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.

I would much rather see 'timed' turns documented before implementing chess clocks. I would love to see the data behind which armies and builds use how much time on which turns because I bet we would quickly find out it is not at all equal time as people believe. If we saw that Iguard, Taur and Orks consistently used more than half the time, what would we do then if we find out that specific armies which rely on specific rules and mechanics are designed to use more than half the time (or have the bulk of the action happen on their turn)?

Implementing it and forcing people to 'get in line or forfeit' without even any data of how the game mechanics works in regards to time is unreasonable.

I would love to see a tourney, even if just for one round, put a stopwatch on every table, and ask players to record when top and bottom of each turn occurred for that game. A simple data-gathering mechanic. And then be able to take that data and see if any patterns are exposed. I bet we will see equal time is not as fair as some people expect it to be.

Breng77 wrote:
I see people keep saying that using Chess Clocks helps you get more games in. I don't see how this is the case. So I have rounds scheduled for say 3 hours. So each chess clock gets 1.5 hours. I still have the rounds taking 3 hours, the only difference now is that someone will forfiet the game if their time runs out.

Essentially all you have done is institue a sense of pressure and consequence, you have not sped up the overall time table.

I think clocks could be gamed in some instances. Really overall round times have the same effect, as long as there is a penatly for going over.

That's a fair point (about not letting you get more games in). As someone else noted, though, people do tend to play faster when "on the clock" so then you might not need 3 hour rounds.

In warmahordes, more games are gotten in because the time limits are so tight and the clock is a factor in play (people fairly often "get clocked" and lose on time). So, there doesn't need to be a huge buffer between rounds to account for games that run over, etc.

But if you've got your rounds timed with a generous amount like 3 hours, then agreed, it wouldn't necessarily let people get more games in.

Yes perhaps people would play faster, but how much, would they finish. 2.5 hours instead of 3? (well if I set the clock to that they will) but they will finish that fast if I run 2.5 hour rounds as well. So I've saved 1.5 hours...and that is not enough time for another round unless I had some extra time any way.


Are we saying playing fast and sloppy is the best idea? Sure, you don' t need time between rounds for people going over then, because some one will lose before that happens.

So sure you could say, we are playing 1500 points, 1.5 hour rounds, you each get 45 min, if you run out you lose. And we will play 6 rounds in 1 day, instead of 3, but you'll all be stressed, and more often than not players will lose due to the clock than to being outplayed.

I guess it comes down to do you want people losing on time regularly, or do you want to provide the right amount of time for them to comortably finish games.

Breng77 wrote:
I guess it comes down to do you want people losing on time regularly, or do you want to provide the right amount of time for them to comortably finish games.

As a Warmahordes player I can say that most games end in a normal way as opposed to people running out of time. I have seen some very cliff hanging games literally come down to each player having less than one minute left and even one where a player made a final die roll to kill his opponent just as his clock ran out.
Part of the misunderstanding as to how the clock can be used is that Warmahordes has 2 different timing methods. There is a turn clock where you only get so many minutes per turn and there are a limited amount of turns per game. In this situation all that happens is that when your turn time ends your turn ends. The other method is called "Death Clock". In this usage each player is assigned half of the total time of the game. The time is used at their discretion as to how much is used during any given turn. In this instance when you run out of time you have lost the game.
In either case I will admit that the clock hurts people who don't play much and as such don't know how to use their models efficiently and/or the player who just doesn't know the rules all that well. Each of those things can be taken care of by the player himself gettng more practice and more knowledge of how to play the game.
As to what to do if you need a TO to resolve a dispute that's what the "pause" button is for. Neither player is punished for a rule dispute (timewise).

To be fair however, there is also a significant difference in the design paradigm and play mindset of a Warmahordes game vs a 40k game, along with significantly fewer models present. Warmahordes is specifically designed for "tournament style" play, 40k is very much not.

nkelsch wrote:
When 2 Ork players clash, there is usually one massive assault phase, which will be 30+ minutes. Of course that is all on one players turn, so the game will not have equal time when comparing 'player turns'.

Of course the game can still end within the alloted time, but the turns will not be equal, whomever gets the assault off first will probably have his player turn use 'more' of the time even though phases are interactive.

Working as Intended.

If the issue really is SLOW PLAY and not equal time, then why is everyone trying to force equal time? Slow play can be addressed by a simple clock and reminding people of how much time is left. If anything, a better indicator would be every table having a 'flag' which shows what turn they are on so Judges can easily see the 'average' turn for the room and if a table is really far behind the average, they can observe if there is an issue.

