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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Ordana wrote:


The pure Craftworld Detachments unlocks all Strategems which can then be used on <Craftworld> units in other detachments.
He did not get or use the Craftworld traits of the Ynnari detachment since you need to be in a pure detachment for that.

A mixed IG, SM or CSM army can do the same.

No. IG, SM or CSM cannot do that. Those books all have explicit rules stating Stratagems cannot cross from, say, Vanilla Marines to Space Wolves, even if the Adeptus Astartes Keywords match. There is a similar rule forbidding it in the Eldar Codex for Dark Eldar, Harlequins, etc.., they simply forgot to put Ynnari in with it. No unlocking Space Marine Stratagems with some Scouts and Tigurius to use Honour the Chapter on a unit of Wulfen or something.

Doing it with Ynnari is currently legal, but it's almost certainly an omission/typo to be fixed soon.

The DG FAQ clarifies they absolutely can do this, explaining that a CSM stratagem which targets cultists can be used on DG cultists if you have a full detachment from the generic CSM codex (as DG didn't get that specific stratagem). So DG don't unlock the stratagem but can use them on applicable units if unlocked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
As someone who briefly left this board (because Warframe absorbed me like Kim Kardiashian does to news media) when people were crying "IG are OP! Eldar will never catch on!" this is rather hilarious to me.

I'm sure this could all be fixed by throwing a few shadowswords at it, Right? Riiiiiight?

Joking aside, given how fast the meta has changed in just a handful of months, I do take this as a good sign since this is a sign that either GW is working towards balance (which, to be very honest, is not possible to perfectly achieve, but something to strive for) or that their attempts at balance is working, since it seems that players can no longer agree on what is cheese and what is not (unlike 7th edition where Wraithknight and Gladius spam were basically the undisputed champions above all else).

The previous broken nonsense got nerfed (brimstones, conscripts) and new broken units were added (dark reapers). When dark reapers get nerfed balance will shift again.

Maybe you guys could take rules discussions to the rules forum.

Wayniac wrote:
Some notes though:

1) The Death Guard player is running like 10 plagueburst crawlers though to "prove" to GW it's OP and needs a nerf.

2) The Eldar guy in #1 is using the dubious interpretation of a rule as written to get the craftworld bonus PLUS Ynnari to abuse it. He's literally playing to the rules, not playing the game.

Is this really the kind of bullgak we want to see? Tournament or not. Min/maxing lists are one thing. But exploiting obvious loopholes just because you can? Is that what we have really degenerated into? At that point why not trot out that bullgak about how by the letter of the rules you can't advance and fire assault weapons due to the wording? Where do you draw the line at "This clearly isn't intended but I can get away with it by claiming RAW"?

You don't understand what a competitive tournament is, do you?

Or dark reapers are ignored or even buffed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Competive tournament shouldn't mean abusing loop holes in wording and deliberate slow playing. It's different building hard lists and playing to max. Another thing being jerk.

tneva82 wrote:
Or dark reapers are ignored or even buffed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Competive tournament shouldn't mean abusing loop holes in wording and deliberate slow playing. It's different building hard lists and playing to max. Another thing being jerk.

One man's loophole is another man's obvious interpretation.

Blame GeeDerps, 30 years and they still can't write watertight rules. At least we get rapid FAQ's though.

Edit: we also need a proper judging and enforcement/penalty system. Then we can crack down on slow play and other gamesmanship.
M:tG has been doing this for twenty years. 40K is waaaaay behind. I'm not sure it will ever catch up (or necessarily should, tbh).

zerosignal wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or dark reapers are ignored or even buffed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Competive tournament shouldn't mean abusing loop holes in wording and deliberate slow playing. It's different building hard lists and playing to max. Another thing being jerk.

One man's loophole is another man's obvious interpretation.

Blame GeeDerps, 30 years and they still can't write watertight rules. At least we get rapid FAQ's though.

Edit: we also need a proper judging and enforcement/penalty system. Then we can crack down on slow play and other gamesmanship.
M:tG has been doing this for twenty years. 40K is waaaaay behind. I'm not sure it will ever catch up (or necessarily should, tbh).

The inclusion of chess clocks, especially if your event has a separate top 8 just seems completely obvious to me.
I can see not wanting to get them for a full field of 400+ people tho.

Ordana wrote:

zerosignal wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or dark reapers are ignored or even buffed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Competive tournament shouldn't mean abusing loop holes in wording and deliberate slow playing. It's different building hard lists and playing to max. Another thing being jerk.

One man's loophole is another man's obvious interpretation.

