Switch Theme:

Change to Tournament times in 40k  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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 us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






SOoo... What happens if the player(s) forget to flip the clock?
   
Made in se
Been Around the Block




Sweden



 BaconCatBug wrote:
Ban TITANICS if you want to have actual fun.


I never thought I'd agree with you, but THIS! So much this! Titanic units is for Apocalypse, not normal 40k.

Nurgle protects
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 oni wrote:
SOoo... What happens if the player(s) forget to flip the clock?


The player who forgot to pass the time to their opponent loses out as a result of their mistake. How is this a problem? Yet again, this is another supposed gotcha to show how chess clocks aren't the answer and it simply doesn't stand up to the evidence of experience. Chess clocks have been used at major tournaments now. They aren't perfect but the feedback overall has been that they are a benefit. All the scare stories about forgetting to pass the time or phones running a chess clock app running out of battery or disputes about when to pass the time to your opponent simply weren't a major problem.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






Slipspace wrote:
The player who forgot to pass the time to their opponent loses out as a result of their mistake.


And if the opponent had passed the time to them when they weren't looking?

All the scare stories about forgetting to pass the time or phones running a chess clock app running out of battery or disputes about when to pass the time to your opponent simply weren't a major problem.


Because most people aren't cheating TFGs. Clocks can work as long as nobody tries to cheat, but those players weren't the ones slow playing anyway.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Peregrine wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
The player who forgot to pass the time to their opponent loses out as a result of their mistake.


And if the opponent had passed the time to them when they weren't looking?

All the scare stories about forgetting to pass the time or phones running a chess clock app running out of battery or disputes about when to pass the time to your opponent simply weren't a major problem.


Because most people aren't cheating TFGs. Clocks can work as long as nobody tries to cheat, but those players weren't the ones slow playing anyway.
You would be shocked to see how much faster games go against people that are not slow playing when you add a clock.

And for the billionth time. Clocks don't eliminate TFG. nothing completely stops TFG, no one is claiming that. It improves the situation and makes it harder to be TFG and easier to catch.
Yes you can try to flip the clock to me when I'm not looking, but by god if I catch you the judge is getting called on you instantly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/15 12:24:49


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ordana wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
The player who forgot to pass the time to their opponent loses out as a result of their mistake.


And if the opponent had passed the time to them when they weren't looking?

All the scare stories about forgetting to pass the time or phones running a chess clock app running out of battery or disputes about when to pass the time to your opponent simply weren't a major problem.


Because most people aren't cheating TFGs. Clocks can work as long as nobody tries to cheat, but those players weren't the ones slow playing anyway.
You would be shocked to see how much faster games go against people that are not slow playing when you add a clock.


Given that the anti-chess clock crowd seem to like to ignore any evidence that shows chess clocks actually work I don't think they'd be shocked. They'd just ignore said evidence.

 Ordana wrote:

And for the billionth time. Clocks don't eliminate TFG. nothing completely stops TFG, no one is claiming that. It improves the situation and makes it harder to be TFG and easier to catch.
Yes you can try to flip the clock to me when I'm not looking, but by god if I catch you the judge is getting called on you instantly.


Precisely. I mean, there's also nothing to stop my opponent pushing my models back 3" when I'm not looking, or from flat-out removing a couple of models from one of my squads while I'm distracted. TFG is TFG. The harder we make it for them to be TFG the better, and chess clcoks came about because slow play was identified as a particularly difficult area of TFG behaviour to deal with (among other reasons).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/15 13:21:28


 
   
Made in ca
Painting Within the Lines




t.dot

Let's just redux this to the max. All games decided by the flip of a coin. Boom. No trouble finishing in under 2 and a half hours now. Let's see someone slow-play that!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pasadena

 Peregrine wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
The player who forgot to pass the time to their opponent loses out as a result of their mistake.


And if the opponent had passed the time to them when they weren't looking?

