legal to do. Though it is technically cheating. Basketball as a whole decided they were going to tolerate this. We as a whole do not have to tolerate it. TO's in general should not tolerate any gaming of the clock situation and reserve the right to DQ any player who they think is trying game the system. It should be spelled out in rules of the tournament that - the goal of both players is to finish the game. Any intentional disruption of that goal can result in DQ.

That's essentially why getting the TO involved is important. They're a neutral 3rd party and can generally tell what's going on better than the players if they're aware of the game. I've had to talk to players that didn't realize they were doing anything wrong, players that didn't realize what their opponent was doing WASN'T wrong, and of course bad apples who needed to go home until they could learn to play nice with others. That's why its important players stop feeling like calling the TO is the equivalent of trying to get their opponent arrested. TOs are just looking to be aware of conflict so they can observe and arbitrate the result correctly. Punitive measures aren't fun for anyone.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:


Both players bring the same number of points, does that mean they need the same number of models? Of course not.

If the game allows equal points and different model counts, it can also allow equal points and different time counts.

Precisely because of the first, the conclusion that time needs to be equal because points are equal does not follow.

Nope. We bring equal points because it’s fair. We have equal time because it’s fair. You don’t get to take time away from someone else because of the army you brought. If you struggle to play your army when you have an equal amount of time, that’s entirely your problem and you need to practice at playing faster and better.

 Ordana wrote:
Right, so since the game is about asymmetric choices I should bring 2200 points to a 2000 point tournament right?
Because we can't be symmetrical.

Seriously. take a second and think about what your arguing there because it makes no sense at all.

Chess is a game with equal number of pieces on each side. Ergo, people get the same time.

More models physically take more time to "play" than less. It's the nature of the game. That's why smaller games with fewer models also play faster than models with more models.

Again, your logic is X is equal, so Y must be equal too. But that is not the case in 40K. We know that X can be equal and Y be unequal (e.g. X=points and Y=models), so logically there is no condition or rule that would allow people to conclude that for X=points and Y=time there would be an exception to this principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:


Both players bring the same number of points, does that mean they need the same number of models? Of course not.

If the game allows equal points and different model counts, it can also allow equal points and different time counts.

Precisely because of the first, the conclusion that time needs to be equal because points are equal does not follow.

Nope. We bring equal points because it’s fair. We have equal time because it’s fair. You don’t get to take time away from someone else because of the army you brought. If you struggle to play your army when you have an equal amount of time, that’s entirely your problem and you need to practice at playing faster and better.

You're definition of "fair" seems biased. Telling a person to pick up 100 marbles from the floor and another person to pick up just 1, but both have the same time for it, wouldn't pass as "fair" for most applications of logic I am aware of.

If the logistics of "moving different amounts of physical things takes different amounts time" offends you, you should not play 40K. If you think "moving different amount of physical things should take the same time" is the condition for making 40K "fair", you've only proven it cannot be (unless tournaments run mirror-lists exclusively).

Sunny Side Up wrote:
You're definition of "fair" seems biased. Telling a person to pick up 100 marbles from the floor and another person to pick up just 1, but both have the same time for it, wouldn't pass as "fair" for most applications of logic I am aware of.

It is fair when you tell them to bring an amount of marbles and what they will be doing with them.

You chose to bring those models. You can bring less if you want.
Just like you can bring less then the maximum amount of points.
(whether you want to is up to you)

You’re choosing the number of models you bring, lol. If you can’t play with them under the format’s rules, that is on you. You can complain about how unfair it is that you get an equal amount of time as the other player, or you can get good and learn how to play them in the time limit.

So hypothetical sunny side.

I know I'm a slow player so I reluctantly sell my Orks and happily buy Custodes. Cause they are cool.

But I know I'm going to need all my half of the time cause I'm a slow player. Just takes me longer to think things through.

Why should I lose my time, after I did everything right?

 Ordana wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
You're definition of "fair" seems biased. Telling a person to pick up 100 marbles from the floor and another person to pick up just 1, but both have the same time for it, wouldn't pass as "fair" for most applications of logic I am aware of.

It is fair when you tell them to bring an amount of marbles and what they will be doing with them.

You chose to bring those models. You can bring less if you want.
Just like you can bring less then the maximum amount of points.
(whether you want to is up to you)

Exactly - I think everyone is well aware these games have time limits. Bring an appropriate army given the time constraints.

meleti wrote:
You’re choosing the number of models you bring, lol. If you can’t play with them under the format’s rules, that is on you. You can complain about how unfair it is that you get an equal amount of time as the other player, or you can get good and learn how to play them in the time limit.

It's not on me, because the requirement that I need to play 200 models in the same time as 10 models didn't exist and the game with the option to bring both 200 and 20 models wasn't designed with equal time in mind.

You're setting as an a-priori condition the time requirement you want to introduce to 40K to judge wether it is fair or not to introduce said timing rule. Thats circular reasoning.

If 40K would've been designed for equal-play time for both players, it wouldn't allow you to take different amounts of models for that very reason (e.g. chess).

40K instead offers asymetric army choices, and has for decades, because it is not tied to fixed time-limits as per the rules as written.

I don't mind time limits and rules of equal time. But if you introduce them, you need to change the whole thing (e.g. model counts, etc..). You cannot just change one thing and assume everything works out just fine in a complex thing like 40K.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
You’re choosing the number of models you bring, lol. If you can’t play with them under the format’s rules, that is on you. You can complain about how unfair it is that you get an equal amount of time as the other player, or you can get good and learn how to play them in the time limit.

It's not on me, because the requirement that I need to play 200 models in the same time as 10 models didn't exist and the game with the option to bring both 200 and 20 models wasn't designed with equal time in mind.

You're setting as an a-priori condition the time requirement you want to introduce to 40K to judge wether it is fair or not to introduce said timing rule. Thats circular reasoning.

If 40K would've been designed for equal-play time for both players, it wouldn't allow you to take different amounts of models for that very reason (e.g. chess).

40K instead offers asymetric army choices, and has for decades, because it is not tied to fixed time-limits as per the rules as written.

I don't mind time limits and rules of equal time. But if you introduce them, you need to change the whole thing (e.g. model counts, etc..). You cannot just change one thing and assume everything works out just fine in a complex thing like 40K.

Well if you feel so strongly about that the solution is very simple.
Don't play tournaments because the game wasn't designed for that.

You will be happy playing the beer and pretzel game as it was meant to be and the rest of us will happily play tournaments without you.

The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Spoletta wrote:
The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Yeah chess clocks are not for the 1-3 game crowd. These are for tournaments, and often just the later rounds of tournaments and only for players with winning records. No one is saying your local club has to start using chess clocks or we’ll break all your models.

 Ordana wrote:

Don't play tournaments because the game wasn't designed for that.

You will be happy playing the beer and pretzel game as it was meant to be and the rest of us will happily play tournaments without you.

I will play wherever I want and provide my input on what makes different game experiences good or bad.

And aside from invitations and tournaments with qualifiers, tournaments are often the place where the most "casual" people come to play ... e.g. those that don't have a reqular gaming group, those that haven't taken their models out in 2 years, etc...

"Practice to play your list faster" is a fine thing for two hyper competitive people playing in their own basement or for an invitational. But if the event is open to little Timmy and his dad, and the TOs take their money just the same as they take the money of Nick Nanavati, the format cannot cater only to the latter.

if you want to split it off into a more professional, clock-using pro-circuit, you need to tier it off than. Don't do an LVO with 500 people, just do it with 40 who qualified and play it "hard core" there. As long as the LVO & co are open to everyone, the ITC rules used to play there have to reflect that.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Don't play tournaments because the game wasn't designed for that.

You will be happy playing the beer and pretzel game as it was meant to be and the rest of us will happily play tournaments without you.

I will play wherever I want and provide my input on what makes different game experiences good or bad.

And aside from invitations and tournaments with qualifiers, tournaments are often the place where the most "casual" people come to play ... e.g. those that don't have a reqular gaming group, those that haven't taken their models out in 2 years, etc...

"Practice to play your list faster" is a fine thing for two hyper competitive people playing in their own basement or for an invitational. But if the event is open to little Timmy and his dad, and the TOs take their money just the same as they take the money of Nick Nanavati, the format cannot cater only to the latter.

Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Don't play tournaments because the game wasn't designed for that.

You will be happy playing the beer and pretzel game as it was meant to be and the rest of us will happily play tournaments without you.

I will play wherever I want and provide my input on what makes different game experiences good or bad.

And aside from invitations and tournaments with qualifiers, tournaments are often the place where the most "casual" people come to play ... e.g. those that don't have a reqular gaming group, those that haven't taken their models out in 2 years, etc...

"Practice to play your list faster" is a fine thing for two hyper competitive people playing in their own basement or for an invitational. But if the event is open to little Timmy and his dad, and the TOs take their money just the same as they take the money of Nick Nanavati, the format cannot cater only to the latter.

Most events using chess clocks are only mandating chess clocks for later round players with winning records, if they're mandating them at all. This is about competitive 40k because that's literally what chess clocks are there for. If the casual crowd doesn't want to use a chess clock, that's great, they'll get filtered out of the top tables within 1-3 rounds anyway so they probably won't even see a chess clock unless their opponent asks if they want to use one.

 Ordana wrote:
Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sure. But we're talking about a current change to event rules on an online forum, whose sole purpose is discussion the pros and cons of such things.

If you don't actually have logical, reasoned arguments to make beyond "chess clocks (used as proposed) are fair because I think they are", maybe you should .. you know .. not go to discussion boards.

ITC rules didn't fall out of the sky as they are now. They evolved over years through community feedback, and probably so will any and all rules pertaining to use of clocks.

If you have a logic, objective argument why X is equal thus Y must also be equal would apply to 40K for clocks, when there is clearly precedent against it, please state it. If you can disprove that physically moving 100 things takes more time than physically moving 10 things takes more time, please state it.

Until then, I think the combination of a) bad experiences with chess clocks in 40K, b) the physical nature of moving different amounts of physical objects and c) the nature of a game fundamentally not designed for equal play-time warrant the consideration of whether or not (and it might be) equal time is actually a good fit and truly "fair" objectively speaking.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sure. But we're talking about a current change to event rules on an online forum, whose sole purpose is discussion the pros and cons of such things.