Blame GeeDerps, 30 years and they still can't write watertight rules. At least we get rapid FAQ's though.

Edit: we also need a proper judging and enforcement/penalty system. Then we can crack down on slow play and other gamesmanship.
M:tG has been doing this for twenty years. 40K is waaaaay behind. I'm not sure it will ever catch up (or necessarily should, tbh).

The inclusion of chess clocks, especially if your event has a separate top 8 just seems completely obvious to me.
I can see not wanting to get them for a full field of 400+ people tho.

Easy, you use the players. Everyone and their mothers has a smart phone with a stop watch

Chess clocks are 100% the way to go. If you have 3 hours then each player gets 1.5 hours on the clock and you can spend it however you want but once you are out of time you simply skip turns

Yeah, I can't see why chess clocks aren't part of tournaments. I think other games use them.

I actually feel really bad when I finish a turn and think "christ, was that turn... 30 minutes?"

I feel like 1.5 hours is pretty short for any sort of large army.

Even you only have 15 units, you're getting 6 minutes for each unit for the entire game.

One shooting phase with a unit of Kastelan robots with Cawl giving rerolls and 6's doing mortal wounds can take about 5 minutes... One combat phase with a big old squad of Orks takes 5 minutes at least.

If you knew you had 90 minutes and when your time ran out you were a sitting duck and could take no more actions, it would dramatically change the "volume of dice and models wins" meta.

Ordana wrote:
The inclusion of chess clocks, especially if your event has a separate top 8 just seems completely obvious to me.
I can see not wanting to get them for a full field of 400+ people tho.

This seems like a good idea, but does it unfairly punish horde armies?

Lower the point values of tournaments.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Ordana wrote:
The inclusion of chess clocks, especially if your event has a separate top 8 just seems completely obvious to me.
I can see not wanting to get them for a full field of 400+ people tho.

This seems like a good idea, but does it unfairly punish horde armies?

You can ask the inverse too. Does allowing players with big armies to monopolize time punish small armies?

There's plenty of games I've had where an army would've been tabled by Round 5 but we never get there because the Horde eats over half the time and the game ends on Turn 2.

Ordana wrote:

zerosignal wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Or dark reapers are ignored or even buffed


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Competive tournament shouldn't mean abusing loop holes in wording and deliberate slow playing. It's different building hard lists and playing to max. Another thing being jerk.

One man's loophole is another man's obvious interpretation.

Blame GeeDerps, 30 years and they still can't write watertight rules. At least we get rapid FAQ's though.

Edit: we also need a proper judging and enforcement/penalty system. Then we can crack down on slow play and other gamesmanship.
M:tG has been doing this for twenty years. 40K is waaaaay behind. I'm not sure it will ever catch up (or necessarily should, tbh).

The inclusion of chess clocks, especially if your event has a separate top 8 just seems completely obvious to me.
I can see not wanting to get them for a full field of 400+ people tho.

There are issues with clocks. Nothing in the rules deals with time, game length is not something accounted for by GW, and 40k is dramatically more complex with Chess. There's a lot of stuff to physically move. Armies can have very different numbers of actions required to move them through a turn. What would take a Custodes or GK army 3 or 4 minutes may take an Ork, IG or Tyranid army 15 minutes. Likewise, both players act in each others turns, a stalling player can run out their opponent's clock, and attempting slapping a clock back and forth every time someone rolls a die or moves something is wayyyyy too messy to work.

Clocks have been suggested before, many times, but in practice they're just not terribly functional. They just introduce another level of gamesmanship and something else to fight over and waste more time with.

400 players is 200 chess clocks, you can probably get a discount at that bulk, but we'll go low retail and call it 20$ a clock. That's four thousand dollars for an event that has to pinch pennies to stay in the black. It's just too easy to game a cell phone, it goes in your pocket, your opponent doesn't have access to it, so I'd say that's a non-starter.

Instead I'd just add two boxes to the scoring sheet for turn start and turn end, you're already checking your opponents sheet for scoring, so checking to make sure they wrote down the time correctly isn't much of an added burden. That way delay of game is in black and white, with no added overhead.

The trick is how to implement the timer fairly, if the timer is too harsh you'll punish large armies, not harsh enough and people will game it. Then there is the dragging your feet on your opponent's turn, which we saw in the final 8 (cough cough tony).

Planning on three turns per player at 20 mins a turn seems like a good idea (making a game length of two hours), so going beyond a 20 min turn gets you a warning, three warnings and your out. However you need something else otherwise two 39 min turns is an acceptable strategy. So in addition you also need a hard cap on how much time someone can take. The idea being you start checking total time at the end of turn two, and if your opponent took more than 25 minutes * the number of rounds they forfeit. So you can have a 30 min turn 1, but you better be on the clock for turn 2.