All the scare stories about forgetting to pass the time or phones running a chess clock app running out of battery or disputes about when to pass the time to your opponent simply weren't a major problem.


Because most people aren't cheating TFGs. Clocks can work as long as nobody tries to cheat, but those players weren't the ones slow playing anyway.


Arguing against using clocks on the basis that someone could cheat with them is asinine. By that logic, I should refuse to use tape measures, dice, terrain built by others, models built by others, or accept rules out of anyone else's rule books because all those things could have potentially been tampered with by my opponent and they might be cheating. Best to not play at all! Have you started attending tournaments by the way?

Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato

 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





well I'm sure glad this isn't trouble that bothers me. No need to use clocks, no troubles getting games in. 3h games <3

“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
3225 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut







 Brothererekose wrote:
When my time is zero, my opponent gets his Turn 5 or 6, with his 10 or 20 or however many minutes left. He will likely get kill one, kill more, and likely, push my units off objectives and score those.

Example:
Let's say Bob runs of time at the top of turn 5. He moves units, starts to roll dice to shoot, but his time runs out. Fran still has 12 minutes on her clock. Bob doesn't get to roll to wound because he's done. He can score any objectives points & secondaries but then Fran gets her time.

Fran takes her turn 5. Move units, psy phase. Shoot enemies. Bob rolls saves only, no FNP, and if Bob is a douche and tries to lolly gag through her turn by dithering over which models to remove, she can call a judge over. The TO could pause the clock (according to ITC rules, players don't pause the clock, only judges can. That's straight from Mr. Raspy voice himself). Fran goes the fight phase. Again, Bob doesn't roll dice to fight back, only saves.

Fran's turn 5 is over and she still has 4 minutes. Bob has no time for turn 6, so it goes right back to Fran, who again, can use her 4 minutes to Move, Psy-cast, Shoot and Fight.

I see no problem in all that and I have been in both situations, having more time than an opponent and running out of time (and won and loss in both circumstances).


Only thing I'd quibble with here is Bob's shooting in T5 - I do think he should get to completely resolve the firing of that unit, if only so the game isn't technically in a weird game state - "We know these rounds hit, sir, but..."

After all, at this stage Bob has at most, what, 3 more rolls to do? 1, Potential re-rolls to hit from current unit. 2, Initial wound rolls for current unit. 3, Potential re-rolls to wound from current unit. Heck, you could even not allow the re-rolls, and then he just has one roll to make before he is done.

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

The issue with chess clocks isn't people cheating, or how people use them, or people forgetting to use them. All those things can be accounted for.

The issue is the very idea that both players should have the same amount of time, and the game imbalance that occurs when you try and force this.

Let's say we're playing a friendly game. You have 20 units and I have 10. We happen to finish in three hours. In that game, it's likely you took twice as long to do your turns as I did. Both of our turns probably involved checking the odd rule, chatting, having a drink, etc. In total, you might have taken 2 of those hours and I only took 1, but this is completely fair. In a game of 40k there is no expectation that each army take the same amount of time to play, just like there is no expectation that each army have the same number of models. If you've got more models to move, you'll take more time.

If we decide, though, that each of us is only allowed 1.5 hours 'to be fair' then the game really changes. You need to play your two-hour army really efficiently. You can't stop to think, can't check rules, and have to be switched on and rushing at all points to make sure you don't overplay your time, all the while remembering about the chess clock. On the other hand, I can take half an hour LONGER than I actually need. I can spend time thinking up new tactics and tricks and go to books and check up on the rules for them. I can pop to the bar. I'm not rushed or stressed. This is a MASSIVE advantage. And, it's an unfair advantage - it has nothing to do with 'fairness' as far as the rules of 40k are concerned.

Of course, you could account for this and divide time by size or complexity of army using some sort of formula, but I doubt any TO really has the time for that!

So, instead, we have a situation where introducing chess clocks will inevitably lead to an unfair advantage for players using smaller armies.