If you don't actually have logical, reasoned arguments to make beyond "chess clocks (used as proposed) are fair because I think they are", maybe you should .. you know .. not go to discussion boards.

ITC rules didn't fall out of the sky as they are now. They evolved over years through community feedback, and probably so will any and all rules pertaining to use of clocks.

If you have a logic, objective argument why X is equal thus Y must also be equal would apply to 40K for clocks, when there is clearly precedent against it, please state it. If you can disprove that physically moving 100 things takes more time than physically moving 10 things takes more time, please state it.

Until then, I think the combination of a) bad experiences with chess clocks in 40K, b) the physical nature of moving different amounts of physical objects and c) the nature of a game fundamentally not designed for equal play-time warrant the consideration of whether or not (and it might be) equal time is actually a good fit and truly "fair" objectively speaking.

Exalted.

Of course we can all just sell our models and buy Custodes or Knights as Reemule suggests, as that's the 'right thing'.

"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce. It's not about who "deserves" more or less time. It's about how a cumbersome beast like 40K can be made to work with regulated timing conditions it wasn't meant to work with. If trying to figure out a timing model that captures the diversity of 40K we love as good as possible and "equal time" is the overriding thing for you, why not just play competitive chess to begin with (prize money is better too, I heard).

This just a further continuation of tournaments mutating the game beyond recognition. Which would not be a problem except these days GW seems to rely heavily on these tournaments for their balancing fixes.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sure. But we're talking about a current change to event rules on an online forum, whose sole purpose is discussion the pros and cons of such things.

If you don't actually have logical, reasoned arguments to make beyond "chess clocks (used as proposed) are fair because I think they are", maybe you should .. you know .. not go to discussion boards.

ITC rules didn't fall out of the sky as they are now. They evolved over years through community feedback, and probably so will any and all rules pertaining to use of clocks.

If you have a logic, objective argument why X is equal thus Y must also be equal would apply to 40K for clocks, when there is clearly precedent against it, please state it. If you can disprove that physically moving 100 things takes more time than physically moving 10 things takes more time, please state it.

Until then, I think the combination of a) bad experiences with chess clocks in 40K, b) the physical nature of moving different amounts of physical objects and c) the nature of a game fundamentally not designed for equal play-time warrant the consideration of whether or not (and it might be) equal time is actually a good fit and truly "fair" objectively speaking.

Your right, rules don't fall out of the sky.
There has been a problem with slow play for decades. Increased streaming of games have increased evidence of this in ways we never had before. Instead of 'a feeling' of an opoonent taking longer we can now time a guy on Twitch taking an hour for his first turn.
This has brought increased scrutiny to the game and is pressuring TO's into taking steps.
The common conclusion to this problem seems to be chess clocks and the most immediately apparent way to split time between 2 people in a competition is equal for both. Go ask 100 random joe's (and jane's) on the street how to split X between 2 people.

Why should models be used as a means for splitting? And how feasible is it to do this in a live tournament setting for a match?
Is your Ork Boy with 1 slugga shot worth as much time as my Knight Castellan in the shooting phase?
Should we re-calculate the remaining time in a every round and re split it based on models remaining?
Or should we just take the obvious and give each person the same time...

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce.

You don't need more time to play with a horde army, you just need to get good. It's really that simple. This isn't a format that punishes horde armies, it's a format that punishes obnoxious, unready players who waste away time and leave a string of ruined games that never made it past turn 2.

The self entitlement is fairly thick in this thread.

Always interesting to see someone tell me with a straight face they should get better treatment than someone else.

One hidden benefit with clocks is ideally they will not come to those events, so I won't have to see them ever again.

 Crimson wrote:
This just a further continuation of tournaments mutating the game beyond recognition. Which would not be a problem except these days GW seems to rely heavily on these tournaments for their balancing fixes.

What mutates the game more?

Orks are OP because they win all tournaments (by parking 180 boys on an objective and only getting to turn 2). (no chess clocks)
Or Orks keep losing because they are an Index army with a number of faults and many tournament armies can kill 180 boys in 5 + turns. (chess clocks)

PS.
GW seems to agree that there was a problem with time constraints since they dropped the points level for their tournaments.

meleti wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce.

You don't need more time to play with a horde army, you just need to get good. It's really that simple. This isn't a format that punishes horde armies, it's a format that punishes obnoxious, unready players who waste away time and leave a string of ruined games that never made it past turn 2.

Agreed. Learn to Play.

 Marmatag wrote:
Exalted.

Of course we can all just sell our models and buy Custodes or Knights as Reemule suggests, as that's the 'right thing'.

Or learn to play your army within the time limit because its certainly possible. Esp in 8th edition where you can use shortcuts like movement trays to help speed up movement.

Marmatag's a smart guy, once he's done complaining about chess clocks I am sure he will recognize you can just practice playing faster, use a dice engine, and agree to play by intent whenever possible.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce. It's not about who "deserves" more or less time. It's about how a cumbersome beast like 40K can be made to work with regulated timing conditions it wasn't meant to work with. If trying to figure out a timing model that captures the diversity of 40K we love as good as possible and "equal time" is the overriding thing for you, why not just play competitive chess to begin with (prize money is better too, I heard).

There is only 1 fair way to distribute time. It is called - equally.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce. It's not about who "deserves" more or less time. It's about how a cumbersome beast like 40K can be made to work with regulated timing conditions it wasn't meant to work with. If trying to figure out a timing model that captures the diversity of 40K we love as good as possible and "equal time" is the overriding thing for you, why not just play competitive chess to begin with (prize money is better too, I heard).

There is only 1 fair way to distribute time. It is called - equally.

I will readily admit that there are multiple factors you can base the distribution of time off of. I just thing Equal is the best place to start.

meleti wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Yeah chess clocks are not for the 1-3 game crowd. These are for tournaments, and often just the later rounds of tournaments and only for players with winning records. No one is saying your local club has to start using chess clocks or we’ll break all your models.

A solution that is not applicable to 99% of the players is a bad solution. I like the GW solution better.

 Ordana wrote:
,
GW seems to agree that there was a problem with time constraints since they dropped the points level for their tournaments.

Which is a sensible approach. If there is no time to play the game of certain point level in allotted time, then either increase the time or decrease the points.

ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Spoletta wrote:

meleti wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Yeah chess clocks are not for the 1-3 game crowd. These are for tournaments, and often just the later rounds of tournaments and only for players with winning records. No one is saying your local club has to start using chess clocks or we’ll break all your models.

A solution that is not applicable to 99% of the players is a bad solution. I like the GW solution better.

The GW solution is to reduce points. It's quite literally a misunderstanding of the problem. 2000 points is perfectly playable in 2 1/2 hours if both players are trying to finish the game. 90% of slow play is probably due to incentive. If you are winning and know you have an advantage if the game doesn't finish - you lose urgency and naturally start to play slower. Chess clocks eliminate that - as you have an incentive to play quickly - because if you don't you automatically lose. I assure you that is where most of the problem lies.

It's also completely unfair for a game to be called for time when your opponent got a significant amount more time to play than you. It is totally unacceptable - this will fix it. Lowering game points will not fix it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
,
GW seems to agree that there was a problem with time constraints since they dropped the points level for their tournaments.

Which is a sensible approach. If there is no time to play the game of certain point level in allotted time, then either increase the time or decrease the points.

Ehh - I see no distribution where equal allocation of time is not preferable to unequal.

FWIW, at least in Warmachine, chess clocks in no way invalidated swarms and this was before the game added turn limits. Turn limits make it even easier, as you've got a pretty clear structure to budget your time in and less need to keep pace with your opponent. No matter what your army composition, you have ~75 minutes to complete 5 turns with your army. Play games; see where you're at at the end of each turn and you'll get a sense of how far off you really are.

Also, its been my experience that people are generally surprised how fast their games play when they add the clock. It keeps the game moving and the players focused and that results in players realizing that they don't need to rush nearly as much as they need to keep from getting distracted. I've seen players that regularly clock in 4+ hour games go to the end with 15-20 minutes left to spare, not because they rushed, but just because they stayed focused on the game.

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Yeah, no one wants to hear that if they want to be competitive with a list they need to practice with the clock... I mentioned it in an earlier post but Warhammer is way behind the times on moving to chess clocks for competitive play... I have been through several other game system that have made the transition and it's always the same arguments against them:
"People will cheat"
"I can't play a horde army"
"I deserve more time"

Then all of those systems went to chess clocks anyways and the sky didn't fall, horde armies still made really good showings, games finished on time and it was very rare someone would lose because they ran out of time.

Flamephoenix182 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Yeah, no one wants to hear that if they want to be competitive with a list they need to practice with the clock... I mentioned it in an earlier post but Warhammer is way behind the times on moving to chess clocks for competitive play... I have been through several other game system that have made the transition and it's always the same arguments against them:
"People will cheat"
"I can't play a horde army"
"I deserve more time"

Then all of those systems went to chess clocks anyways and the sky didn't fall, horde armies still made really good showings, games finished on time and it was very rare someone would lose because they ran out of time.

This.

In 6 months your going to hear people saying they prefer to play with the clock. It promotes honest game play, civility, and takes all the time pressure off you.

Reemule wrote:

Flamephoenix182 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Yeah, no one wants to hear that if they want to be competitive with a list they need to practice with the clock... I mentioned it in an earlier post but Warhammer is way behind the times on moving to chess clocks for competitive play... I have been through several other game system that have made the transition and it's always the same arguments against them:
"People will cheat"
"I can't play a horde army"
"I deserve more time"

Then all of those systems went to chess clocks anyways and the sky didn't fall, horde armies still made really good showings, games finished on time and it was very rare someone would lose because they ran out of time.

This.

In 6 months your going to hear people saying they prefer to play with the clock. It promotes honest game play, civility, and takes all the time pressure off you.

Often so far as saying they play with it casually at the shop because it lets them finish their games before closing or even sometimes get a second game in.