Chess Clocks are pretty great. They put all of the power of getting through the game in the hands of the players and largely don't interfere much with play. There are issues with them, but they're corner case stuff that only gets shaken out as you use them and is generally pretty easy to adapt to. Just remember to ship the clock during your opponent's armor saves.

The stalling out another player's clock is a totally false argument. When you are acting then it's on your clock. Other game systems that use dice don't seem to have a "messy" problem with switching the clock back and forth during a game. The clocks don't care whose turn it is.

Audustum wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Ordana wrote:
The inclusion of chess clocks, especially if your event has a separate top 8 just seems completely obvious to me.
I can see not wanting to get them for a full field of 400+ people tho.

This seems like a good idea, but does it unfairly punish horde armies?

You can ask the inverse too. Does allowing players with big armies to monopolize time punish small armies?

There's plenty of games I've had where an army would've been tabled by Round 5 but we never get there because the Horde eats over half the time and the game ends on Turn 2.

A good point, but are we making a distinction between someone slow playing a horde and someone making a legitimate effort?

Does this cripple certain armies like Tyranids that rely on lots of small models regardless? Will this reduce list diversity?

 Grimgold wrote:
400 players is 200 chess clocks, you can probably get a discount at that bulk, but we'll go low retail and call it 20$ a clock. That's four thousand dollars for an event that has to pinch pennies to stay in the black. It's just too easy to game a cell phone, it goes in your pocket, your opponent doesn't have access to it, so I'd say that's a non-starter.

If you buy them you have to store them too, so rental is probably more sensible for one long weekend a year. A little Googling suggests $10/clock for a long weekend is a common rate and you'd need one clock per two players. $5 added to the registration cost doesn't seem likely to discourage many players already budgeting for trans-continental airfare and hotels.

 Grimgold wrote:
400 players is 200 chess clocks, you can probably get a discount at that bulk, but we'll go low retail and call it 20$ a clock. That's four thousand dollars for an event that has to pinch pennies to stay in the black. It's just too easy to game a cell phone, it goes in your pocket, your opponent doesn't have access to it, so I'd say that's a non-starter.

I bet one could easily make an app that allows two phones to connect to each other. The problem is battery usage and what happens when someone's phone dies.

Instead I'd just add two boxes to the scoring sheet for turn start and turn end, you're already checking your opponents sheet for scoring, so checking to make sure they wrote down the time correctly isn't much of an added burden. That way delay of game is in black and white, with no added overhead.

This is likely the most practical.

The trick is how to implement the timer fairly, if the timer is too harsh you'll punish large armies, not harsh enough and people will game it. Then there is the dragging your feet on your opponent's turn, which we saw in the final 8 (cough cough tony).

Planning on three turns per player at 20 mins a turn seems like a good idea (making a game length of two hours), so going beyond a 20 min turn gets you a warning, three warnings and your out. However you need something else otherwise two 39 min turns is an acceptable strategy. So in addition you also need a hard cap on how much time someone can take. The idea being you start checking total time at the end of turn two, and if your opponent took more than 25 minutes * the number of rounds they forfeit. So you can have a 30 min turn 1, but you better be on the clock for turn 2.

I would think it better to have a pool of minutes so your initial turns may be front loaded with more time, but later ones are fast and as long as you don't exceed your pool it's fine.

I'm surprised there weren't both more Dark Angels players, and higher ranking Dark Angels players.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
The stalling out another player's clock is a totally false argument. When you are acting then it's on your clock.

in which case you're having to switch back and forth frequently, which gets messy.

Other game systems that use dice don't seem to have a "messy" problem with switching the clock back and forth during a game. The clocks don't care whose turn it is.

How many other tabletop mini's games use chess clocks? The only one Im aware of that does so with any frequency or at any large events is Warmachine, and thats a much different game thats much more heavily built around time and competition and dramatically fewer models/actions.

Kings of War also uses Chess Clocks. I don't think anybody is asking for chess clocks in EVERY tournament. But the biggest one in the planet, maybe thats a good place to have them.

 nintura wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:

2. People who know how the assault phase works are winning matches which is why large blobs aren't effective anymore. It's better to stay away from assault or have hard counters to it. Eldar lists with flying units are very very hard counters to the assault style lists.

Explain?

I was impressed with what Ynnarri Shinning Spears can do in CC. Soulbursting another fight phase seems to do a lot of work.