The only way to remove this would be to set the points size at a level where your average tournament attendee (so, casual players), playing the biggest possible army, can still play 6 turns in 1.5 hours without feeling any more rushed or stressed than someone with a small army.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/03/21 12:54:48


   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

I was very happy to see a horde army use movement trays. I found that dramatically helps with movement until we get into dense terrain. Pretty handy for setup as well.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 ArbitorIan wrote:
The issue with chess clocks isn't people cheating, or how people use them, or people forgetting to use them. All those things can be accounted for.

The issue is the very idea that both players should have the same amount of time, and the game imbalance that occurs when you try and force this.

Let's say we're playing a friendly game. You have 20 units and I have 10. We happen to finish in three hours. In that game, it's likely you took twice as long to do your turns as I did. Both of our turns probably involved checking the odd rule, chatting, having a drink, etc. In total, you might have taken 2 of those hours and I only took 1, but this is completely fair. In a game of 40k there is no expectation that each army take the same amount of time to play, just like there is no expectation that each army have the same number of models. If you've got more models to move, you'll take more time.

If we decide, though, that each of us is only allowed 1.5 hours 'to be fair' then the game really changes. You need to play your two-hour army really efficiently. You can't stop to think, can't check rules, and have to be switched on and rushing at all points to make sure you don't overplay your time, all the while remembering about the chess clock. On the other hand, I can take half an hour LONGER than I actually need. I can spend time thinking up new tactics and tricks and go to books and check up on the rules for them. I can pop to the bar. I'm not rushed or stressed. This is a MASSIVE advantage. And, it's an unfair advantage - it has nothing to do with 'fairness' as far as the rules of 40k are concerned.

Of course, you could account for this and divide time by size or complexity of army using some sort of formula, but I doubt any TO really has the time for that!

So, instead, we have a situation where introducing chess clocks will inevitably lead to an unfair advantage for players using smaller armies.

The only way to remove this would be to set the points size at a level where your average tournament attendee (so, casual players), playing the biggest possible army, can still play 6 turns in 1.5 hours without feeling any more rushed or stressed than someone with a small army.



That argument only holds up if tournaments fail to allocate a reasonable amount of time per round in the first place. If we assume round times are long enough to reasonably expect all but the most extreme armies to finish their games chess clocks become a check against slow play rather than a punishment for taking a slow army. Regardless, we know that slow play has been a problem in tournaments in the past. If it's determined it's enough of an issue steps need to be taken to stamp it out. No solution is perfect, but given that we know even the largest horde armies were able to complete games using a clock at the LVO we know it's not inherently unfair to those armies, particularly when balanced against the need to make sure other players aren't unfairly impacted by their opponent's choice of army.

40k was never designed as a tournament game. It remains singlarly unsuited to it, IMO. However, if you're going to make it into a tournament game some modifications may be required. Arguing the core rules don't include a time limit ignores this rather obvious fact.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer



London

I was at the UKGT this weekend and played 6 games at 1750pts. Ran out of time three of them I think, and in two cases we stopped because one player conceded - not because we actually finished. In one game we used a chess clock but the round ran out anyway, with the two of us having spent roughly the same amount of time (there was maybe 3-4 minutes difference).

The worst was a game in which we only got two turns, and that wasn't because of slow play. It was because we both had a lot of models, moving and firing a lot. The game just takes a long time sometimes.

Personally I see no downside to smaller games. In fact I think there's a case to be made that they'd be better games, with fewer points to spend on the big expensive stuff that many people seem not to like. It might therefore reduce the benefit of going first - but it might also make it harder to fit in enough stuff to make a TAC list. That could turn the game more "rock-paper-scissors".

The thing I really hate about not having enough time is that you feel so rushed. I had one opponent who'd call out how much time was left literally any time I stopped to think about what to do. Then the chances are you make mistakes.