Having played Warmachine steamroller, with practice chess clocks arn't to bad, and once you get into the groove of using them its an interesting challenge. What I am not a fan off is the "In the Fight phase, starting with the player who’s turn it is, can decide to forgo an assault, and in that case the opponent can decide the outcome, from total wipeout of the other side, to leaving them all untouched, to leaving just one to consolidate to, to avoid getting shot.", just time everything, different armies are going to take up differing amounts of time in different phases anyway and it takes out the chance of things like the hero guardsman who holds up a assault unit when the dice run you're way.

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Hrm, I would argue there is a whole lot of difference. Warmahordes, as a system, is built around a a style of play that suits a faced past competitive event with time limits. Army model counts are limited (the largest Warmahordes 75pt lists Ive seen have about as many models as a typical 1500pt Space Marine list, 40-50 or so), random rolling for extraneous effects is limited, army construction possibilities are much more limited, record keeping is more limited, the number of rules sources and references is more limited, there are inbuilt sudden death mechanics, the gaming mindset it espouses is more attuned to that style of play, time requirements are identical across all events (at least as far as ive seen), etc. Time restraints are very much inherently accomodated for at multiple levels by the developers themselves. I don't think its possible to build a Warmahordes army that couldnt be run within time limits.

Games Workshop meanwhile doesnt care about time limits and makes little accommodation for time within the game, especially any sort of balancing time availability between players, and have done very little for competitive play and tournament organization beyond setting some basic ground rules on spamming things like psychic powers and detachments. It's entirely possible to make armies that will have trouble with time limits at higher levels like 2k.

Games Workshop's general solution has pretty much always been that if time is an issue, a smaller game should be played, though nobody appears to want to exercise that option.

Play 1500pts and score any game that doesn't clear turn 5 after 2.5 hours as loss for both players. I'd be far happier playing that than dealing with a chess clock at 2k.

meleti wrote:
Marmatag's a smart guy, once he's done complaining about chess clocks I am sure he will recognize you can just practice playing faster, use a dice engine, and agree to play by intent whenever possible.

Not sure if sarcastic, but I am already practicing with clocks. If it isn't obvious from my posts I play 40k competitively. I already play with intent, and use the GW approved dice app. It's like the only way to get to turn 5.

I would have 0 objections to clocks if the games were capped at 5 turns. 6 turns in 2.5 hours is just infeasible. And you're talking about a significant points swing if you can't make it to turn 6, but your opponent can with time. They'll probably get +2 for kills, +2 for objectives, and you'll be denied last strike, or possibly linebreaker.

 Marmatag wrote:

meleti wrote:
Marmatag's a smart guy, once he's done complaining about chess clocks I am sure he will recognize you can just practice playing faster, use a dice engine, and agree to play by intent whenever possible.

Not sure if sarcastic, but I am already practicing with clocks. If it isn't obvious from my posts I play 40k competitively. I already play with intent, and use the GW approved dice app. It's like the only way to get to turn 5.

I would have 0 objections to clocks if the games were capped at 5 turns. 6 turns in 2.5 hours is just infeasible. And you're talking about a significant points swing if you can't make it to turn 6, but your opponent can with time. They'll probably get +2 for kills, +2 for objectives, and you'll be denied last strike, or possibly linebreaker.

I am completely serious. I am sure you can figure out clocks, so I can't take the "well guess I have to take up Custodes" bull seriously. Like at all.

A point could be made that if your introducing chess clocks you might want to get rid of the random game length and just cap the game at 5 turns so players can better account for how much time they can spend on a turn instead of having to rush turn 4/5 so they keep 20min (random number) left on their clock in case there is a turn 6 or even 7.

 Ordana wrote:
A point could be made that if your introducing chess clocks you might want to get rid of the random game length and just cap the game at 5 turns so players can better account for how much time they can spend on a turn instead of having to rush turn 4/5 so they keep 20min (random number) left on their clock in case there is a turn 6 or even 7.

Yeah, this is sensible.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:


Both players bring the same number of points, does that mean they need the same number of models? Of course not.

If the game allows equal points and different model counts, it can also allow equal points and different time counts.

Precisely because of the first, the conclusion that time needs to be equal because points are equal does not follow.

This video explains why trying to allocate time-based on models is a terrible idea
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHgZt8v95U
There are all the issues he brings up and more. not to mention the simple thing of tournaments having to set aside time by each round just to determine who is getting how much time... And you would end up still needing clocks to make sure each person was using their proper amount of time that would change with each opponent you play

Considering the alternative was having games finish still on turn 2-3, I am completely OK with games ending on turn 5 instead if it comes to that.

 Ordana wrote:
A point could be made that if your introducing chess clocks you might want to get rid of the random game length and just cap the game at 5 turns so players can better account for how much time they can spend on a turn instead of having to rush turn 4/5 so they keep 20min (random number) left on their clock in case there is a turn 6 or even 7.

Game length in ITC missions is already non-random. Is that not the case in ETC?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
A point could be made that if your introducing chess clocks you might want to get rid of the random game length and just cap the game at 5 turns so players can better account for how much time they can spend on a turn instead of having to rush turn 4/5 so they keep 20min (random number) left on their clock in case there is a turn 6 or even 7.

Game length in ITC missions is already non-random. Is that not the case in ETC?

I believe ETC is still random game length yeah.

Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
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.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

For starters you do seem pretty angry about this, but mainly, if you are equally prepared to play within the time limit with your horde army as everyone else, then this isn't a disadvantage.

This just seems like your latest narrative that you never back down from no matter how strong the logic opposing you is though, so my post here is probably as pointless as yours

Except there is no logic to address, the argument is "chess clocks are good because they're good." We're starting this with the assumption that they provide value and will meet their goal without question. I don't immediately agree with that, and I can see them having a negative impact on the gaming community.

I don't believe that equal time creates a fair game. Just like equal points between two armies doesn't create a fair game, either. Some armies are fundamentally disadvantaged when played at 2000 points, and some armies are fundamentally disadvantaged if they're played at reasonable speed but with split time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:
Considering the alternative was having games finish still on turn 2-3, I am completely OK with games ending on turn 5 instead if it comes to that.

No tournament games I have ever seen have ended on turn 2. Very incredibly rarely do games end on turn 3, but that is when both people are playing "horde" style armies and taking it to the extreme (for example, 120 cultists pre-Tide of Traitors nerf).

A game ending after the completion of turn 4, or turn 5, is perfectly fine to me. Setting the expectation that every game goes to turn 6 is unreal.

Broadly speaking, the game has generally been designed around a 6 turn game, they added random game length in 5th but that still averaged out to a 6 turn game (1/3rd chance to end equally on turn 5, 6, or 7), and that's why the ITC does 6 turns as well. Now, many games will be decided before turn 6, by tabling for example, but ideally an event should be designed such that force sizes and time availability should allow typical experienced players to easily finish a 6 turn game, with penalties for any game not making it to at least turn 5 not feeling draconian.

Im in the camp of try it and see. My only experience with deathclocks are with WMH, and as far as I know its the only other game some what similar to 40k that uses clocks. It works fine for WMHs however 40k some pretty major differences that could definately cause some issues.

The first being scale. The biggest list I ever played against in WMH had 56 models in it. This would be considered a smaller elite army in 40k. There codexes that run upwards of 200-300 models. Some of those armies that it their only viable option as far as army builds go. So its very possible deathclocks could effect codex balance. GW doesn't take deathclocks into acount when designing armies so I doubt any issues that would arise would ever get fixed.

Another big difference is that in WMH there is very few things your opponent actually does on your turn. This generally makes it easy to ask them questions and doesn't require the clock to be hammered back and forth very often. While in 40k your opponent has a way more active role in your turn.

This brings me the next major difference the volume of dice rolled in 40k is vastly greater than WMH and is probably the biggest culprit sucking up most of the time. ITC attempts to fix this issue but I think favours the person who gets to decide what happens way to much. I think a better idea would just be taking the statistcal average instead of rolling.

And finally the next biggest difference is WMH ease of access to unit rules is way easier than 40k. Every rule a unit has is printed on a unit card that you have to have during the game. This makes answering questions easy and timely. Your opponent has a question about something in your army hand them the card continue your turn. In 40k rules are spread out in codexes which make looking them up time consuming.

Also bonus diffence! WMH design team balances the game with clocks in mind GW doesn't so there is also that issue. Might have said that already but phone typing is hard.

I mean, the game timer is there either way, whether or not you have a chess clock. Remember all the chess clock does is ensure each player gets an equal amount of time, which is basically the minimum length possible to get games finished, so that the tournament can actually happen in the space of a weekend. It's the nature of how a tourney has to play to be finished, and people who are already skating on barely enough time to play their army, should have their time cut in half or even a third in the case of some armies.


The players who do best at these events bring armies designed with the nature of the event in mind, considerate of multiple factors. If you are bringing an army that can't finish games in the time you were given, that's was not your opponents call. You will still get the same amount of time as him to spend throwing dice and having fun, but yes if you can't play within your allocated time you will probably not get as good results. Get movement trays and you may find yourself with even more time on the clock than your opponent anyway.

This debate shouldn't even really be a debate honestly.

To be honest, I think the most triggering thing for me in competitive gaming of any kind is slow play. I've seen it happen in video games, in board games, and in war games, and it's super frustrating to deal with.

I personally am always trying to speed up my play, not only for competitive reasons, but also just to be courteous to my opponent. I'm not going to scoop the dice early or anything, but I tend to talk fast and don't waste 10+ seconds shaking one dice in my hand for, what, maximum randomness? I'm not the fastest player, and I have a lot to learn, but even in a casual setting I know my opponents want to get multiple games in a day and I do too.

Then you have people in the competitive setting that slow play for a straight advantage, the people that know their army and the scene and the mission well enough to know that if they can end the game on turn 2 by playing slow, they can win. It's a strategy that exists BECAUSE there's such vague rules on playing slowly.

So, I say, bring on the clocks. If my opponent brought a horde army with 150+ models to move and he didn't put them on movement trays, then I have a hard time feeling badly. I've seen players play horde armies FASTER than players play Custodes or even Knights, because they know the army, they have trays, they plan out their dice rolls efficiently, and they don't take 5+ minutes to look up a convoluted rule that'll give them one or two extra dice to throw.

Let's do it. Put those clocks down, remove the random turn length, let's get games to turn 5 within a decent amount of time. If the meta shifts away from high model count, so be it. I don't like conscript, poxwalker, cultist, or any other sort of cheesy horde spam anyway.

All I'm going to say on the matter is that while tournaments can do whatever they want, I think time clocks negatively impact the enjoyment of the game and I would not want to play in an event that used them.

I think ITC is making the right choice with death clocks. It seems to be the most equal way to split up the time.

There's a lot of tactics in positioning units and utilizing a unit's footprint on the table, that's a relatively core part of what little tactics (beyond deployment and target priority) do exist in the game, movement trays remove some of that ability even if they don't have to worry about templates anymore.

Also, outside of fantasy blocks of swordsmen, looks *really* funky and often don't fit on or around terrain, and for a game and hobby built around visuals (lets be real, nobody is playing 40k for its ruleset), that doesn't jive with a lot of people even in a competitive setting.

The Salt Mine wrote:
Im in the camp of try it and see. My only experience with deathclocks are with WMH, and as far as I know its the only other game some what similar to 40k that uses clocks. It works fine for WMHs however 40k some pretty major differences that could definately cause some issues.

The first being scale. The biggest list I ever played against in WMH had 56 models in it. This would be considered a smaller elite army in 40k. There codexes that run upwards of 200-300 models. Some of those armies that it their only viable option as far as army builds go. So its very possible deathclocks could effect codex balance. GW doesn't take deathclocks into acount when designing armies so I doubt any issues that would arise would ever get fixed.

Another big difference is that in WMH there is very few things your opponent actually does on your turn. This generally makes it easy to ask them questions and doesn't require the clock to be hammered back and forth very often. While in 40k your opponent has a way more active role in your turn.

This brings me the next major difference the volume of dice rolled in 40k is vastly greater than WMH and is probably the biggest culprit sucking up most of the time. ITC attempts to fix this issue but I think favours the person who gets to decide what happens way to much. I think a better idea would just be taking the statistcal average instead of rolling.

And finally the next biggest difference is WMH ease of access to unit rules is way easier than 40k. Every rule a unit has is printed on a unit card that you have to have during the game. This makes answering questions easy and timely. Your opponent has a question about something in your army hand them the card continue your turn. In 40k rules are spread out in codexes which make looking them up time consuming.

Also bonus diffence! WMH design team balances the game with clocks in mind GW doesn't so there is also that issue. Might have said that already but phone typing is hard.

The scale doesn't really change the game length since warmahordes has much more precise movement and facing so it takes way longer to move each model. Make sure they are spreadout enough for aoe, adjust their facing etc...

The rest are good points but they assume that the amount of time on the clock is meant to be restrictive to make it hard to finish a game. If the clock time is done right almost every game should hit the turn limit before the time limit since the clocks are only their to ensure the games finish on time.
If they implement clocks and a large percentage of games are ending on deathclock then it's a sign that the tourneys are not allowing enough times for games not that the deathclock is flawed. And it can be fixed by tweaking the amount of time on the clock

drbored wrote:
To be honest, I think the most triggering thing for me in competitive gaming of any kind is slow play. I've seen it happen in video games, in board games, and in war games, and it's super frustrating to deal with.

I personally am always trying to speed up my play, not only for competitive reasons, but also just to be courteous to my opponent. I'm not going to scoop the dice early or anything, but I tend to talk fast and don't waste 10+ seconds shaking one dice in my hand for, what, maximum randomness? I'm not the fastest player, and I have a lot to learn, but even in a casual setting I know my opponents want to get multiple games in a day and I do too.

Then you have people in the competitive setting that slow play for a straight advantage, the people that know their army and the scene and the mission well enough to know that if they can end the game on turn 2 by playing slow, they can win. It's a strategy that exists BECAUSE there's such vague rules on playing slowly.

So, I say, bring on the clocks. If my opponent brought a horde army with 150+ models to move and he didn't put them on movement trays, then I have a hard time feeling badly. I've seen players play horde armies FASTER than players play Custodes or even Knights, because they know the army, they have trays, they plan out their dice rolls efficiently, and they don't take 5+ minutes to look up a convoluted rule that'll give them one or two extra dice to throw.

Let's do it. Put those clocks down, remove the random turn length, let's get games to turn 5 within a decent amount of time. If the meta shifts away from high model count, so be it. I don't like conscript, poxwalker, cultist, or any other sort of cheesy horde spam anyway.

If movement trays were suggested and offered by GW, sure no prob.

I don't play often, but when I play I try to make the best of it. If all the tournements start having clocks, they've lost me.

This is a game that tells the story of a battle, or a specific moment in a battle. If there's a constant time issue, drop the points, run longer blocks, or both!

In 4th, when I played lot and traveled for play, 2,000 was a big , not huge, but big game. Most tournaments were 1,500-1,850, and even huge games had less models than they do now.

If they keep dropping points costs, then drop game sizes in accordance. Why rush, and make time a critical factor, when you can run a 1,250 or 1,500 tourney and players actually have time to talk and banter during game?

I'm all for 1500 pt games but we'd need to adjust rule of 3 for that. Part of 2000 pts limits the impact of rule of 3 because even with all 3 of MOST dumb units when spammed, it's not much of your army. But at 1500 pts, 3 Flyrants for example gets a bit dumber.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm all for 1500 pt games but we'd need to adjust rule of 3 for that. Part of 2000 pts limits the impact of rule of 3 because even with all 3 of MOST dumb units when spammed, it's not much of your army. But at 1500 pts, 3 Flyrants for example gets a bit dumber.

But they've already built in points differences to it, it's really the Rule of 2/3/4, depending on weather your playing 1,000 and under/1,001-2,000/2,001-3,000.

This limit also caps the number of detachments as well, something most folks forget.

Edit: The Rule of 3 only exists to stop the spammy nature of higher points competitive games, thus, lowering the points should also fox that issue.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm all for 1500 pt games but we'd need to adjust rule of 3 for that. Part of 2000 pts limits the impact of rule of 3 because even with all 3 of MOST dumb units when spammed, it's not much of your army. But at 1500 pts, 3 Flyrants for example gets a bit dumber.

Rule of 3 already has different limits for different point values. People just refer to the shorthand for 2000 point games.

I'm aware of that - I'm saying that I disagree that Rule of 3 is sufficient for a 1500 pt game, for the reasons given.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm aware of that - I'm saying that I disagree that Rule of 3 is sufficient for a 1500 pt game, for the reasons given.

How would you change it?

 Blndmage wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm aware of that - I'm saying that I disagree that Rule of 3 is sufficient for a 1500 pt game, for the reasons given.

How would you change it?

Making Rule of 2 kick in at 1500 pts would be a good start. Maybe limiting it to a single LoW as well baseline, with exceptions.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I'm aware of that - I'm saying that I disagree that Rule of 3 is sufficient for a 1500 pt game, for the reasons given.

How would you change it?

Making Rule of 2 kick in at 1500 pts would be a good start. Maybe limiting it to a single LoW as well baseline, with exceptions.

As someone who plays 1,000 and under pretty frequently, the Rule of 2 sucks. Applying it to 1,500 would be crazy.

I really don't understand why the community is so much against lowering points limits.

Every time GW makes a change that generates more sells we bash them because they are robbing us. For ONCE they did a change that actually has sense and lowers the entry barrier to the standard games and we refuse it?

No one had problems with index only games. Actually, many consider the index meta better and more balanced than the codex meta, so why implementing a change that puts us back to index level armies should be a bad thing?

ITC is already an heavily house ruled version of the game that is splitting the community and the feedback it provides, why increase the gap when GW has already provided an official solution to this problem?

Spoletta wrote:
...Actually, many consider the index meta better and more balanced than the codex meta, so why implementing a change that puts us back to index level armies should be a bad thing?

*laughs in Imperial Guard*

Spoletta wrote:
I really don't understand why the community is so much against lowering points limits.

Every time GW makes a change that generates more sells we bash them because they are robbing us. For ONCE they did a change that actually has sense and lowers the entry barrier to the standard games and we refuse it?

No one had problems with index only games. Actually, many consider the index meta better and more balanced than the codex meta, so why implementing a change that puts us back to index level armies should be a bad thing?

ITC is already an heavily house ruled version of the game that is splitting the community and the feedback it provides, why increase the gap when GW has already provided an official solution to this problem?

Because it unnecessarily buffs skews lists and nerfs elite armies?

Audustum wrote:


Because it unnecessarily buffs skews lists and nerfs elite armies?

Not nearly as bad as the ITC Missions do.

Audustum wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I really don't understand why the community is so much against lowering points limits.

Every time GW makes a change that generates more sells we bash them because they are robbing us. For ONCE they did a change that actually has sense and lowers the entry barrier to the standard games and we refuse it?

No one had problems with index only games. Actually, many consider the index meta better and more balanced than the codex meta, so why implementing a change that puts us back to index level armies should be a bad thing?

ITC is already an heavily house ruled version of the game that is splitting the community and the feedback it provides, why increase the gap when GW has already provided an official solution to this problem?

Because it unnecessarily buffs skews lists and nerfs elite armies?

And 2000 points games are cramped, alpha strikey, favour factions with lots of internal sinergies and nerf deep strikers and everyone who doesn't have decent screens.

No watter what point level you play, you are shifting the meta a bit, so your argument is void.

That said, we are not talking about moving to 1000 points were what you said is actually a big problem, we are talking about 1750, which isn't that different from 2000. The biggest difference is that you have more space to move on the board (1-3 less units per side) and the game ends overall quicker.

I really feel like ITC is becoming too snob for it's own good. Creating a mission packet is one thing, but outright refusing GW fix to time limits and coming out with theyr own is another.

I think the difference is that GW believes there is an issue with people not being able to finish in the time allotted, and ITC believes there is an issue with people cheating. There are arguments for moving down to 1750 or 1500 points, but 1500 points isn't going to stop the ork guy from Warhammer World from sitting on his ass until time runs out. He'll just play even slower.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think the difference is that GW believes there is an issue with people not being able to finish in the time allotted, and ITC believes there is an issue with people cheating. There are arguments for moving down to 1750 or 1500 points, but 1500 points isn't going to stop the ork guy from Warhammer World from sitting on his ass until time runs out. He'll just play even slower.

But slow playing that extremely will be very noticeable, and thus caught.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think the difference is that GW believes there is an issue with people not being able to finish in the time allotted, and ITC believes there is an issue with people cheating. There are arguments for moving down to 1750 or 1500 points, but 1500 points isn't going to stop the ork guy from Warhammer World from sitting on his ass until time runs out. He'll just play even slower.

Not really. If ITC would be truly interested in targeting cheaters, they'd regulate cheating through intentional fast-playing and slow-playing symmetrically. As it is, the ruling has in my experience created exponentially more cheating as people pressure/bully "normal" tournament-participants (i.e. not the guys going for top 8 at LVO) with the 'I'll call the ref/clock on any hint of not playing at frenetic speed" to disquise fast-rolling of dice, cheat-moves in the movement and CC phase, etc.. fast-talking "unplayed" points through theory-hammering late turns, etc.., etc..

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think the difference is that GW believes there is an issue with people not being able to finish in the time allotted, and ITC believes there is an issue with people cheating. There are arguments for moving down to 1750 or 1500 points, but 1500 points isn't going to stop the ork guy from Warhammer World from sitting on his ass until time runs out. He'll just play even slower.

Not really. If ITC would be truly interested in targeting cheaters, they'd regulate cheating through intentional fast-playing and slow-playing symmetrically. As it is, the ruling has in my experience created exponentially more cheating as people pressure/bully "normal" tournament-participants (i.e. not the guys going for top 8 at LVO) with the 'I'll call the ref/clock on any hint of not playing at frenetic speed" to disquise fast-rolling of dice, cheat-moves in the movement and CC phase, etc.. fast-talking "unplayed" points through theory-hammering late turns, etc.., etc..

Huh? That's exactly what this rule is designed to stop.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Huh? That's exactly what this rule is designed to stop.

How so?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Huh? That's exactly what this rule is designed to stop.

How so?

You each have your own time limit. So there is no need for your opponent to call a ref if your slow. Since its your own time your wasting.

I am not someone who plays a horde army on a regular basis in 40k, but after playing AoS and played around with Tyranids and Orks I can easily see problems as well as potential ways of fixing this(which in turn could create other issues).

First, there is obviously a need for movement trays for horde armies. This should speed up play and make the clock a less terrifying change for Horde players.

Second, there needs to be a tournament sanctioned dice app that is used for rolling. This way everyone can use the same app without people being afraid of cheating.

Regarding the first point, there needs to be some ruling about movement trays so people can't screw around with them to game the system. This needs to be addressed by the tournament holders and sanctioned movement trays approved.

Regarding the second post there is a chance someone might use a rigged dice app which means there must be some security or precautions made around the use of that. Perhaps an app that is only compiled and released on the day the tournament starts so no one can make a similar mockup.

If those two things are properly addressed it should speed up play for all armies and make the clocks less punishing for those who play with an army consisting of more units than a standard clock army.

How about just playing properly?......
Is that too extreme a concept?
I don't see other wargame systems needing clocks or having players who play slow deliberately.

Maybe you just need to grow up as a player base?

ValentineGames wrote:
How about just playing properly?......
Is that too extreme a concept?
I don't see other wargame systems needing clocks or having players who play slow deliberately.

Maybe you just need to grow up as a player base?

Except for that other wargame that do use it. Warmachine.

ValentineGames wrote:
How about just playing properly?......
Is that too extreme a concept?
I don't see other wargame systems needing clocks or having players who play slow deliberately.

Maybe you just need to grow up as a player base?

Yeah this is excellent logic, I'll totally go ahead and just mature my tournament-assigned slow-playing opponent on his behalf. Dunno why nobody ever thought to do this before

 SHUPPET wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
How about just playing properly?......
Is that too extreme a concept?
I don't see other wargame systems needing clocks or having players who play slow deliberately.

Maybe you just need to grow up as a player base?

Yeah this is excellent logic, I'll totally go ahead and just mature my tournament-assigned slow-playing opponent on his behalf. Dunno why nobody ever thought to do this before

I treat all my opponents as Tamagotchis that I need to personally raise into adulthood.

It gets rid of the cancer that is intentional slow play. I'm all for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
How about just playing properly?......
Is that too extreme a concept?
I don't see other wargame systems needing clocks or having players who play slow deliberately.

Maybe you just need to grow up as a player base?

Warmachine and Kings of War I know both regularly use clocks at their tournaments because sandbagging has been a time honored "tactic" since wargaming tournaments were a thing before the internet.

The clock has a lot of benefits. Unspoken is the other side of the equation that if you have the clock it is your time. If you need to interrupt the opponents turn for any reason, just reach over and flip the clock to your time. No need to try to interrupt and get their attention.

This is most useful for Stratagems that interupt. You see him about to take shots at your Knight and want to Rotate shields, ship the clock to yourself, declare what is going on, ship the clock back to him.

No more arguments about Ohh I tried to do This or that. Very clear.

auticus wrote:
It gets rid of the cancer that is intentional slow play. I'm all for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
How about just playing properly?......
Is that too extreme a concept?
I don't see other wargame systems needing clocks or having players who play slow deliberately.

Maybe you just need to grow up as a player base?

Warmachine and Kings of War I know both regularly use clocks at their tournaments because sandbagging has been a time honored "tactic" since wargaming tournaments were a thing before the internet.

Guild Ball does as well. I know a few others I. The process of adding them.

I like what the guy above said.

But if I was running it I would just use the clock to catch egregious offenders. When your turn is done flip the clock. He can roll his saves on your turn, it doesn't take that long. Each person gets an hour all their own, the last half hour they have to share and if one guy gets 20 min and the other 10 thats fine. If one guy gets all 30 thats fine too. But if you look at the clock and realise one guy is using up way more time than the other and you won't get to finnish call a ref over.

If you are worried about a rules looking up, print cards. Every unit on an index card. Stat block, weapons, buffs and special rules referenced by page number.

That should be standard anyway, I keep meaning to do it myself so I don't keep forgetting my drugs and grenades.

Most of the time spent in 8th in my experience is pre-measuring and rule referencing. Once in a while I'd get an opponent that pre-measures and re-measures the pre-measures. And this happens for all four phases. And then you have your half-cheating guy who willingly or unwillingly tries to pull a fast one where you have to call them out on, and then he spends another 10 minutes going through his books which most of the time ends with "oh sorry I misread that rule".

A reasonably prepared player doesn't need more than 10 minutes to play out his turn. I think the 10 min per turn is pretty reasonable.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Second, there needs to be a tournament sanctioned dice app that is used for rolling. This way everyone can use the same app without people being afraid of cheating.

GW already has a legal dice app.

http://assaultdice.com/

 Eldarsif wrote:
The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

Well said.

There are better games to scratch a true competitive gaming itch. The only reason I play competitive 40k is because it's the best way to play with new people against new lists, and there's no silly stigma against bringing whatever models you want to play. (none of that, "oh you brought THAT, it's a casual game" nonsense).

ValentineGames wrote:



...and you need to lighten up because if you are going to take a game about suped-up space soldiers and fetish space elves seriously you are going to have a bad time. I mean, not being facetious, or being completely humorless, is not my idea of maturity. To each their own.

The subjective goalpost of maturity is more or less impossible to attain, especially considering the fact that the game is always changing and gaining and losing players. The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

No.

While your right on souped up humans and space elves that’s not nearly the sum of it.

I’ve easily spent over 10 grand in the last 30 years on GW products and models. Possibly more. Many have spent way more.
I’ve traveled extensively to events both local and across the USA, at my cost. Many have traveled more.
I’ve spent many hours painting and basing and converting my current force. And I suck at painting, most are better.
I’ve spent more hours at the game store playing the game. But not as many as others.

Playing this game is escapism and self-sacrifice. Yes it is my hobby and what I want to do, but the other side of that is that isn’t a solo activity. It requires my sacrifice and also my opponents. When I’m talking about his/her money, his/her time, his or her efforts, I’m not going to be so cavalier and “Lighten up” I’m going to try to show up, give them a great game that has them walking away, win or lose saying, “Wow, that is why I play 40K”.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

Well said.

There are better games to scratch a true competitive gaming itch. The only reason I play competitive 40k is because it's the best way to play with new people against new lists, and there's no silly stigma against bringing whatever models you want to play. (none of that, "oh you brought THAT, it's a casual game" nonsense).

Then you should love the introduction of the chess clock. Nothing is worse than building and painting a competitive list, driving/flying to a tournament, getting signed in, putting all your models out then having your game only go to turn 2 because an ork player decided to individually measure and move 200 ork boys onto objectives for the sole purpose of not allowing you to actually play against his army. Playing against "new lists" isn't very fun when you never get to play against them because your opponent slow plays. If anything chess clocks will now allow you to actually play said new list and actually use those units that casual players frown upon.

Reemule wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:



...and you need to lighten up because if you are going to take a game about suped-up space soldiers and fetish space elves seriously you are going to have a bad time. I mean, not being facetious, or being completely humorless, is not my idea of maturity. To each their own.

The subjective goalpost of maturity is more or less impossible to attain, especially considering the fact that the game is always changing and gaining and losing players. The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

No.

While your right on souped up humans and space elves that’s not nearly the sum of it.

I’ve easily spent over 10 grand in the last 30 years on GW products and models. Possibly more. Many have spent way more.
I’ve traveled extensively to events both local and across the USA, at my cost. Many have traveled more.
I’ve spent many hours painting and basing and converting my current force. And I suck at painting, most are better.
I’ve spent more hours at the game store playing the game. But not as many as others.

Playing this game is escapism and self-sacrifice. Yes it is my hobby and what I want to do, but the other side of that is that isn’t a solo activity. It requires my sacrifice and also my opponents. When I’m talking about his/her money, his/her time, his or her efforts, I’m not going to be so cavalier and “Lighten up” I’m going to try to show up, give them a great game that has them walking away, win or lose saying, “Wow, that is why I play 40K”.

I do hope you read ValentineGames original comment(seems it was deleted) because my comment was aimed at his "nobody is allowed to be facetious or have humor" comment. It's one thing to show up, have a good game, and enjoying the game in the best possible manner. It is an entirely another thing to basically not allow people to be facetious or have humor. Playing the game and having fun are not mutually exclusive things unless you are a Vulcan.

I mean, I've easily spent over 10k on the hobby and countless hours painting, but if I can't allow myself to laugh and poke fun at myself when I play the game it isn't a game anymore. Hell, then it would be worse than my work environment.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think the difference is that GW believes there is an issue with people not being able to finish in the time allotted, and ITC believes there is an issue with people cheating. There are arguments for moving down to 1750 or 1500 points, but 1500 points isn't going to stop the ork guy from Warhammer World from sitting on his ass until time runs out. He'll just play even slower.

You're only partially right. ITC DOES believe there's an issue with people cheating, but if they wanted to stop that they could have a long time ago by enforcing the blatant examples it apparently took "normal" players watching a stream to catch. The chess clocks came about as a blanket reaction to an artificial "everyone is slow-playing and cheating YOU!" panic post-LVO because the alternative was for ITC to start calling out and/or sanctioning celebrity players.

I'm not against chess clocks, but I'm also for increasing the time and/or lowering the points value of games because that's how you fix a majority of games not finishing on time, especially for new players. You aren't going to fix that problem by making it harder for whatever percentage of the community you think cheats to do so (unless you believe >25% does).

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

Well said.

There are better games to scratch a true competitive gaming itch. The only reason I play competitive 40k is because it's the best way to play with new people against new lists, and there's no silly stigma against bringing whatever models you want to play. (none of that, "oh you brought THAT, it's a casual game" nonsense).

Then you should love the introduction of the chess clock. Nothing is worse than building and painting a competitive list, driving/flying to a tournament, getting signed in, putting all your models out then having your game only go to turn 2 because an ork player decided to individually measure and move 200 ork boys onto objectives for the sole purpose of not allowing you to actually play against his army. Playing against "new lists" isn't very fun when you never get to play against them because your opponent slow plays. If anything chess clocks will now allow you to actually play said new list and actually use those units that casual players frown upon.

Or worse, you only get to actually play for 40 minutes out of the 3 hours allotted to your game because the horde player feels entitled to 2 hours and 20 minutes as his time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Audustum wrote:


Because it unnecessarily buffs skews lists and nerfs elite armies?

Not nearly as bad as the ITC Missions do.

Bologna. Elites struggle in ITC as is regularly demonstrated. I've seen no data whatsoever on skew lists being promoted or hindered by ITC though.

That said, I play NOVA.

Chess clocks have been needed for a log time just to change the longstanding issue that games often end on or before turn 3 even when players aren't trying to cheat. It's had a warping effect on "what's good" and makes it hard to design scenarios when the board state has so little time to mature (you're talking a situation where footslogging models are unlikely to move more than 18" beyond the point they are deployed). The high profile cheating just forced action and movement on the issue.

 greyknight12 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think the difference is that GW believes there is an issue with people not being able to finish in the time allotted, and ITC believes there is an issue with people cheating. There are arguments for moving down to 1750 or 1500 points, but 1500 points isn't going to stop the ork guy from Warhammer World from sitting on his ass until time runs out. He'll just play even slower.

You're only partially right. ITC DOES believe there's an issue with people cheating, but if they wanted to stop that they could have a long time ago by enforcing the blatant examples it apparently took "normal" players watching a stream to catch. The chess clocks came about as a blanket reaction to an artificial "everyone is slow-playing and cheating YOU!" panic post-LVO because the alternative was for ITC to start calling out and/or sanctioning celebrity players.

I'm not against chess clocks, but I'm also for increasing the time and/or lowering the points value of games because that's how you fix a majority of games not finishing on time, especially for new players. You aren't going to fix that problem by making it harder for whatever percentage of the community you think cheats to do so (unless you believe >25% does).

A clock helps slower player who are not intentionally trying to slow play to finish their games on time by providing a simple 'in your face' reminder of the time they have left.

It is a system that has been proven to work in other games.

Edit:
Also, the reason 'normal' people noticed it on stream is not because its so very obvious but because they are sitting at home having a drink and looking at the time elapsed. And its always "hey he took 1.5 hours for his first turn" at a point where the damage is already done.
Catching slow play before the damage is done is hard.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
Is the time on the clock split evenly between both players?

Yes, playing a horde army doesn't give you the right to more time. Any more then playing Pure Greknights lets you field an extra 200 points.

Playing a horde army gives you the right to field more models though. So why not more time.

Or if symmetry in all things is the rule you want to enforce, the logical equivalent would be equal model count for all armies.

This is just the kind of attitude that has lead to clocks for ITC and 1750 pts for WHW. And games should finish. Typical horde tactic is to swamp objectives then run the clock out like the fiasco with orks earlier this year.

Right now the meta drastically favors horde - they do not need any "breaks".

Spoletta wrote:

Audustum wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I really don't understand why the community is so much against lowering points limits.

Every time GW makes a change that generates more sells we bash them because they are robbing us. For ONCE they did a change that actually has sense and lowers the entry barrier to the standard games and we refuse it?

No one had problems with index only games. Actually, many consider the index meta better and more balanced than the codex meta, so why implementing a change that puts us back to index level armies should be a bad thing?

ITC is already an heavily house ruled version of the game that is splitting the community and the feedback it provides, why increase the gap when GW has already provided an official solution to this problem?

Because it unnecessarily buffs skews lists and nerfs elite armies?

And 2000 points games are cramped,

Only if its horde vs. horde, in which case it should feel a bit cramped (ignoring the subjective nature of this kind of complaint temporarily).

alpha strikey,

All point levels are. That's why you need something like beta rules to help.

favour factions with lots of internal sinergies

All point levels do.

and nerf deep strikers and everyone who doesn't have decent screens.

2k doesn't nerf either of those. No mode really does except Kill Team. Hence beta rules.

No watter what point level you play, you are shifting the meta a bit, so your argument is void.

Ha, haha. This argument is ridiculous. We're not talking about shifting the meta. We're talking about changing the fundamental game to where heavy skew lists dominate TAC's and elite armies are virtually unplayable without handicaps (neither being a thing the community supposedly wants).

That said, we are not talking about moving to 1000 points were what you said is actually a big problem, we are talking about 1750, which isn't that different from 2000. The biggest difference is that you have more space to move on the board (1-3 less units per side) and the game ends overall quicker.

It's a HUGE difference for Custodes. Custodes are 722 for a minimum battalion (which isn't competitive in the slightest). The competitive Outrider build is 970. 1,094 when you add in the near mandatory -1 to Hit Vexilla. You're not just talking about limiting your 'toys', but severely cramping the ability of armies to bring anything on top of their core. Imperial Knights are the same with your point change making most pure lists change from 4 Knights to 3 Knights. It's only '1 unit' but it's a HUGE difference. I could go on with other elites (Grey Knights, Primarch armies, e.t.c.), but I think the point is across.

The same is true for TAC's. Those 250 points are used a lot to round out wargear so they actually can take all comers. You strip it off them and now they either won't have the tools to fight a horde, a heavy flier or a heavy armor. Take your pick. It will become a viable tournament strategy to field skew lists in any of those categories and just gamble on hitting TAC's which had to forego their options to handle you.

I really feel like ITC is becoming too snob for it's own good. Creating a mission packet is one thing, but outright refusing GW fix to time limits and coming out with theyr own is another.

ITC was doing its own thing way more often in 7th. GW's wrong on this one, but they're free to do what they want at their own tournaments.

 Eldarsif wrote:

Reemule wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:



...and you need to lighten up because if you are going to take a game about suped-up space soldiers and fetish space elves seriously you are going to have a bad time. I mean, not being facetious, or being completely humorless, is not my idea of maturity. To each their own.

The subjective goalpost of maturity is more or less impossible to attain, especially considering the fact that the game is always changing and gaining and losing players. The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

No.

While your right on souped up humans and space elves that’s not nearly the sum of it.

I’ve easily spent over 10 grand in the last 30 years on GW products and models. Possibly more. Many have spent way more.
I’ve traveled extensively to events both local and across the USA, at my cost. Many have traveled more.
I’ve spent many hours painting and basing and converting my current force. And I suck at painting, most are better.
I’ve spent more hours at the game store playing the game. But not as many as others.

Playing this game is escapism and self-sacrifice. Yes it is my hobby and what I want to do, but the other side of that is that isn’t a solo activity. It requires my sacrifice and also my opponents. When I’m talking about his/her money, his/her time, his or her efforts, I’m not going to be so cavalier and “Lighten up” I’m going to try to show up, give them a great game that has them walking away, win or lose saying, “Wow, that is why I play 40K”.

I do hope you read ValentineGames original comment(seems it was deleted) because my comment was aimed at his "nobody is allowed to be facetious or have humor" comment. It's one thing to show up, have a good game, and enjoying the game in the best possible manner. It is an entirely another thing to basically not allow people to be facetious or have humor. Playing the game and having fun are not mutually exclusive things unless you are a Vulcan.

I mean, I've easily spent over 10k on the hobby and countless hours painting, but if I can't allow myself to laugh and poke fun at myself when I play the game it isn't a game anymore. Hell, then it would be worse than my work environment.

People need to stop quoting gak I never fething said

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

Well said.

There are better games to scratch a true competitive gaming itch. The only reason I play competitive 40k is because it's the best way to play with new people against new lists, and there's no silly stigma against bringing whatever models you want to play. (none of that, "oh you brought THAT, it's a casual game" nonsense).

Then you should love the introduction of the chess clock. Nothing is worse than building and painting a competitive list, driving/flying to a tournament, getting signed in, putting all your models out then having your game only go to turn 2 because an ork player decided to individually measure and move 200 ork boys onto objectives for the sole purpose of not allowing you to actually play against his army. Playing against "new lists" isn't very fun when you never get to play against them because your opponent slow plays. If anything chess clocks will now allow you to actually play said new list and actually use those units that casual players frown upon.

I just haven't encountered this.

I would be curious to know how many people were the victim of someone intentionally depriving their opponent of turns.

Although based on this thread, if you haven't been getting to turn 6 EVERY SINGLE GAME then you're also a "secret slowplayer."

 greyknight12 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I think the difference is that GW believes there is an issue with people not being able to finish in the time allotted, and ITC believes there is an issue with people cheating. There are arguments for moving down to 1750 or 1500 points, but 1500 points isn't going to stop the ork guy from Warhammer World from sitting on his ass until time runs out. He'll just play even slower.

You're only partially right. ITC DOES believe there's an issue with people cheating, but if they wanted to stop that they could have a long time ago by enforcing the blatant examples it apparently took "normal" players watching a stream to catch. The chess clocks came about as a blanket reaction to an artificial "everyone is slow-playing and cheating YOU!" panic post-LVO because the alternative was for ITC to start calling out and/or sanctioning celebrity players.

I'm not against chess clocks, but I'm also for increasing the time and/or lowering the points value of games because that's how you fix a majority of games not finishing on time, especially for new players. You aren't going to fix that problem by making it harder for whatever percentage of the community you think cheats to do so (unless you believe >25% does).

I forget what e[isode of signals from the front line but the ITC guys actually brought up that they had looked into lowering points but 2 things kept them from doing it
1. When doing a poll lowering points was almost universally hated as an idea because
A. People cant play with as many of their toys
B. list variation gets lowered because there are fewer points left over after the "obvious takes
2. Another tournament tried I think 1850 and saw no significant increase in the number of games finished because
A. Intentional slowplay isn't affected by this
B. Unintentional slow players simply perceive they have even more time



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The game ain't chess. It doesn't have the merit or the pedigree to be some "holier than thou" game and never will be as it is a product owned by a company engaging in earning profits.

Well said.

There are better games to scratch a true competitive gaming itch. The only reason I play competitive 40k is because it's the best way to play with new people against new lists, and there's no silly stigma against bringing whatever models you want to play. (none of that, "oh you brought THAT, it's a casual game" nonsense).

Then you should love the introduction of the chess clock. Nothing is worse than building and painting a competitive list, driving/flying to a tournament, getting signed in, putting all your models out then having your game only go to turn 2 because an ork player decided to individually measure and move 200 ork boys onto objectives for the sole purpose of not allowing you to actually play against his army. Playing against "new lists" isn't very fun when you never get to play against them because your opponent slow plays. If anything chess clocks will now allow you to actually play said new list and actually use those units that casual players frown upon.

I just haven't encountered this.

I would be curious to know how many people were the victim of someone intentionally depriving their opponent of turns.

Although based on this thread, if you haven't been getting to turn 6 EVERY SINGLE GAME then you're also a "secret slowplayer."

It's a significant amount, you can look up the tournament data for the exact amount of games that come to a natural conclusion. Its gotten so bad that GWs official event was ruined by a single player that was able to win the entire event doing this and even GW has decided to try to take action (even though I think their effort isn't going to fix the issue)

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am not someone who plays a horde army on a regular basis in 40k, but after playing AoS and played around with Tyranids and Orks I can easily see problems as well as potential ways of fixing this(which in turn could create other issues).

First, there is obviously a need for movement trays for horde armies. This should speed up play and make the clock a less terrifying change for Horde players.

Unit footprint and positioning are one of the few actual tactics available in 40k, removing that from Horde armies is a wee bit silly. Other games are built around movement trays, 40k is not one of them. Games with movement trays for large numbers of troops generally expect such units to be advancing over mostly open terrain and there are mechanics for ranks and flanking and whatnot, none of which applies to a mob of Orks overrunning a ruined 3 story structure for instance.

If a game isnt getting passed turn 2 or 3, the TO needs to deal with that, especially at the top tables, that's their responsibility,
Adding in extra mechanics and materials that dont fit the game is going to cause more issues.

I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
I am not someone who plays a horde army on a regular basis in 40k, but after playing AoS and played around with Tyranids and Orks I can easily see problems as well as potential ways of fixing this(which in turn could create other issues).

First, there is obviously a need for movement trays for horde armies. This should speed up play and make the clock a less terrifying change for Horde players.

Unit footprint and positioning are one of the few actual tactics available in 40k, removing that from Horde armies is a wee bit silly. Other games are built around movement trays, 40k is not one of them. Games with movement trays for large numbers of troops generally expect such units to be advancing over mostly open terrain and there are mechanics for ranks and flanking and whatnot, none of which applies to a mob of Orks overrunning a ruined 3 story structure for instance.

If a game isnt getting passed turn 2 or 3, the TO needs to deal with that, especially at the top tables, that's their responsibility,
Adding in extra mechanics and materials that dont fit the game is going to cause more issues.

When I was mentioning movement trays I was mostly thinking of the ones already being sold and allow for quick movement, but the effective footprint would be the same(ie. it's just for the ease of movement). It has its own problems to be fair(at least when it comes to not being first to melee), but I have enjoyed using them in both Warhammer systems. Does speed up gameplay considerably in my experience(at least it does for my Daughters of Khaine army).

In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Wow, I was wondering how we had such a strong disconnect and now I get it.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Wow, I was wondering how we had such a strong disconnect and now I get it.

Naw dude, our disconnect isn't game or time, its that your okay with someone getting an unequal chance at victory on the field.

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

Unconscionable! Without three games a day, how would we... ... .... play three games in a day?!

absolutely absurd.

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

 Vaktathi wrote:
Unit footprint and positioning are one of the few actual tactics available in 40k, removing that from Horde armies is a wee bit silly. Other games are built around movement trays, 40k is not one of them.

Other games are built around players having equal time, 40K is not one of them. If you try to change one thing against the DNA of the game, you're guaranteed to have to make some knock-on changes against the DNA of the game on top to have at least a shot at making it work.

You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

Because when you have 4 undefeated players at the end of a small, 16 man tournament the entire thing becomes a weird, warped game of trying to abuse tie breakers.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
In the meta sense, I think that the Clocks are nothing but good.

Right now a local event is Get there at 10, play 3 games, none of them get finished, and hope to finish by 7, and maybe home by 8:30.

Maybe with a clock event.. I could start at 10: play the first game from 10:30 till 1:00, Play game 2 from 1:30 till 3:00, play from 3:30 till 6, home by 7? All games Finished? So good.

Or I can maybe talk them into starting at 9, Game 1 at 9:30, Game 2 at 12, Game 3 at 3, game 4 at 6, and get 4 games in and be home about 9:30? 4 games all finished for the price of 3? That would be AWESOME.

Or how about just having two games in one day so there is a proper amount of time to play them?

Because when you have 4 undefeated players at the end of a small, 16 man tournament the entire thing becomes a weird, warped game of trying to abuse tie breakers.

Then play more games on the next day. The whole bloody problem is caused by trying to force the game being played faster than it is designed to be played.

How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

 LunarSol wrote:
How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

Stop being rational. clearly, the best option is to play one 12 hour game a day and make most tournaments 2 days 2 games (unless someone needs more time then they do two 1 day games). It's almost like your suggesting that people might want to go to a tournament to play the most games possible in a reasonable amount of time. Its almost like you're saying that you don't enjoy sitting there while your opponent takes a 2 hour turn.

 LunarSol wrote:
How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

Then play smaller games. Have 1000 point tournaments if you want them to be done faster.

I think one day 2000 point tournaments are just a flawed format. For such point level a league played over a longer period of time is a way superior format.

Player fewer games in the tournament.

 Crimson wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
How long is it designed to be played in? What happens when people manage to play longer than that? What happens when all of your games are finished except one that still has an hour or two left in it? How many people are willing to take 2 days for a tournament and how many fresh faces are you expecting to see when traveling requires a hotel stay? Do large cons need to become a week long experience?

There are plenty of reasons to expect a game to be able to run a one day tournament with more than 4 players.

Then play smaller games. Have 1000 point tournaments if you want them to be done faster.

I think one day 2000 point tournaments are just a flawed format. For such point level a league played over a longer period of time is a way superior format.

Except muti day format tournaments are never well attended unless as a multiday convention. Logistical necessity for many is to have a single day event.

Martel732 wrote:
Player fewer games in the tournament.

Or get the most bang for your buck and simply have a clock to manage slow players

I don't think a 3 hour slot is long enough for a full game. I'd rather have 3 5-hour slots.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think a 3 hour slot is long enough for a full game. I'd rather have 3 5-hour slots.

Your going to have a hard time finding people willing to show up for 2 days to play only 3 games

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think a 3 hour slot is long enough for a full game. I'd rather have 3 5-hour slots.

Many of the larger GTs have narrative events with longer slots... simply play in one of those then. Or tell tournaments what you prefer and if there are enough people with similar thoughts they will change. When they conduct surveys and polling most people don't want to go to an event to play 1 or 2 games a day

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

 Marmatag wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Hey now, if you're going to say something like that, you should at least include the Billy Madison "I award you no points" speech.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Way to miss the entire point..... ITC has statistical proof that slowplay is an issue AND GW had slow play plague their last major event. Once again you and your "friends" not noticing it does not mean its not happening

Im not going to do it for you but you can look up the number of games played to natural conclusion. They read them out during one of their podcasts and the data is the #1 reason why they are doing the chess clocks.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Way to miss the entire point..... ITC has statistical proof that slowplay is an issue AND GW had slow play plague their last major event. Once again you and your "friends" not noticing it does not mean its not happening

Im not going to do it for you but you can look up the number of games played to natural conclusion. They read them out during one of their podcasts and the data is the #1 reason why they are doing the chess clocks.

Show me the proof or stop claiming it as fact. If it's obvious you shouldn't have any trouble proving it.

They weren't going to clocks before Tony, and they had all of this data on hand then.

Wow "competitive" 40k is even more garbage than I thought. Happy to not be part of this buffoonery.

I laugh at the people trying to play three or four games a day when each game is almost three hours, and then complain about their inability to finish even one game.Wether you and your opponent are very skilled and you fast-play and manage to get a 2h game, I think it is doable, or you are not, like me and most of the people here, and you do two games.
And suddenly the need to house rules and bend the game disappear...