Slow play cannot be defined by metrics but "I know it when I see it". That is the problem is we are trying to say 'any turn over X minutes' or 'player using Y time' = Slow play and that is not always true. If there was a easy way to track what turn a game is on so judges could see, it would allow judges to focus on slow-play if it actually is happening.


All I see is a bunch of Small model count armies not wanting to reduce point values so they want to strip the META of outliers by imposing unreasonable time restrictions and starving armies who were written and designed to possibly use more than half the time. Equal play doesn't address the core issue of Slow Play.

On the other hand, slow play is impossible if the round is guaranteed to clock out after a certain time. While some armies "need" more time than others, experience has shown that most players (~95/100) will not exceed the time given them, even without clocking back and forth. The system works to prevent slow play has never cost a tyranid, ork, guard, etc. player even a single game. Plus, the system has the added benefit of sidestepping the issue involved with unequal turns and players only getting a few turns in which to play.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I guess it comes down to do you want people losing on time regularly, or do you want to provide the right amount of time for them to comortably finish games.

As a Warmahordes player I can say that most games end in a normal way as opposed to people running out of time. I have seen some very cliff hanging games literally come down to each player having less than one minute left and even one where a player made a final die roll to kill his opponent just as his clock ran out.
Part of the misunderstanding as to how the clock can be used is that Warmahordes has 2 different timing methods. There is a turn clock where you only get so many minutes per turn and there are a limited amount of turns per game. In this situation all that happens is that when your turn time ends your turn ends. The other method is called "Death Clock". In this usage each player is assigned half of the total time of the game. The time is used at their discretion as to how much is used during any given turn. In this instance when you run out of time you have lost the game.
In either case I will admit that the clock hurts people who don't play much and as such don't know how to use their models efficiently and/or the player who just doesn't know the rules all that well. Each of those things can be taken care of by the player himself gettng more practice and more knowledge of how to play the game.
As to what to do if you need a TO to resolve a dispute that's what the "pause" button is for. Neither player is punished for a rule dispute (timewise).

Warmachine also has another major difference, in that scenario wins are determined at the end of every player turn (starting at the bottom of turn 2); plus assassination victory also being prevalent. Imagine how quickly 40k games would be over if you *won* when you got Slay the Warlord?
Also, most warmachine armies: you know exactly how fast your army acts and the number of things it can do in a turn. You have 20 models, that means you need to move 20 models and make 20 attack rolls and 20 damage rolls. It is very rare to do anything in your opponents turn beyond a tough roll. You move/attack with 20 models (minus casualties) every turn: you can plan for how long that will take, maximum.

Compare that to 40k, where if YOU assault ME, it adds significant amount of time to MY clock for me to overwatch and react. Actually with Tau I take up more time in the opponents assault phase than he does with the amount of overwatch I get to do. Each model potentially can move 3 times per turn, make both shooting and melee rolls, and with the ridiculously slow wound allocation system in 40k sometimes you may as well do these rolls one at a time. 40k is a slow game - some just play even slower than others

It's a great thought and it deters some of those gamers that tend to try to take their time, but it hamstrings horde armies that have a lot of miniatures to move, shoot and assault.

I have a friend who plays at least 4 times a week.
I get in twice a month if I am lucky.
I get a huge amount of complaints of how slow I am and disrespectful of his time. I play SM and him DE.

Practice is the great way to get speed. Methods to optimize. If the person does not get the time-in like you do: slow play is the outcome.

Rather than complain and ridicule give pointers on the tricks you use to play fast.

I find also some people push the rules to the max so a bit of looking up is needed where are far as they are concerned they are being held up even when proven wrong.

Anyway, chess clocks are not going to work, it gives a different advantage that was not there before. Just play with more knowledgeable players or "invest" in your opponent by pointing out faster ways to do things.

I really like the idea of using a chess clock as i have lost a tournament to slow playing where we only made it to the end of turn 2!!!

The real question i have is what should happen if you run out of time before the game ends? Losing the game seems a bit extreme. Ill post some options below and decide which you think is more fair?

1. lose victory points / opponent gains victory points
2. your opponent gets to play the rest of the game with his remaining time left on the clock, while you get no more turns.
3. your opponent gets one more turn and the game ends
4. if you run out of time twice in the same tournament you are disqualified.


I have been a tournament chess player using clocks for over 10 years, and have used them in casual games of 40k with the option number 3. above which has always worked out great. Bringing this into tournaments would fix a lot of issues.

