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.

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

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

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

Marmatag has a point though.

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

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

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag has a point though.

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

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

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

So your both wrong?

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

Sounds ideal, sound plan, 10/10 implementation.

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

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

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

 Crimson wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

absolutely absurd.

I feel like the "chess clocks will fix TFG behavior" argument is incompatible with the "well if they don't work it is because you are a TFG" fact.

Right now, all I can assume is that chess clocks aren't going to fix TFG behavior, they will just move it around a bit, which means the top levels of tournament play will still be weighed down with TFG behavior that the TO's still won't punish.

Therefore, the chess clocks only add an burden to the middle and lower tanks of tournament play, in the effort to get games to finish more on-time, and that is good because of reasons that are unclear.

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

Part of the problem is 8th edition has a ton of re-rolls. Re-rolls are "streamlined" in the sense that they are easy to grasp and understand (I'm within 6" of Model X, so I pick up every '1' on a d6 and re-roll it isn't very difficult) but it is incredibly time consuming. Think about it this way:

1) My Daemonettes in a unit of 20 have 61 attacks in CC. If I am near a Daemon Prince, I re-roll 1s, and if the Masque is near my target, I get +1 to hit. Quick maffs (which still takes X amount of a fraction of a second) tells me that I roll 61 dice, 2+s hit, re-rolling ones.

2) So I count 61 dice, perhaps counting by fives plus one (so 12 groups of 5 plus 1). Setting aside the need for potentially being unable to hold that many dice in a single batch, I roll all 61 dice, scoring about 10 1s. I have to carefully scan 61 dice, whip out the 1s, making sure I get every last one out of 61 potential 1s, then roll those 10 again.

3) Now that I have scored my ~59 hits, I can move on to Wound. But I am near a Herald, so I am +1 strength, adding another bit of maffs for 1/10th of a nanosecond (still time). So I'm looking for 4s, against a tactical squad.

4) I roll 59 dice, and I have to scour all 59 to sort the hits from the wounds. Then, because I am Daemonettes, I have to scan the remaining ~30 wounds to see how many of them are 6's, because those have AP -4 instead of AP -1. You can overlap this step a bit, but it's important to make sure that both you and your opponent understand what is going on.

Each step of that process doesn't take terribly long, but that does mean I have to scan the dice several times, pick them up and roll them, in some cases, 3 times. Each step of the way, I have to wait for and resolve any input from my opponent (because rolling that many dice I recognize my opponent's need to identify them is also paramount, as well as giving him the opportunity to play any stratagems that may reduce my Attacks or force me to re-roll to wound or something), and the whole time I am doing a bit of mental gymnastics in my head (alright, I have +1 to hit, but only +1 Strength rather than +1 to wound, which is different, and I get to re-roll 1s to hit, which in this case is every roll to hit, but I don't get to re-roll to wound at all...).

All of this takes time, and is why I think it's impossible to play horde armies fast. You can skip certain steps (the longest steps, I find, are all the ones that involve the opponent), but that's TFG behavior. Declaring that there are 20 Daemonettes in range to swing, and then your opponent saying "are you sure" can drag another 25-30 seconds off the clock where you meticulously check the position of every single daemonette with a tape-measure. Sure it can be on his clock, but the point is that it takes time from someone to check all 20 Daemonettes. Then? You have to wait for your opponent to look at 61 dice as well, and you have to count them yourself. It's... not really a my skill thing so much as my opponent's skill, and that's why I dislike chess clocks. Because either I have to remember to switch it every time he says "are you sure all 20 daemonettes are within an inch or within an inch of a model that is within an inch?" and I have to bend over the table, possibly walking all the way around the entire length to his side of the board, to check every single model with a tape measure. Do that 3 times for all my squads of 20, and that's 1.5 minutes, already about a tenth of the entire length I am allowed to play for the turn, and I've not even rolled my 183 dice yet. God forbid he challenges me on a measurement of what an "inch" is, because then that could add a whole 'nother 30 seconds of discussion, jostling with tape measures, and possibly knocking models about. The only options are for 1) me to let him browbeat me with time, and my "inch" is gradually shrunk to half an inch or so because I don't have time to teach him how long an inch is, 2) me to swap the clock to his time, inadvertently browbeating him with the same thing (I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong), or 3) just declare, roll, pick up, etc. without giving him time to interrupt. But that's uncouth, at best.

Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked

The point is that it didn't work anyways.

If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked

The point is that it didn't work anyways.

If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.

It didn't work because of the term "slow play" currently being ambiguous. You have people in this thread arguing that more models= more time but they will never answer how much more? whats the ratio? how does it change each turn? ect..... Currently, a judge has to make a gut call on slow play. Is it slow play if he's constantly doing something? He's always moving models just not particularly fast, is that slow play? Do I tell him he cant take time to think of his next move? What if this turns long but his others are quicker?

A chess clock gives the TO firm footing. You have exactly x amount of time to get your turns in and then the game ends for you. The only way to slow play is to stop the clock for some reason and the reasons allowed are x,y,z. It will be very apparent that he keeps stopping the clock and if this happens more then 1-2 times that our rules have built in time for we are going to DQ the person.

I mean here you are pointing out a GT that recognized that slow playing is taking place so they are instituting chess clocks to try to deal with it and your saying "its theoretically possible that chess clocks won't stop slow play 100% of the time if we have a bad judge..... so lets keep the old system where the judges were handy capped and there really wasn't anything you could do about slow play until it was too late"

Actually, what I'm arguing for is to actually have the judges enforce the rules. Slow play may be nebulous, but if literally everyone except you and the person doing it agree that it's slow play, then adding a clock to the "everyone" isn't going to make you enforce the rules any better.

Clocks are fine, generally, but will not be useful if a judge doesn't actually care.