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.

Yes, of course you can get a good judge to resolve the situation. My point is that you're resolving it based on the judge's personal opinion about what is "too much" and becomes slow play, ignoring and/or going beyond the rules of the clock system. The clock rules aren't adding anything to the situation because following the clock rules is not sufficient to prevent slow play in the absence of a judge who is willing to consider the clock rules a rough guideline at most.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, of course you can get a good judge to resolve the situation. My point is that you're resolving it based on the judge's personal opinion about what is "too much" and becomes slow play, ignoring and/or going beyond the rules of the clock system. The clock rules aren't adding anything to the situation because following the clock rules is not sufficient to prevent slow play in the absence of a judge who is willing to consider the clock rules a rough guideline at most.

Again, trying to be TFG and slowplaying the clock tends to be obvious "Judge, this is the 5th time my opponent has claimed he can shoot through a wall so that I have to argue against it on my time".
Compared to slow playing without a clock where a judge needs to stand at the table for the remainder of the game to prevent it.

What is 'to much' has always been a judgement call. No rulepack I have ever seen says "you can only ask your opponent to clarify a rule X amount of times" or whatever.

And again, its not all just about TFG. He will always be TFG. Normal players will, when confronted with a personal time remaining, play faster then they would otherwise. Which ensure that more games reach their natural conclusion.

 Ordana wrote:
Again, trying to be TFG and slowplaying the clock tends to be obvious "Judge, this is the 5th time my opponent has claimed he can shoot through a wall so that I have to argue against it on my time".

On the other hand, shooting through a solid wall is also the most extreme example. There are plenty of examples where LOS doesn't exist, but it's not so obviously nonexistent that you can conclusively say that it is cheating. TFG is certainly going to constantly create situations where you either give them the benefit of the doubt on everything short of two models on opposite sides of a solid wall or burn clock time trying to dispute their claims.

Normal players will, when confronted with a personal time remaining, play faster then they would otherwise. Which ensure that more games reach their natural conclusion.

Reducing the point level or increasing the round times accomplishes the same goal, in a much simpler way.

If you are at that lvl of TFG ,no matter the rules are nothing short of a judge being permanently at your table will stop you.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 ServiceGames wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
I bet this boosts the sales of movement trays for 40K.

But, then you'd have piling in measurement issues. The time it takes to pull the models from the tray to pile in and then put them back in the tray if they won the fight. I would really enjoy running my Tyranids with movement trays, but with the pile in penalties you might end up facing, that could cause more problems than it fixes.

SG

I run mine in trays all the time and have no issues, they come out of the trays once I hit combat and start piling in and never go back in until I'm packing up for the round. They're honestly a fantastic tool to speed up a horde army's gameplay.

Problem being issue with hordes is less of moving models(that's quick) but rather rolling the hundreds of dices with rerolls on almost all you need to get through even one phase at times.

Best solution is still tone down point sizes rather than follow GW's marketing ploy blindly. On a bonus you would make hobby cheaper when constant complain you have is how GW games are too expensive. Well duh while GW has part of blame on that so is players themselves bearing some blame.

Ease up time issues, make armies cheaper. Win for two. And you can even stick it to GW for screwing up their marketing ploy at the same time.

Not sure the thread has changed anyone's opinions, but it has shown a few TFG right here on the boards.

Reemule wrote:
Not sure the thread has changed anyone's opinions, but it has shown a few TFG right here on the boards.

Only if you don't care to pay attention to the difference between "this is what I expect TFGs to do to exploit the system" and "I am a TFG, this is what I will do to exploit the system".

No, lets not try to hide behind the OJ simpsom defence of if I did it.

Way to much has been presented in a first person to really try to hide like that after the fact.

And if thats not really you, well then dont talk like it is.

 Peregrine wrote:
Reducing the point level or increasing the round times accomplishes the same goal, in a much simpler way.

Neither of which will happen because...

A) Tournaments are already very long as is. 3 rounds with food break, time to record results and arrange matches, plus any unexpected interferences is already easily 8+ hours not to mention that the people running the tournament are there several hours before and after the tournament setting up and breaking the down the tables and equipment to play the tournament. There is only so much time in the day and tournaments are already pushing it

B) The majority of players don’t want to reduce point size. ITC has done polls in the past about reducing the standard point size to deal with the time issue and most players wanted to keep the point size as is in spite of issues with games not finishing. People would rather play with more of their toys then not.

 CrownAxe wrote:
B) The majority of players don’t want to reduce point size. ITC has done polls in the past about reducing the standard point size to deal with the time issue and most players wanted to keep the point size as is in spite of issues with games not finishing. People would rather play with more of their toys then not.

And this is why the problem will never be fixed. People demand a point level where the games can't finish, and then complain when the games don't finish. So, rather than stop punching themselves in the face and wondering why they're in pain they come up with a whole new chess clock system to argue over.

 Peregrine wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
B) The majority of players don’t want to reduce point size. ITC has done polls in the past about reducing the standard point size to deal with the time issue and most players wanted to keep the point size as is in spite of issues with games not finishing. People would rather play with more of their toys then not.

And this is why the problem will never be fixed. People demand a point level where the games can't finish, and then complain when the games don't finish. So, rather than stop punching themselves in the face and wondering why they're in pain they come up with a whole new chess clock system to argue over.

Except the game can finish at 1850pts the chess clocks just ensure a fair and even distribution of time. Normally people don't even really slow play on purpose they just don't realize how much time they are actually taking. With the chess clock it is now the onus place in your hand to pay attention to your time management.