If a game only got to the end of turn2 in a couple of hours, you call the TO over and have them deal with it

 Vaktathi wrote:
If a game only got to the end of turn2 in a couple of hours, you call the TO over and have them deal with it

I called over the TO 30 minutes into the game and he wouldn't help. Needless to say, im never going back to this Non-FLG store.

Yeah, that sucks, the TO wasn't doing their job then. :(

I wish there was a way to better curb intentional slow play. Timers can be gamed though and I have witnessed this at Warmachine tournaments so in the end it would probably create more problems than anything else.

I think I would enjoy a tournament where everyone had to finish their turn before the next turn could be played.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I wish there was a way to better curb intentional slow play. Timers can be gamed though and I have witnessed this at Warmachine tournaments so in the end it would probably create more problems than anything else.

Not doubting you, but how would this actually work in Warmachine?

Chess timers would not work. I actually think it would cause slower play, as you would be "hitting" the clock between 10-20 times a player turn. it would get confusing and lead to arguments.

The best way to combat slow play is to have an involved TO that is willing to actually punish slow players. Most times, TO's will give warnings but do nothing after that.

hands_miranda wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I wish there was a way to better curb intentional slow play. Timers can be gamed though and I have witnessed this at Warmachine tournaments so in the end it would probably create more problems than anything else.

Not doubting you, but how would this actually work in Warmachine?

One player gets a lead in the game then quickly as possible activates all their units then stops the clock... They continue to do so until time runs out. This is playing the clock, not the game. I bet there is nothing in the rules for Warmachine that covers the use of timed play.

http://gk-workbench.com/?p=3778

You would loose your bet. Time rules are written in our Steamroller (Tournament) rules. They can be downloaded for free on the Privateer Press website.

See the link I posted... It covers some of the problems using a timer in Warmachine.

I disagree with a lot of what is in that link. While I'm not a polished veteren with death clock I do have experience with it.
If you are playing death clock with no scenerio or special rules then the writer is correct. It could just come down to one person turtling and the other person being incapable of breaching his shell. That can happen in any game or circumstance but most players that I know of have the grace to play the game to win rather than just dragging the game out in the hopes of a tie. If the turtle situation does occur then both players could just sit at their table and hit the clock back and forth (like a ping pong game). Hopefully the TO would come over and just DQ both players at that point.
There is a big difference between timed turns and death clock that keeps being overlooked. Deathclock is total time for the game. Timed turns is just that, you have that much time to use for that turn and then your turn ends. You don't lose the game (directly) but you have to make due with what you've accomplished for that turn. Each player gets the same amount of turns and theoretically can use the same amount of time but neither is required to use all of the time allocated.
With timed turns the TO can still keep a schedule by controlling the total time used but can help ensure that neither player is dominating the game via slow play.

Every tournament I play in is timed.

2 Hours 30 Minutes per round.

I see nothing wrong with 15 minutes per player per turn.

In my experience anyway, it seems like the later turns get shorter and shorter.

What if you did it on a sliding scale? More time for earlier turns, less for later?

That was an interesting link, Dozer, until it froze my machine! Can you do a copy/paste of the text? I think it's relevant to the discussion here regarding how adding clocks affects play/strategy.

Warmachine offers a number of ways to win before the last turn, which drastically changes the dynamic of using timed turns.

40k, you only win at the end of the game. This means that getting to the natural end of the game is especially important. The only other way to win is if a player is tabled or otherwise concedes defeat.
Even worse, with the 'only troops are scoring' rule, it can often become the case where the only hope of winning is annihilation of your enemy. And tabling the enemy completely is time consuming - even with an alpha strike army like Tau where I have obviously 'won' the game during my first turn shooting, it still takes until probably turn 4 to completely mop everything up. In 40k, the tattered remnants of 3 squads or even a single squad can hold out until the end of the game on a distant objective (or worse, damn Eldar Jetbikes giving pretty much an auto-3VP swing on the last turn).

Warmachine, you can win by many scenarios by the end of player 1 turn 3. You can win by assassination potentially during player 1 turn 2. Killbox, the smaller table size and the general warcaster control range mechanic means you can't keep your caster back out of harm's way. Objectives are at most 30" away from each other, and often closer to 12". A single infantry model left alive in warmachine is going to die without being able to alter the flow of the game.

For warmachine, its rare that the game will even last to turn 6 without someone winning. 40k, it is essentially required to get to turn 6.

Actually, the more I rant about this, I realise the problem is just with 40k's scenarios being objectively (hehe) terrible.

Sorry Mr. Tides - the link is no longer working for me now. Sorry!