Any claim that chess clocks hurt horde armies also has to concede that a horde army taking hour-long turns hurts elite armies (i play IG and used to play a goblin horde in WHFB so it's not like I'm proposing this because it benefits me). It's simply unfair to players that would win games if only they got to play out the game as it is meant to.

I know there are dice apps (i think there is a GW official one if I'm not mistaken). if there isn't a GW official one they should develop it and allow for it to be used in competitive play. That way instead of counting out 100 dice then plucking up 4+ or whatever you could type it in and roll it in a fraction of the time.

Asmodios wrote:

I know there are dice apps (i think there is a GW official one if I'm not mistaken). if there isn't a GW official one they should develop it and allow for it to be used in competitive play. That way instead of counting out 100 dice then plucking up 4+ or whatever you could type it in and roll it in a fraction of the time.

There are plenty of apps, but you're facing two issues:

1) People like to roll dice
2) Distrust of apps

If there was indeed one that could verify rolls and prevent app tampering it could work, but would require constant communication with a server.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
400 players is 200 chess clocks, you can probably get a discount at that bulk, but we'll go low retail and call it 20$ a clock. That's four thousand dollars for an event that has to pinch pennies to stay in the black. It's just too easy to game a cell phone, it goes in your pocket, your opponent doesn't have access to it, so I'd say that's a non-starter.

I bet one could easily make an app that allows two phones to connect to each other. The problem is battery usage and what happens when someone's phone dies.

Instead I'd just add two boxes to the scoring sheet for turn start and turn end, you're already checking your opponents sheet for scoring, so checking to make sure they wrote down the time correctly isn't much of an added burden. That way delay of game is in black and white, with no added overhead.

This is likely the most practical.

The trick is how to implement the timer fairly, if the timer is too harsh you'll punish large armies, not harsh enough and people will game it. Then there is the dragging your feet on your opponent's turn, which we saw in the final 8 (cough cough tony).

Planning on three turns per player at 20 mins a turn seems like a good idea (making a game length of two hours), so going beyond a 20 min turn gets you a warning, three warnings and your out. However you need something else otherwise two 39 min turns is an acceptable strategy. So in addition you also need a hard cap on how much time someone can take. The idea being you start checking total time at the end of turn two, and if your opponent took more than 25 minutes * the number of rounds they forfeit. So you can have a 30 min turn 1, but you better be on the clock for turn 2.

I would think it better to have a pool of minutes so your initial turns may be front loaded with more time, but later ones are fast and as long as you don't exceed your pool it's fine.

A pool is effectively what you have, 5 minutes per turn, and since you don't start checking until the end of turn 2, your first turn can take an additional 10 minutes. The idea is if you take more than 25% of your opponents time you are disqualified, so for three rounds in two hours, if you play for more than 75 minutes of it you lose.

 daedalus wrote:
I'm surprised there weren't both more Dark Angels players, and higher ranking Dark Angels players.

Dark angels is fairly solid stand alone army, but brings relatively little to a soup army. It focuses on having a broad range of tactics, which soup armies generally do better by taking specialized elements from different armies. At least, that's my takeaway from the codex, it should perform solidly at local games but at something like lvo I'd be surprised if it gained much traction.

SilverAlien wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm surprised there weren't both more Dark Angels players, and higher ranking Dark Angels players.

Dark angels is fairly solid stand alone army, but brings relatively little to a soup army. It focuses on having a broad range of tactics, which soup armies generally do better by taking specialized elements from different armies. At least, that's my takeaway from the codex, it should perform solidly at local games but at something like lvo I'd be surprised if it gained much traction.

That's what I've been hearing in general, though I have seen a couple nasty ones that splash GMDK and some infantry squads. I'm not sure what more BA brings to the table that DA doesn't, but that's probably out of scope of the current discussion.

WM/H has been using chess clocks for years and there are zero problems. Yes, 40k has more time spent in your opponent's turn doing stuff, but you tap it over to their turn while rolling saves. Not a problem.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Tony was absolutely in the right. Alex ended his movement phase by bringing in the deep strikers.

Might as well get annoyed if your opponent demands you roll to hit for shooting.

This is a competitive setting. The entire point is to win. To not capitalise on a mistake made by an opponent is illogical.

I'd agree, except Tony made a similar mistake in the finals and whined when he got burned by it.

That's the kicker for me, really. It's fine if you're going to play hard ball but expect it in return.

Oh I agree, him whining about him making the same mistake is inexcusable. I understand the upset about that, but anyone getting upset about Tony capitalising on an error from an opponent is simply in the wrong.

I have to disagree. It doesn't matter what was on the line - it was a dick move 100%.