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I mean I play a lot of tournament games. I just don't see it, and the people I play with don't see it. This is not a small sample size. I make a point of jumping up on score early. People don't slowplay when they're behind.

So the ITC that records thousands of games over and most likely the largest sampling of its kind in all of 40k.......should be ignored because you and your friends haven't noticed a problem. Ill make sure to call GW and let them know that that ork player didn't slow play to win their tournament and somehow its a big misunderstanding

That wasn't an ITC event.

GW events are more susceptible due to the nature of the scoring. It's much more difficult to slowplay in ITC. Because your opponent can jump past you in 1 turn and you're hosed. In the Tony example, he got first turn and played like a freaking complete tool. He should have been banned from all future ITC events. Instead we all get chess clocks because they refuse to enforce rules.

And it's a sample of about 30-50 tournament games a month.

Finally, ITC has not published any statistics on slowplaying. So not sure how you're citing a sample you don't even have access to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
You have no basis for what you are saying - you are literally just making it up as you go along.

Every time you make a post on game balance, just reread this as the default reply to whatever you're saying lol

Way to miss the entire point..... ITC has statistical proof that slowplay is an issue AND GW had slow play plague their last major event. Once again you and your "friends" not noticing it does not mean its not happening

Im not going to do it for you but you can look up the number of games played to natural conclusion. They read them out during one of their podcasts and the data is the #1 reason why they are doing the chess clocks.

Show me the proof or stop claiming it as fact. If it's obvious you shouldn't have any trouble proving it.

Because your so lazy i did a google search. In .1 seconds a found this Dakka post https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/749806.page were someone was nice enough to go through the publicly posted games and calculate the average game length (like i said ITC did this officially but thats literally the first link). The average game length at the LVO came out to be 3.9 turns meaning that a considerable amount of people felt the pain of having games go to turn 3 or 4. Enough that, like they say on there podcast every week, slow play was the number 1 complaint they have had at all their events. Now that I've given you the data and all you still have is "but but but me and my friends haven't seen this happen and we are clearly just like the rest of the community" whats your response? Slow play has been an issue in the ITC and GW official events and acting like it doesnt exsist is laughable at this point.

 godardc wrote:
Wow "competitive" 40k is even more garbage than I thought. Happy to not be part of this buffoonery.

I laugh at the people trying to play three or four games a day when each game is almost three hours, and then complain about their inability to finish even one game.Wether you and your opponent are very skilled and you fast-play and manage to get a 2h game, I think it is doable, or you are not, like me and most of the people here, and you do two games.
And suddenly the need to house rules and bend the game disappear...

No, they prefer to introduce a system that requires players to switch a clock 300 times per game (real numbers, do the math), while putting it on a 48x72 surface full of big LOS blocking elements and hundreds of models, without ever forgetting about it and without collateral damage.

I'm truly blessed by the absence of ITC in my area.

Slow play, IIRC, is intentional, right ? Maybe, I don't know, just trying to figure it out, maybe it is non intentional, for the most, in ITC ? I already had to stop games at turn 4 but without intentional slow play, just having fun with my friends so nothing to win here.
How could we know which kind it is ? Is the game to slow or are some players intentionaly to slow ?

 godardc wrote:
Wow "competitive" 40k is even more garbage than I thought. Happy to not be part of this buffoonery.

^THIS^
So damn much this.
It's just doing more harm than good as everyone stands on the sidelines laughing at how pathetic the 40k competitive scene truly is.

 godardc wrote:
Slow play, IIRC, is intentional, right ? Maybe, I don't know, just trying to figure it out, maybe it is non intentional, for the most, in ITC ? I already had to stop games at turn 4 but without intentional slow play, just having fun with my friends so nothing to win here.
How could we know which kind it is ? Is the game to slow or are some players intentionaly to slow ?

Some people intentionally slowplay. Others are simply slow because the are not practiced and don't need to pay attention to time in their casual games.
The clock solves both. The cheaters can't slowplay and the slower players tend to play faster with an in your face reminder of time left.

 Ordana wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Slow play, IIRC, is intentional, right ? Maybe, I don't know, just trying to figure it out, maybe it is non intentional, for the most, in ITC ? I already had to stop games at turn 4 but without intentional slow play, just having fun with my friends so nothing to win here.
How could we know which kind it is ? Is the game to slow or are some players intentionaly to slow ?

Some people intentionally slowplay. Others are simply slow because the are not practiced and don't need to pay attention to time in their casual games.
The clock solves both. The cheaters can't slowplay and the slower players tend to play faster with an in your face reminder of time left.

No, this clock is made exclusively to prevent cheaters.

If you only wanted to push the honestly slow players, you would do it the way me, Marma and many many others do it, which is using a clock that is switched only at the end of the turn. This works really well, and many players who play hordes do practice with it if they want to bring an horde to an event. Afraid of cheaters taking away your time? Call a TO.

The kind of chess clock rules that ITC wants to introduce are beyond overkill to just have players play faster, they are there to disallow intentional slow playing, but if they are worried about this, then i don't understand why they also don't check every dice and every ruler in there!

Spoletta wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Slow play, IIRC, is intentional, right ? Maybe, I don't know, just trying to figure it out, maybe it is non intentional, for the most, in ITC ? I already had to stop games at turn 4 but without intentional slow play, just having fun with my friends so nothing to win here.
How could we know which kind it is ? Is the game to slow or are some players intentionaly to slow ?

Some people intentionally slowplay. Others are simply slow because the are not practiced and don't need to pay attention to time in their casual games.
The clock solves both. The cheaters can't slowplay and the slower players tend to play faster with an in your face reminder of time left.

No, this clock is made exclusively to prevent cheaters.

If you only wanted to push the honestly slow players, you would do it the way me, Marma and many many others do it, which is using a clock that is switched only at the end of the turn. This works really well, and many players who play hordes do practice with it if they want to bring an horde to an event. Afraid of cheaters taking away your time? Call a TO.

The kind of chess clock rules that ITC wants to introduce are beyond overkill to just have players play faster, they are there to disallow intentional slow playing, but if they are worried about this, then i don't understand why they also don't check every dice and every ruler in there!

Im confused.... your mad because the ITC chess clock would prevent intentional and unintentional slowplay and that's bad because they aren't checking dice at the door? Also, I can't remember which tournaments but I do know some of them do require you to use event dice if you make it into the top brackets.

Spoletta wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 godardc wrote:
Slow play, IIRC, is intentional, right ? Maybe, I don't know, just trying to figure it out, maybe it is non intentional, for the most, in ITC ? I already had to stop games at turn 4 but without intentional slow play, just having fun with my friends so nothing to win here.
How could we know which kind it is ? Is the game to slow or are some players intentionaly to slow ?

Some people intentionally slowplay. Others are simply slow because the are not practiced and don't need to pay attention to time in their casual games.
The clock solves both. The cheaters can't slowplay and the slower players tend to play faster with an in your face reminder of time left.

No, this clock is made exclusively to prevent cheaters.

If you only wanted to push the honestly slow players, you would do it the way me, Marma and many many others do it, which is using a clock that is switched only at the end of the turn. This works really well, and many players who play hordes do practice with it if they want to bring an horde to an event. Afraid of cheaters taking away your time? Call a TO.

The kind of chess clock rules that ITC wants to introduce are beyond overkill to just have players play faster, they are there to disallow intentional slow playing, but if they are worried about this, then i don't understand why they also don't check every dice and every ruler in there!

By the time you notice your getting slow played they already spend an hour on their turn and your to late.

Asmodios wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think a 3 hour slot is long enough for a full game. I'd rather have 3 5-hour slots.

Many of the larger GTs have narrative events with longer slots... simply play in one of those then. Or tell tournaments what you prefer and if there are enough people with similar thoughts they will change. When they conduct surveys and polling most people don't want to go to an event to play 1 or 2 games a day

I think this a great suggestion for Martel and I highly recommend it.

I play a horde army and I was originally against Chess Clocks at events......Not anymore

I was legitimately slow played at my last tournament by a number of Marine armies and an Eldar army. It is absolutely ridiculous that my 200+ model army was playing FASTER then a 40 model Space Marine list. He literally measured every single model, tape to point, he checked the dice numerous times to make sure he got all his hits and then he rerolled and took even longer. He spent more time double checking his abilities and unit traits then playing the game, and before anyone says "well he was probably new to the army" the guy has played SMs for over 5 years.

So yeah, I am all aboard the clock train now

 Marmatag wrote:
Clocks aren't there to guarantee a 6th turn, they're there to guarantee equity of time.

You have not proven that these games had an inequity of time. It's possible people would have played faster with the clocks, but that is NOT the problem they're being implemented to solve. They are being implemented to prevent time abuse, and this data does not prove that time abuse is happening to the degree you're claiming.

Inhale. Exhale. Sometimes you get bested.

"you cant prove that there wasn't equal time used (because we have no way to quantify it without clocks) hahaha checkmate"

I love running into people like you that are so mad that every point you have tried to throw out has been shot down by numerous people in this thread so your only recourse is a clear "got ya" questions that isn't even good. Chess clocks give you the ability to play a full game if your opponent decides to slow play and not get a full game that's his issue. You are clearly upset that your days slowplaying are numbered, i suggest you start looking into your next plan on how to cheat (your ideas in the beginning of the thread were really weak).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
I play a horde army and I was originally against Chess Clocks at events......Not anymore

I was legitimately slow played at my last tournament by a number of Marine armies and an Eldar army. It is absolutely ridiculous that my 200+ model army was playing FASTER then a 40 model Space Marine list. He literally measured every single model, tape to point, he checked the dice numerous times to make sure he got all his hits and then he rerolled and took even longer. He spent more time double checking his abilities and unit traits then playing the game, and before anyone says "well he was probably new to the army" the guy has played SMs for over 5 years.

So yeah, I am all aboard the clock train now

Ummmmmm excuse me some people have clearly stated that slow play doesn't exist thus you must be lying

Why is the casual community so outright hostile to the competitive players lol? Like, just atrocious amounts of toxicity towards anyone who wants integrity in tournaments