ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)

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.

**phydaux**

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.

**Sunny Side Up**

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...

**LunarSol**

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.

**Ordana**

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.

**Primark G**

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

**Sunny Side Up**

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.

**Ordana**

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.

**Xenomancers**

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.

**Sunny Side Up**

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.

**Galas**

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.

**Ordana**

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.

**meleti**

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.

**LunarSol**

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.

**Ordana**

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.

**Sunny Side Up**

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.

**Earth127**

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?

**Sunny Side Up**

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.

**meleti**

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.

**Ordana**

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.

**Sunny Side Up**

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.

**Ordana**

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.

**LunarSol**

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.

**meleti**

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.

**Sunny Side Up**

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).

**Ordana**

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)

**meleti**

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.

**Reemule**

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?

**Xenomancers**

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.

**Sunny Side Up**

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.

**Ordana**

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.