I'd probably try for 1500 point games and see if that helped.
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

Slipspace wrote:
That argument only holds up if tournaments fail to allocate a reasonable amount of time per round in the first place. If we assume round times are long enough to reasonably expect all but the most extreme armies to finish their games chess clocks become a check against slow play rather than a punishment for taking a slow army. Regardless, we know that slow play has been a problem in tournaments in the past. If it's determined it's enough of an issue steps need to be taken to stamp it out. No solution is perfect, but given that we know even the largest horde armies were able to complete games using a clock at the LVO we know it's not inherently unfair to those armies, particularly when balanced against the need to make sure other players aren't unfairly impacted by their opponent's choice of army.

40k was never designed as a tournament game. It remains singlarly unsuited to it, IMO. However, if you're going to make it into a tournament game some modifications may be required. Arguing the core rules don't include a time limit ignores this rather obvious fact.


Agreed, the argument only holds up if there’s not enough time. But there, generally, isn't enough time at the moment.

So, what is a reasonable amount of time? As you say, some players were able to complete their games with a horde army in 1.5 hours. But weren’t chess clocks only used on the top tables? There are always going to be the sort of ultra-competitive types who have read up on every possible enemy and already have their plans set, but most players aren’t like that. The vast majority of tournament attendees are casual players coming for a fun weekend away.

Practically, the only way a chess clock / equal time scenario works is if the ONLY way someone could ever go over their allotted 1.5 hours is if they are deliberately slow-playing. Then it's a good deterrent to slow-play without messing up normal players. So, can a casual, mid-table player play six turns of a 2000pt horde army without being rushed, with enough time to check anything they need to and have fun, in 1.5hrs? I don’t think so, even if the odd top-table player can do it. They'll either have to play in a rush or be accused of slow-playing.

I think, if you stick to everyone having 1.5 hours max, you need to limit games to 1250pts or less.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/22 12:41:26


   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Halandri

Slipspace wrote:
this is another supposed gotcha to show how chess clocks aren't the answer and it simply doesn't stand up to the evidence of experience. Chess clocks have been used at major tournaments now. They aren't perfect but the feedback overall has been that they are a benefit.
I'm not against chess clocks, but I am concerned about how you came to the conclusion that overall feedback suggests chess clocks are of benefit.

Consider that chess clocks only need to be used if at least one of the two players in the game invoke their use. Sometimes the second player will be against the clock, other times they will be neutral, and sometimes they'll be for it.

This means in games where there is a chess clock used, there will be a minimum of 50% approval rating (1 of the 2 players asked for a clock), and one would suspect it would be in practice even higher than that (the second player also has a chance of being pro clock).

This process creates a strong selectional bias in creating positive feedback on the clock.

note I'm not saying the clocks don't have a positive influence, just it is important to consider how the data has been collected to know if it is reflective of all the participants opinions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/22 09:59:46


 
   
Made in us
Proven Tomahawk Destroid Pilot





Livermore, Ca

Well I think chess clocks suck. When I used to play those 750pt warmachine tournaments. it was too many models, too much thinking, too much not know what the heck was going to happen because you were rushing, and... wasn't fun. Warmachine has its own issues, and in MKIII it just wasn't fun with or without a chess clock.

40k... we've got too much random dice rolling. I used to finish a 1500pt game under 1.5hrs, 1850 under 2hrs, and those 2500 hard boyz games, I didn't need 2.5hrs. My biggest issues were getting my models deployed or removing the dead ones back into their trays.

I came back to 40k after a hiatus where I skipped 6th and 7th.
Here's what I see
1. Too many silly random dice rolls. I'd far rather shoot 3 shots than d6, I'd rather do 2 damage than d3.
2. Too many variations of guns. Tau have no less than 4 vastly different ion weapons, and maybe 4 rail-rifle variants. Lets simplify that.
3. Choose 5 strategems from your deck. (Seriously I freak out trying to figure what I should be using every minute, and honestly 9 times out of 10 its a command reroll anyways).

That alone will cut out 30minutes from a game. There's just too unimportant stuff going on in the game, distracting from tactical play. Granted looking at the game, terrain is far less important than it used to be, but with all these armor modifications... phew... mathmatically challenged people must be hating it.

My first couple of games took over 4hrs. (CSM vs Deathguard) I switched to Tau, and fielding twice as many models, the games took drastically less time (but dealing out 4 times the carnage), biggest change, I didn't really bother building my list around strategems, or trying to use some trick with an army trait, or any real combo other than markerlights, which I've been using for rerolls and not worrying about trying to get 5... basically cut out all the noise. And by doing that I can get a 2k game down to 3hrs... but less than that? Not likely, and versus perhaps a slower playing list... my hats off to anyone that finish a game in 3hrs.

Since rules and codex changes to speed play aren't likely, I think the best solutions are smaller games and fewer detachments.

My avatar: Tournaments - "Yeah, its kinda like that"
 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





philadelphia

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
Well I think chess clocks suck. When I used to play those 750pt warmachine tournaments. it was too many models, too much thinking, too much not know what the heck was going to happen because you were rushing, and... wasn't fun. Warmachine has its own issues, and in MKIII it just wasn't fun with or without a chess clock.


I thought that was the whole purpose of clocks in warmachine. To keep everyone from wasting time premeasuring and planning the perfect turn, or punishing you for building the mona lisa of deployments. I don't see why the same exact chess clock rules for wm wouldn't work for 40k. You would only be able to burn your own time and it would stress coming prepared.

Start flipping clock on these guys for every die roll, decision, or question they ask and I bet the games get finished real quick.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

 Dysartes wrote:
Only thing I'd quibble with here is Bob's shooting in T5 - I do think he should get to completely resolve the firing of that unit, if only so the game isn't technically in a weird game state - "We know these rounds hit, sir, but..."

After all, at this stage Bob has at most, what, 3 more rolls to do? 1, Potential re-rolls to hit from current unit. 2, Initial wound rolls for current unit. 3, Potential re-rolls to wound from current unit. Heck, you could even not allow the re-rolls, and then he just has one roll to make before he is done.
But the time-up mechanism is there for a good reason. While I agree that the fluff is messed up (read the last Bob and Fred Quitting DPs episode below, for my criticism on goofy game mechanics in 40k), in a tourney, it could mean a points difference, shifting a win/loss.

A last game at a GT, my opponent's time ran out as he was rolling a charge distance. With no time left, he wasn't allowed to move the necron destroyers, which would gain him the point for Line Breaker. Without the charge, he doesn't get the point because his models were not in the zone for Line Breaker.

00:00 is a hard, uncrossable line and when you agree to use a chess clock, you don't cross it, otherwise, what is the point of using it?

"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in us
Proven Tomahawk Destroid Pilot





Livermore, Ca

 Irkjoe wrote:
 Sazzlefrats wrote:
Well I think chess clocks suck. When I used to play those 750pt warmachine tournaments. it was too many models, too much thinking, too much not know what the heck was going to happen because you were rushing, and... wasn't fun. Warmachine has its own issues, and in MKIII it just wasn't fun with or without a chess clock.


I thought that was the whole purpose of clocks in warmachine. To keep everyone from wasting time premeasuring and planning the perfect turn, or punishing you for building the mona lisa of deployments. I don't see why the same exact chess clock rules for wm wouldn't work for 40k. You would only be able to burn your own time and it would stress coming prepared.

Start flipping clock on these guys for every die roll, decision, or question they ask and I bet the games get finished real quick.



Get rid of the problem, don't add complexity to try to solve for it. Premeasuring needs to go, all it ever did for me is slow me down, trying to eek out every last millimeter, which wasn't fun for me, and I'm sure didn't do much for my opponents.

2000pt games are fine if the rules support fast play. (8th edition rules do not support fast play) So maybe tournaments need to create the mechanics for faster play.

1. Variable number of shots or variable amount of damage rolls, can be reduced to , d3 is a 2, d6 is a 3, but with a command point its a 4.
2. No premeasuring
3. Talk to battlescribe or another 3rd party to create army lists that don't take up a ream of paper to print out. A tournament list should be printable on one sheet, maybe two sheets of paper tops.
4. The anti-horde rule, each played battle round adds to your final score, you play 5+ rounds you and your opponent get 5 points. (wipe outs would be +5 as well). Or flat out.. 2000pts x 7.5% = 150, thats your max models on the board. There are ways to better refine this (obviously).

What do you think? The other solution is smaller games



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/26 17:42:57


My avatar: Tournaments - "Yeah, its kinda like that"
 
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Removing premeasuring doesn't really remove premeasuring. With terrain piece sizes known, often modular board sizes known, YOUR HANDS SIZE is known and simple algebra you can "estimate" within half an inch if you know how. No premeasuring is just tool to screw new players over and _slow things down_.

You ban premeasure? They "guess" taking even more time.

You have games going too long lower point values. It's ridiculous that despite 8th ed slowing down game time army sizes have gone UP. But that's thanks to GW's marketing ploy of first upping points, people compensate by upping tournament value and then GW in codexes drop points and hey presto people buy more models. GG GW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/27 07:07:32


“Nothing has a definite nature, so people cannot be purely evil. Even so-called evil people will aspire to follow a moral path when they feel a sense of community.” – Kukai

11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
3225 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights
 
   
Made in gb
Dominating Dominatrix






tneva82 wrote:
Removing premeasuring doesn't really remove premeasuring. With terrain piece sizes known, often modular board sizes known, YOUR HANDS SIZE is known and simple algebra you can "estimate" within half an inch if you know how. No premeasuring is just tool to screw new players over and _slow things down_.

You ban premeasure? They "guess" taking even more time.

You have games going too long lower point values. It's ridiculous that despite 8th ed slowing down game time army sizes have gone UP. But that's thanks to GW's marketing ploy of first upping points, people compensate by upping tournament value and then GW in codexes drop points and hey presto people buy more models. GG GW.
True Story: Back in 3rd edition one of my friends used his 6th form Maths Wizardry to always "accidentally" guess a range for his Whirlwinds that caused the shots to land onto locked in combat units.

Another True Story: After reading about it online, our group were always using the trick of "I move my Land Raider 12" this way, actually I changed my mind" which was permitted by the rules.

"No Premeasuring" does literally less than nothing, it actually just makes everyone learn basic geometry and slows down games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/27 17:10:48


+++++There are currently NINETY FOUR (94) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++ (Discord: BaconCatBug#0294)
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Because some people get their knickers in a twist, I'll list these RaW 'oddities' in my sig. Sadly GW's promise of fixing their broken rules has itself been broken. Zoom in to read them.
RaW you cannot advance and then fire assault weapons, you can't shoot pistols if within 1" of an enemy; "minimum" ranges don't work; the game simply breaks if you ever have more than one wounded model in a unit; the game also breaks if a single rule ever tries to do multiple things simultaneously; Librarians on Bikes are locked to the Index power list, Howling Banshees can't declare a charge further than 12"; Spore Mines have an infinite range; Shroudpsalm technically doesn't do anything, only enemy models, not friendly models, have permission to move on top of a Skyshield Landing Pad; T'au have access to stackable Ignore Wounds (albeit against Mortal Wounds only); the T'au Early Warning Override Support System only works if a unit is "teleporting to the battlefield", not just arriving mid-battle; you can only ever use the Deathwatch Teleportarium Stratagem "once", and then never again in any battle after you use it; if a model splits fire, each weapon must target a different unit; a Tyrant Guard with Lashwhip can absorb an infinite amount of damage via Shieldwall between the time they die and the time they fight; Codex Leman Russ's can take an infinite amount of Hunter-Killer Missiles, Storm Bolters and Heavy Stubbers; Imothekh's 'Lord of the Storm' ability hits the "target unit" twice; Wave Serpents cannot be legally charged at by any model with a standard base; Slab Shields, along with the 'Take Cover!' stratagem no longer have any effect; and vehicles that are "slain" by a special effect do not trigger the "Explodes" ability; Taking any Forge World Space Marine Named Characters denies the use of a Chapter Tactic; Vectored Manoeuvring Thrusters may be used to move within 1" of an enemy unit during the Movement Phase and does not benefit from FLY; and Scout Sentinels may use "Go! Recon!" to move within 1" of an enemy unit during the shooting phase.
--- Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities --- Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. --- Userscript to add a button to open all "[First Unread]" links on the page, hides the "[Blog View]" links, and adds a "Subscribed Threads" link to forum pages. 
   
Made in us
Proven Tomahawk Destroid Pilot





Livermore, Ca

tneva82 wrote:
Removing premeasuring doesn't really remove premeasuring. With terrain piece sizes known, often modular board sizes known, YOUR HANDS SIZE is known and simple algebra you can "estimate" within half an inch if you know how. No premeasuring is just tool to screw new players over and _slow things down_.

You ban premeasure? They "guess" taking even more time.


Hasn't been my experience. YMMV. Timeclocks are just a tool to screw over players who can't handle playing well while being pressured to play fast thus making them make mistakes.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/27 17:39:16


My avatar: Tournaments - "Yeah, its kinda like that"
 
   
Made in us
Lurking Gaunt





philadelphia

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Removing premeasuring doesn't really remove premeasuring. With terrain piece sizes known, often modular board sizes known, YOUR HANDS SIZE is known and simple algebra you can "estimate" within half an inch if you know how. No premeasuring is just tool to screw new players over and _slow things down_.

You ban premeasure? They "guess" taking even more time.


Hasn't been my experience. YMMV. Timeclocks are just a tool to screw over players who can't handle playing well while being pressured to play fast thus making them make mistakes.




Agreed, and the pressure makes everything more meaningful. I don't mind premeasuring under clock because you can only waste your own time.

And as for horde lists, if you can't play your 100+ bodies in your alloted time then you clock out.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




South New Jersey

Kind of jumping in here, but isn't the assumption that if you're playing in a tournament, you should already be able to play well while also playing under a time limit? The timeclock just codifies that into two equal halves.

I used to enjoy playing casual Guild Ball games using chess clocks. It helped keep people from getting into analysis parlysis and set a definite end to the game, but still allowed people who timed out to potentially win.

   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

 infinite_array wrote:
Kind of jumping in here, but isn't the assumption that if you're playing in a tournament, you should already be able to play well while also playing under a time limit? The timeclock just codifies that into two equal halves.

I used to enjoy playing casual Guild Ball games using chess clocks. It helped keep people from getting into analysis parlysis and set a definite end to the game, but still allowed people who timed out to potentially win.


It might be in a small invitational full of ‘competitive’ players.

But the vast majority of 40k tournaments aren’t like that in reality. They’re social events first, and Serious Competition second. Most attendees of big 40k tournaments are casual players who are there for a fun weekend away, and have no intention of winnng the event, but rather just having some fun games against new people and seeing what happens. And, if those are the majority of ‘tournament’ attendees, that’s who we should be building the event around.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/03/28 10:03:16


   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight




 ArbitorIan wrote:
 infinite_array wrote:
Kind of jumping in here, but isn't the assumption that if you're playing in a tournament, you should already be able to play well while also playing under a time limit? The timeclock just codifies that into two equal halves.

I used to enjoy playing casual Guild Ball games using chess clocks. It helped keep people from getting into analysis parlysis and set a definite end to the game, but still allowed people who timed out to potentially win.


It might be in a small invitational full of ‘competitive’ players.

But the vast majority of 40k tournaments aren’t like that in reality. They’re social events first, and Serious Competition second. Most attendees of big 40k tournaments are casual players who are there for a fun weekend away, and have no intention of winnng the event, but rather just having some fun games against new people and seeing what happens. And, if those are the majority of ‘tournament’ attendees, that’s who we should be building the event around.


*Citation needed. Only ITC is likely to really know this with their player surveys and they're mum on it as far as I know.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
You're 100% correct. Tournament players/TOs don't want to admit it, but if a significant percentage of games are hitting the time limit then either the time limit is too short or the point limit is too high. But for some reason a lot of tournament players both hate the idea of playing at anything less than 2000 points and are not willing to add an extra day to events to give more time per round. So we're stuck with chess clocks as the (completely broken and poorly designed) attempt at a solution while the correct answers are ignored.


I mostly play one day tournaments. I try to go to one two day tournament per year. I am never ever going to a three day tournament, jeez I could have a city break or a short skiing holiday in that time!

Also I am not going to be very keen on standing on my feet for 9 hours of a day just so someone can play slowly. Sorry, not impressed and that does not sound like a lot of fun. Realistically I know that if a game is going on for 3 hours then my opponent is using 70+% of the time so really I am stood around doing next to nothing for two hours of that. I do not like the idea of chess clocks in this game but if the alternative is me just standing around watching someone agonising over every flippin' decision for 2 hours per game then I'd rather have the clocks thanks.
   
Made in ca
Perfect Shot Dark Angels Predator Pilot



Canada

 ArbitorIan wrote:
The issue with chess clocks isn't people cheating, or how people use them, or people forgetting to use them. All those things can be accounted for.

The issue is the very idea that both players should have the same amount of time, and the game imbalance that occurs when you try and force this.

Let's say we're playing a friendly game. You have 20 units and I have 10. We happen to finish in three hours. In that game, it's likely you took twice as long to do your turns as I did. Both of our turns probably involved checking the odd rule, chatting, having a drink, etc. In total, you might have taken 2 of those hours and I only took 1, but this is completely fair. In a game of 40k there is no expectation that each army take the same amount of time to play, just like there is no expectation that each army have the same number of models. If you've got more models to move, you'll take more time.

If we decide, though, that each of us is only allowed 1.5 hours 'to be fair' then the game really changes. You need to play your two-hour army really efficiently. You can't stop to think, can't check rules, and have to be switched on and rushing at all points to make sure you don't overplay your time, all the while remembering about the chess clock. On the other hand, I can take half an hour LONGER than I actually need. I can spend time thinking up new tactics and tricks and go to books and check up on the rules for them. I can pop to the bar. I'm not rushed or stressed. This is a MASSIVE advantage. And, it's an unfair advantage - it has nothing to do with 'fairness' as far as the rules of 40k are concerned.

Of course, you could account for this and divide time by size or complexity of army using some sort of formula, but I doubt any TO really has the time for that!

So, instead, we have a situation where introducing chess clocks will inevitably lead to an unfair advantage for players using smaller armies.

The only way to remove this would be to set the points size at a level where your average tournament attendee (so, casual players), playing the biggest possible army, can still play 6 turns in 1.5 hours without feeling any more rushed or stressed than someone with a small army.



If time is a finite resource in a game, how is it possible to argue that it is fair to for one player to take more time than the other? If you chose to bring 100 models and I choose to bring 50 models, why are you entitled to twice as much time as me? So I get to stand and watch for twice as long as you - just because you chose to bring more models?

The published game has points. We establish the points limit and play to that - the points are equal. The published game does not have time. Tournaments impose that. If you chose to attend a tournament then you have to understand that time is a constraint. You build your list accordingly. Its completely fair to use chess clocks in a tournament format, regardless how "competitive" you think the people are. Without chess clocks a player could bring a horde planning to own the clock and keep the game from going to its full conclusion. Knowing that there are chess clocks, if you bring a horde you know that you have to be able to be fast with it and you cannot take twice the time of your opponent.

Now, I am fine with going to a tournament with less than 2000 points. I think that 1500 is a decent time limit for a two hour game. Even then, however, a chess clock is still the best defence against slow play.


All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: