Switch Theme:

Chess clocks go!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Chess clocks
Yes, finally
Not really that concerned about it
No, it's stupid

View results
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?


I don't know why this has to keep being stated, but the above is only a problem if the time allocated to the game is insufficient in the first place. If that is the case then somebody is already being put at a disadvantage because either the horde player can't complete his games in time, or takes too much of the time available in the game for themselves, leaving their opponent with less time than they need. Chess clocks aren't a magic bullet and are only one part of a potential solution, which would also involve analysing whether the time allocated is sufficient for the points being played. What chess clocks do is shift the responsibility to the player who is more likely to use up more time.

Over the past few days I've been thinking back to my own tournament games and I've realised that not once have I failed to finish a game of WH or 40k in time at a tournament and this is playing with and against a variety of armies from highly elite to massive hordes to armies with a lot of complicated synergies. Other games at the same tournaments did not finish on time. I've also been TO for a WH tournament (quite a while ago now) and invariably the players who went to time were the ones who weren't fully concentrated on the game. I'm sure there are some outlier armies with huge numbers of models that might struggle to finish a game in the time allotted but my experience tells me 2 suitably motivated players can get games finished in a reasonable time regardless of which armies are in use. I think chess clocks might help with that motivation for players that need it and that's certainly been my experience watching games of WM/H being played.
   
Made in gb
Imperial Admiral





Glasgow

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?

A time limit isn't being introduced - it's always been in place for tournament games.

If you can't play your army in half of that time limit then you are penalising yourself, your opponent or both. Chess clocks just mean that you're only penalising yourself and not your opponent for not being able to play your army in half of the time limit.

As for this stuff about points, all tournament formats modify the core rules to some extent (even if it is just time limits and fixed army lists) which will always favour certain armies to some extent. You build to optimise within those rules for the event.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/03/14 11:42:38


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Of all of the unbalanced things in WH40K, the community picks on probably the most neutral aspect of it to pick on: time.

I have been subjected to intentional slow play in a multitude of games, outside of 40K, for the sheer sake of drawing the natural conclusion into a state where they can claim "well, we will never know, so dice roll or coin flip".

In a game, both players are given a pool of time by the TO to complete their match. Normally, letting them split the time between them as they wish is sufficient, but there are players who are willing to game that contract to secure advantage. To some people, not losing is more important than winning cleanly.

Since there appears to be a fair amount of that going on, enough to taint high level tournament results, the judges have decided to split the time for the players instead of leaving that between them. The one who is "slow" playing, well, time will solve that problem now, not arbitrary accusations of who took longer.

I think the issue is more indicative of either the games being too large for the allotted time, or the rounds are just simply too short for the intention.

Funny thing is... time doesn't care how many Ork Boyz you brought to the tabletop. It isn't watching and giving you courtesy time because you want to measure and move every individual conscript you brought in the 300 conscript list. If you think that time is being unfair because you have to move your 200 Tyrannids while your opponent only has to move his three Imperial Knights... just imagine how BORING of a game it would be if you were allowed to play in your context: He stands there for 100 minutes while getting only 20 to interact with his models. That's the hyperbole of the argument of saying clocks are unfair to horde players. They're only unfair because you all got so used to being unfair to the people across the table from you.

The community was unable to police itself, thus a rule must be put in place to police the community.

Blame slow players, blame people gaming a system that rewards for stall tactics, blame horde armies, blame GW for making the game take too long (I find this argument hilarious in an edition of 3-4 turn blitz armies), or blame TOs for not being able to balance size vs time... but don't blame time. A minute is a minute, and your minutes are every bit as valuable as mine... so let's just share them.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






Instead of applying a broken system (chess clocks) to fix a broken system (tournaments in their current state), why not do the obvious thing instead: play at a lower point level. Play at 1500 points, or 1000 points, or whatever it takes to finish games in time even if you have a horde army. And then once it's expected that every game finishes within the time limit you can have judges DQ individual players for obvious stalling and abuse of the time limit, you don't need a whole clock system to handle the cases where players aren't being TFG.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




Let's say we lower the point cost. It still doesn't answer a fundamental, to me, question of why should one player be entitled to more time than the other when playing a game of 40K?

Clocks don't penalize anyone. The players penalize themselves just like they do with poor list building. If you don't know how to play your army within the constraints of the game then why should you be OK infringing on my prerogative? Suppose I was planning on using more than half of the clock to make my army work what do we do then? It's obvious that we won't finish the game within the given overall time limit. Should we have a TO watch the whole game and then make a decision as to who was slower or just DQ one or both players for not being able to finish the game?

BTW How is it that TFGs only appear when there is a clock involved?
   
Made in us
Enigmatic Sorcerer of Chaos




When I was involved in 40k tournaments, 1500 points was standard, and armies had about 30-40 models on average.

Slow play was still a thing.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Let's say we lower the point cost. It still doesn't answer a fundamental, to me, question of why should one player be entitled to more time than the other when playing a game of 40K?


It doesn't need to, because even with a horde player taking more time than an elite player the game is still finished within the time limit.

BTW How is it that TFGs only appear when there is a clock involved?


They don't. Who ever said that they did?

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




You're bootstrapping your own argument. You don't need to use a clock because everyone will finish on time. Everyone will finish on time if they're given all the time they need. So, as long as the hordes player has a time advantage then everything is OK. What do you do when 2 hordes players are at the same table? Who gets the more time the player with the bigger horde or should they just flip a coin/roll off?

You seem to think that if you set a long enough time limit then it doesn't matter who uses how much time. There are 2 problems with that viewpoint.
1) There is the base inequity of one player getting to use more resources than the other and,
2) Events need to be finished by a set time. They don't have the luxury of giving everyone enough time to finish. They have to make an arbitrary decision as to both time and point limits.

You only bring up TFG as an argument against a clock. You tend to ignore TFG when any other argument is made for not using a clock. I can only presume that you think that having a clock causes a person to become TFG. I tend to think that TFGs will always be around regardless of which rules are in play, that's what makes a TFG a TFG.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/14 13:52:19


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






Leo_the_Rat wrote:
You're bootstrapping your own argument. You don't need to use a clock because everyone will finish on time. Everyone will finish on time if they're given all the time they need.


That's not bootstrapping, it's just good tournament design. Everyone will finish on time because you set the time limit long enough that any reasonable game, including one between two horde players, will take less than that amount of time to finish. You don't need a clock because the time limit is set such that everyone is already finishing, and the clocks would never run out.

What do you do when 2 hordes players are at the same table?


The game finishes closer to the time limit than a game between two elite players. It's unfortunate that the horde players don't get to take a lunch break by finishing an hour early, but their game still finishes.

1) There is the base inequity of one player getting to use more resources than the other and,


That "inequality" is irrelevant. The game finishes, no finite resource is used up. It doesn't matter if it takes me 10x as long you to play my half of the game as long as the game still finishes. Giving you some of my time would not give you any benefit because you already have sufficient time.

2) Events need to be finished by a set time. They don't have the luxury of giving everyone enough time to finish. They have to make an arbitrary decision as to both time and point limits.


And I never said the event is run with open-ended rounds. Ensuring game completion is done by setting a ratio of time to points that allows any reasonable game to finish. Maybe that means playing 3-hour rounds at 1000 points, but if so then that's what has to be done.

You only bring up TFG as an argument against a clock. You tend to ignore TFG when any other argument is made for not using a clock. I can only presume that you think that having a clock causes a person to become TFG. I tend to think that TFGs will always be around regardless of which rules are in play, that's what makes a TFG a TFG.


No, you are completely missing the point. TFG will always be TFG. The point is that clocks are redundant in a properly-designed tournament game between reasonable players, and are only necessary if you have TFGs slow playing to exploit the time limit. But TFGs will also exploit a chess clock (as I have explained over and over again every time this comes up), so introducing chess clocks makes extra work and frustration for the reasonable players while doing little, if anything, to stop TFGs.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?


Except if you know your armies rules and the games rules halfway decently it won't take you your entire half of he allotted time to play your army regardless it size. If people with 200+ model IG armies can finish on time so can anyone else, this isn't Occupy 40K or some socialist/communist game your not entitled to someone else time just because of you decisions.
   
Made in de
Imperial Agent Provocateur






Why would you invest in chess clocks, put extra stress on the players, and write rules how to use the clock if you could simply reduce the point level? 1500 points for a start. If all games finish on time, try 1750 next time - if 50% still don't finish their game, try 1000 points.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/14 14:08:30


Please correct my english. I won't get any better if you don't. 
   
Made in ie
Calm Celestian





 von Hohenstein wrote:
Why would you invest in chess clocks, put extra stress on the players, and write rules how to use the clock if you could simply reduce the point level? 1500 points for a start. If all games finish on time, try 1750 next time - if 50% still don't finish their game, try 1000 points.


How will that stop people from DELIBERATLY playing slowly?

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Ultimately, an event needs to have a timer because players lose focus without it. I assure you, SOMEONE out there can find a way to run a 2 hour game of Kill Team. Even if there was a low enough point limit and enough time to get everything done, you still want round limits. If most players can finish in 3 hours but you have one that can't in 4-5; its miserable for most of your players to have an hour or two of waiting between rounds. Timers are a courtesy to everyone at the event; not just the players who need to wrap it up.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?


Your reward for armies with too much stuff on the table to play in a single game is to give them more points to buy more stuff?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 von Hohenstein wrote:
Why would you invest in chess clocks, put extra stress on the players, and write rules how to use the clock if you could simply reduce the point level? 1500 points for a start. If all games finish on time, try 1750 next time - if 50% still don't finish their game, try 1000 points.


The majority of people don't want to reduce the points level though. Many of the TOs that survey and collect data from their players have a tone of date to prove players don't want tournaments w/lower points levels. So why punish players by lowering the points level of tournaments when you can institute an equal time rule that doesn't punish anyone.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






 LunarSol wrote:
I assure you, SOMEONE out there can find a way to run a 2 hour game of Kill Team.


And that is best handled as the unusual circumstance that it is: the TO tells them to speed it up or get disqualified. You don't need a whole chess clock system to handle extreme outliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dkoz wrote:
The majority of people don't want to reduce the points level though.


The majority of players isn't realistic. They want 3000 point games that finish in 15 minutes, and their desires are not going to happen. Reducing the point level is the only viable option and people just need to accept that.

So why punish players by lowering the points level of tournaments when you can institute an equal time rule that doesn't punish anyone.


Because the equal time rule does punish people. It gives extra work and frustration to everyone, and gives TFGs new opportunities to break the system to their advantage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/14 14:21:06


Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
I assure you, SOMEONE out there can find a way to run a 2 hour game of Kill Team.


And that is best handled as the unusual circumstance that it is: the TO tells them to speed it up or get disqualified. You don't need a whole chess clock system to handle extreme outliers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dkoz wrote:
The majority of people don't want to reduce the points level though.


The majority of players isn't realistic. They want 3000 point games that finish in 15 minutes, and their desires are not going to happen. Reducing the point level is the only viable option and people just need to accept that.

So why punish players by lowering the points level of tournaments when you can institute an equal time rule that doesn't punish anyone.


Because the equal time rule does punish people. It gives extra work and frustration to everyone, and gives TFGs new opportunities to break the system to their advantage.


Except peer your previous statement if it isn't only the extreme outliers that can't finish a game then the chess clocks aren't really that big of an imposition on most players.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






dkoz wrote:
Except peer your previous statement if it isn't only the extreme outliers that can't finish a game then the chess clocks aren't really that big of an imposition on most players.


They're an imposition because they're extra work to deal with. 40k has enough tedious slogging through resolving actions as it is, we don't need to add screwing around with keeping track of the clock to the pile.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
dkoz wrote:
Except peer your previous statement if it isn't only the extreme outliers that can't finish a game then the chess clocks aren't really that big of an imposition on most players.


They're an imposition because they're extra work to deal with. 40k has enough tedious slogging through resolving actions as it is, we don't need to add screwing around with keeping track of the clock to the pile.


I'd say the bigger imposition is the stress everyone feels as time nears the end and they've one gotten in two turns because one player toke 1.5hrs to set up and now holds several objectives because they've only just gotten to a position where you can engage them. Once you've given chess clocks a legitimate & fair try they are great and no real imposition.
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




It would be less of a stress for me by playing with chess clocks. That way I know how much time I have and how much time my opponent has. It's easy for me to know how much time is left in the round without having to consult a watch and try to remember what time we started.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






dkoz wrote:
I'd say the bigger imposition is the stress everyone feels as time nears the end and they've one gotten in two turns because one player toke 1.5hrs to set up and now holds several objectives because they've only just gotten to a position where you can engage them. Once you've given chess clocks a legitimate & fair try they are great and no real imposition.


Yeah, that situation of "my opponent was just DQed for blatant slow play, should I get lunch or just hang around watching my friend's game" sure is stressful. Extreme outliers like that can be dealt with by the TO without adding a whole clock system.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




How do you prove slow play to a TO? If I say "He took too long." and he says, "No, you did." What is a TO to do? Honestly I'd like an answer to that regardless of how you feel about a clock.

At least with a clock slow play is its own reward.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you prove slow play to a TO? If I say "He took too long." and he says, "No, you did." What is a TO to do? Honestly I'd like an answer to that regardless of how you feel about a clock.

At least with a clock slow play is its own reward.


No legitimate setup time would ever reach 1.5 hours. Nor would you wait until 1.5 hours into the game to call a TO over to resolve the situation. The TO would be watching the game long before 1.5 hours had passed, and if TFG continued to slow play the TO would disqualify them.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight




I wasn't referring to set up. I mean in actual game time. Say we're at the top of 4 and only have 20 minutes left (2 hours gone). My opponent takes, what I feel, is too long to move his models. This is the case throughout the game. I think that he has used 75 of the 120 minutes played. I call over a TO and complain. What's the TO supposed to do? What should I have done, if anything, before hand?
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
Leo_the_Rat wrote:
How do you prove slow play to a TO? If I say "He took too long." and he says, "No, you did." What is a TO to do? Honestly I'd like an answer to that regardless of how you feel about a clock.

At least with a clock slow play is its own reward.


No legitimate setup time would ever reach 1.5 hours. Nor would you wait until 1.5 hours into the game to call a TO over to resolve the situation. The TO would be watching the game long before 1.5 hours had passed, and if TFG continued to slow play the TO would disqualify them.


I except at what point do you call the TO over and he gets to DQ you opponent? Yes people agree that 1.5 hrs is nuts but what about 1hr, 45mins, or even 30mins? A TO can only come in after the fact to punish the offender a chess clock keeps both players honest and isn't real imposition on the players. Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?


I've BOLDED the part of your post that makes no sense.

The time limit has been in place for decades. You go to a tourney you had a time limit. Its not being introduced. Its not new. it was made as a way to try to deal with the rampant problems on getting a tourney done in a reasonable time.

Now with that said, the chess clock is just there to make sure there is a reasonable distribution of the amount of time available between the two players.

I've ignored the rest of your post as your primary assumption was wrong, so chances are the rest wasn't right.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Bird from Hell






dkoz wrote:
I except at what point do you call the TO over and he gets to DQ you opponent?


The point where you look at your opponent and they are clearly slow playing beyond any reasonable doubt, which is the only way to get to such an absurdly long setup time. At a proper ratio of points to time limit any attempt at slow play that can give any meaningful advantage is going to be very obvious.

Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.


Why? This is like saying you have to try stabbing yourself in the face before you decide it's going to suck. Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.

Laying low in a blood filled trench
Kill time 'til my very own death
On my face I can feel the falling rain
Never see my friends again

In the smoke, in the mud and lead
Smell the fear and the feeling of dread
Soon be time to go over the wall
Rapid fire and end of us all


SELL ME YOUR FORGEWORLD ATLAS 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Purifying Tempest wrote:
Snipped alot of the post so its just the point I'm addressing.

I think the issue is more indicative of either the games being too large for the allotted time, or the rounds are just simply too short for the intention.



Your missing the point. Chess clocks are a push to work in the framework we currently have.

You should start a new thread advocating what you think should be the new tourney structure... I have no idea what that would look like, play 1 game each day for 3 days so everyone doesn't have to hurry I guess? either way, get your idea out there, get people to agree its a good idea, and to implement it widely and I guess we will see.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.


Why? This is like saying you have to try stabbing yourself in the face before you decide it's going to suck. Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.


Actually games between 2 reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish within the time allotted by the TOs have no need for a cheeks cloak as they will finish a game within the time limits. Chess clocks ensure that time doesn't need to be waisted calling over a judge to try and make a opinion based decision on if someone is slowplaying or not. Also the sarcasm about stabbing your self in the face is a strawman argument with no actual bearing because a chess clock costs you nothing they're free if you have a smart phone and > $20 on Amazon if you can't afford that maybe a tournament isn't what you should be waisting money on.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/14 17:10:16


 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




 Peregrine wrote:
dkoz wrote:
I except at what point do you call the TO over and he gets to DQ you opponent?


The point where you look at your opponent and they are clearly slow playing beyond any reasonable doubt, which is the only way to get to such an absurdly long setup time. At a proper ratio of points to time limit any attempt at slow play that can give any meaningful advantage is going to be very obvious.

Give it a try before gripping and not just a try where you all ready decide it's going to suck before you do it.


Why? This is like saying you have to try stabbing yourself in the face before you decide it's going to suck. Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.


You literally don't answer anything with your response to that first question. You give no objective measure for which to identify the time to call the TO and the time the TO should dq your opponent. What on earth does "at a proper ratio of points to time limit" mean? What is that ratio, how do you objectively determine it, how on earth do you prove to a TO that your opponent has reached that point without a timer, and that you played no roll in them getting to that point? Your answer is not an answer, it only adds additional layers of questions. This is the entire point of a Chess Clock, despite your repeated vague assertions to the contrary, there is no objective way to determine slow play for a TO unless it is of the most egregious and rare variety. The Chess Clock is the best and most reasonable solution I have seen so far to implement that takes the subjective and makes it objective.

The second part of your post about stabbing yourself in the face is entirely fallacious and thus no rebuttal is required.
   
Made in us
Powerful Ushbati





East Bay, Ca, US

 Peregrine wrote:

Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.


I agree with this.

Good faith games, and players, shouldn't be considered. Chess clocks should be discussed in the context of unfair play.

So for instance, the guy who every time you open your mouth to speak he hits the clock, or the guy who rolls a billion dice to wound and immediately hits the clock, letting you count the dice yourself, or the guy who challenges your rules and hits the clock, or the guy who intentionally moves his models too far so you have to challenge and hits the clock, or the guy who starts bending the rules (he was probably already doing this) to get you to challenge them and hits the clock...

When players play in bad faith the clock is easily abused. When players play in good faith, there is no need for a clock. Equal time is not a concept that makes sense in 40k. There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army. Equal turns is totally reasonable, though.

To compute the probability of a specific outcome on N DK dice, use the generating function F= (x+ x^2 + x^3 + . . . + x^k-1 + x^k)^n

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy.
How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: