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.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
After months of arguing with people on dakka about how the IG nerfs went too far, damn it feels good to be right. Pure IG lists got stomped. The only time they performed well was when mixed with imperial soup.

IG still needs a lot more nerfs, imo.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
After months of arguing with people on dakka about how the IG nerfs went too far, damn it feels good to be right. Pure IG lists got stomped. The only time they performed well was when mixed with imperial soup.

I mean, the only pure lists that made it to the top 10 were Alaitoc and Blood Angels, and people are talking about adjustments to their power units (dark reapers and the Death Company Captain, respectively). Chaos didn't get in the top 10 at all, whether pure or soup incarnations. I ain't gonna call for the malefic lord nerf to be revoked because of that.

 nintura 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.

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

We've tried to play with chess clock at a local tourney but screwed it up with the amount of rolling you take in other player's turn. For example, i easilly went out of time with orks against a primaris gunline because he's been rolling buckets of dice and i had to roll a lot of saves. Most of the time is occupied by dice rolling - not thinking and moving. It was so bad, i had to forego a lot of 6+++ fnp saves just to not run out of time for my own gaming turn. If we use this system next time, i'll have to adjust my list to simply run even more boyz with as few saves as possible.

Playing Tyranids I couldn't get through more than 3 turns and I didn't have all that many models. It's the buckets of dice. 90 shots here, shooting twice. 80 attacks in hth there, attacking twice. Thanks stratagems, I love you but you do slow down the game dramatically.

I think they either need to lower the points, or give us another 30 mins per round. Usually by the time the 2 1/2 hours is over, the game rounds are going much faster at that point and we'd probably only need that much time to finish up.

I dont think a chess clock would work for 40k, as 40k simply isn't designed with that in mind.

Compare it to Kings of War for example, which design is more favourable to chess clocks. In KoW you only ever roll dice in your turn, so your opponent cant slow down your turn with dice rolls such as saves. Also in 40k the position and gear of individual models matter, so if you have 100 models on the field that's a 100 models you have to move and micro-manage separately, while a 100 models big army in KoW could be 5 units, arranged in regiments so you dont have to bother with the individual models.

dotcomee wrote:
Playing Tyranids I couldn't get through more than 3 turns and I didn't have all that many models. It's the buckets of dice. 90 shots here, shooting twice. 80 attacks in hth there, attacking twice. Thanks stratagems, I love you but you do slow down the game dramatically.

I think they either need to lower the points, or give us another 30 mins per round. Usually by the time the 2 1/2 hours is over, the game rounds are going much faster at that point and we'd probably only need that much time to finish up.

I somewhat agree, but it then leads to the extra problems of scheduling in the extra 1.5-2 hours of gaming into the day.

At the LCO, they also had a limit – at 20 mins left you couldn’t start another battle round. This came into effect for me twice – once on turn 4 and the other on turn 3. It did have an impact on the outcome of the game, and it definitely did for other games as well, but, sometimes the schedule has to take precedence. Any lower, and you then run the risk of one player not getting their last turn after the call. Tough choices.

I am, however, firmly in the camp of making the games 3 hours long, with a dedicated 20-minute deployment phase built in (so 2 hours 40 mins of playing, last turn starting no later than with 20 mins to go). Any table unable to fully deploy and setup within the set 20 mins would both receive a points penalty and a warning. More than 1 warning would result in further punishment of some kind.

If things games are still struggling to reach the natural end of the game, I would then look at dropping back down to 2.5 hours and reducing the points down to 1500-1750 and detachment limit down to 2. I’d prefer to avoid this option though, but might be necessary for competitive play.

Or if they can't make 3h rounds lower the point values.

It's rather silly how GW keeps dropping point costs and players keep upping game sizes. Used to be 1500k with troops generally costing more. Then it went to 1750. Then 1850. 8th ed came and vehicles etc went up in cost so players up size to 2k. Then GW drops points on vehicles. Points stay 2k. Soon we'll probably be playing 2.5k on tournaments.

Players are GW's best marketing tools since players keep forcing players buy more models :lol:

I think people are misunderstanding how a chess clock would work in a event with comments like "shooting takes longer then assault".

Say each player gets 1 hour 30 minutes on the clock, anything you do is on your clock. So for shooting armies your movement phase will probably take next to no time but a long shooting phase. Similarly with a assault army movement will take long due to correctly positioning / checking LoS etc etc.

The clock is only on you when it's your turn, it allows players to allocate the time they want to the game. If you can have that 50 minute turn 2 if you really need it, just means your other turns need to be shorted and it becomes a resource to be used.

I'd love to see chess clocks in 40k events, the stories I've heard from my friends actually stop me going to 40k events. One of my friends waited 57 minutes why a guard player with 120 infantry and in total 39 lascannon heavy weapon teams shot him (between deciding what to shoot, re-rolling hit dice and then to wound and damage).

I'd be SUPER pissed if I only got to play 2-3 turns against a slow player and then lost because of it. Time should totally be a resource managed by players.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I think people are misunderstanding how a chess clock would work in a event with comments like "shooting takes longer then assault".

Say each player gets 1 hour 30 minutes on the clock, anything you do is on your clock. So for shooting armies your movement phase will probably take next to no time but a long shooting phase. Similarly with a assault army movement will take long due to correctly positioning / checking LoS etc etc.

The clock is only on you when it's your turn, it allows players to allocate the time they want to the game. If you can have that 50 minute turn 2 if you really need it, just means your other turns need to be shorted and it becomes a resource to be used.

I'd love to see chess clocks in 40k events, the stories I've heard from my friends actually stop me going to 40k events. One of my friends waited 57 minutes why a guard player with 120 infantry and in total 39 lascannon heavy weapon teams shot him (between deciding what to shoot, re-rolling hit dice and then to wound and damage).

I'd be SUPER pissed if I only got to play 2-3 turns against a slow player and then lost because of it. Time should totally be a resource managed by players.

Issues would then be interaction in opponents turn resulting either in constant back and forth of clock(takes time, easy to make mistake especially for non-hardcore player) or still allows stalling(with possiiblity of winning by clock). Also the time needs to be then set so that all kind of armies have reasonable time. Ie 1 players time needs to be on by slowest army. Time it takes to play with army is design choise done by GW. You mess up with balance if you force orks to bring elite army(and lose) to not auto-lose by time.

 AaronWilson wrote:
I think people are misunderstanding how a chess clock would work in a event with comments like "shooting takes longer then assault".

Say each player gets 1 hour 30 minutes on the clock, anything you do is on your clock.

Say, you've inflicted 30 bolter wounds to at an ork unit with 6+ armor and 6+++ fnp. Now he has to roll around 55 dice. And which player's time is ticking?

As an Ork player that regularly plays with 200+ models, I would definitely welcome a chess clock. While a horde army is slower to play, a lot of players could play a lot faster than they do. A lot of it comes down to practice and motivation.

The clock would also serve as a signal indicating transfer of play. Like, if you want to use the counter offensive in your opponents turn, the first thing you have to do is to slap the clock. Afterwards you declare your attention to do whatever.

The only problem would be things like saves and FNP rolls. Slowplaying these would ruin the system, and clock-transfer for every save is probably not practical.

You'd flick the clock over for your opponents armor saves, is is THAT hard to comprehend?

 AaronWilson wrote:
You'd flick the clock over for your opponents armor saves, is is THAT hard to comprehend?

No, not hard to comprehend. It could just lead to a lot of people rolling one attack at a time, in order to hurt your opponents time management. In the absence of splitfire, it might work though.

I don't understand.....the topic is regarding the top lists in one of the most competitive environments and we've spent like 5 pages talking about chess clocks lol?!

Here's some questions I'd like those more intelligent and informed than me to answer, please;

1. What have we learnt from the tournament results regarding the meta?
2. Is the game more balanced than previous editions (seems that way to me)?
3. Apart from Reapers (lol) were there any other units that "stood out".
4. Were there any surprise units? From an Ork perspective I understand a player did relatively well with Flash Gits, a unit that is considered awful by most Orks (myself included).
5. Do we feel that the "Age of chaff spam" is over? Are we moving towards smaller more concentrated and powerful units or dare I say a mix?
6. Why did so many games fail to finish? This edition is supposed to be (and in my experience is) faster? Are players spending a ton of time making calculations? Is it the dreaded measurement game?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand.....the topic is regarding the top lists in one of the most competitive environments and we've spent like 5 pages talking about chess clocks lol?!

Here's some questions I'd like those more intelligent and informed than me to answer, please;

1. What have we learnt from the tournament results regarding the meta?
2. Is the game more balanced than previous editions (seems that way to me)?
3. Apart from Reapers (lol) were there any other units that "stood out".
4. Were there any surprise units? From an Ork perspective I understand a player did relatively well with Flash Gits, a unit that is considered awful by most Orks (myself included).
5. Do we feel that the "Age of chaff spam" is over? Are we moving towards smaller more concentrated and powerful units or dare I say a mix?
6. Why did so many games fail to finish? This edition is supposed to be (and in my experience is) faster? Are players spending a ton of time making calculations? Is it the dreaded measurement game?

6 is mostly down to weight of dice rolling – hordes or no hordes.

5 AssCan Razorbacks with BobbyG is an example of this.

Movement and the Eldar/Chaos Psychic phases can also slow the game down, but it is mostly the sheer amount of dice being rolled from my experience.

tneva82 wrote:
Or if they can't make 3h rounds lower the point values.

It's rather silly how GW keeps dropping point costs and players keep upping game sizes. Used to be 1500k with troops generally costing more. Then it went to 1750. Then 1850. 8th ed came and vehicles etc went up in cost so players up size to 2k. Then GW drops points on vehicles. Points stay 2k. Soon we'll probably be playing 2.5k on tournaments.

Players are GW's best marketing tools since players keep forcing players buy more models :lol:

I agree, the problem with the game size is we now have in regular games lots of models that should belong to huge games, like 3000+ points. All superheroes and LoWs basically.

The GW politics that encourage (force) players to buy more models is perfectly fine IMHO, but it should go into another direction, which is to encourage collecting different armies rather than adding new stuff over and over to already existing collections.

Flyers, LoWs, superheroes were introduced in the last years because many players already had tons of miniatures, and those things were new additions. IMHO GW should have promoted and buffed a specific army for a few months and then switched to another one, and so on. Instead of releasing big new SM just promote orks, tau (not only the huge dudes) dark eldar or sisters, encourage players to buy those models.

I think having 2x2000 points armies is better for the meta than a single 4000 points one. And the lack of 300+ points models in 1500-2000 points games could make the game way more interesting.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand.....the topic is regarding the top lists in one of the most competitive environments and we've spent like 5 pages talking about chess clocks lol?!

Here's some questions I'd like those more intelligent and informed than me to answer, please;

1. What have we learnt from the tournament results regarding the meta?
2. Is the game more balanced than previous editions (seems that way to me)?
3. Apart from Reapers (lol) were there any other units that "stood out".
4. Were there any surprise units? From an Ork perspective I understand a player did relatively well with Flash Gits, a unit that is considered awful by most Orks (myself included).
5. Do we feel that the "Age of chaff spam" is over? Are we moving towards smaller more concentrated and powerful units or dare I say a mix?
6. Why did so many games fail to finish? This edition is supposed to be (and in my experience is) faster? Are players spending a ton of time making calculations? Is it the dreaded measurement game?

Play Eldar
Hard to say with 3 identical eldar in top 4 and 5 in the top 8 but outside of the very top. Yes I would say so.
Shining Spears
A bunch of Blood Angel stuff did (imo) surprisingly well
Walls and walls of dudes, kinda yeah. But select units to keep deepstrikers out and catch assault units are still used a lot
Lots of slow play, probably to many points for the time.

I dont think a chess clock would work for 40k, as 40k simply isn't designed with that in mind.

Indeed. Moreover, it has never been designed for competitive play.
Just beer and brezel. Having fun.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't understand.....the topic is regarding the top lists in one of the most competitive environments and we've spent like 5 pages talking about chess clocks lol?!

Here's some questions I'd like those more intelligent and informed than me to answer, please;

1. What have we learnt from the tournament results regarding the meta?
2. Is the game more balanced than previous editions (seems that way to me)?
3. Apart from Reapers (lol) were there any other units that "stood out".
4. Were there any surprise units? From an Ork perspective I understand a player did relatively well with Flash Gits, a unit that is considered awful by most Orks (myself included).
5. Do we feel that the "Age of chaff spam" is over? Are we moving towards smaller more concentrated and powerful units or dare I say a mix?
6. Why did so many games fail to finish? This edition is supposed to be (and in my experience is) faster? Are players spending a ton of time making calculations? Is it the dreaded measurement game?

1. The meta still generally favors abusing undercosted units and boosting them with synergy over any other considerations.
2. In the sense that the broken undercosted stuff is getting nerfed faster, yes. It's still a bit of a crap shoot on initial releases though.
3. I'd look at the BA lists, something was working though it may just be synergy.
4. There was the list that hit 13 using almost nothing but plague burst crawlers we've been discussing in the DG thread. Intercessors were getting used by one pure BA list which placed top 10 (maybe 5?).
5. It's hard to say, with two of the worst offenders nerfed and reapers being so dominant it looks that way, but that could just be an outlier. Though the BA presence even with IG allies does lead weight to it.
6. No idea, wasn't paying that close of attention to people talking about the games in detail.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 ncshooter426 wrote:

I would love to see a Warhammer tourney where players had to use pre-built armies of a specific composition. Then it comes down a bit of skill and a bit of luck, which are way bigger bragging rights than "I took 50 of the meta cheese and won".

Holy hell, this sounds like an amazing idea. I'd play the hell out of that tournament.

This has actually been tried in 8th ed Warhammer Fantasy. Google "warhammer World Series" and "hoodling" to find the blog articles.

Imperial guard is fine. However Gw needs to fix commissars from the unplayable mess (just allow them to grant a reroll to morale without killing someone) they did to it and unnerf the cost increase of conscripts. All the other nerfs to conscript was more then enough to give parity to infantry squads.

Nerf reavers, nerf BA captains and buff the heck out of the tau, necron, ork, codexs

Might even want to allow tau to have gsw type Guard detachment and Orks a demon detachment. And necron a pokeball detschment.

And release the long awaited fw list of ad mech units for 40k with the new squire knight.

That should fix the parity issues.

 AaronWilson wrote:
You'd flick the clock over for your opponents armor saves, is is THAT hard to comprehend?

That's a lot of wasted time flicking the clock - especially for single but frequent dice rolls.

 koooaei wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
You'd flick the clock over for your opponents armor saves, is is THAT hard to comprehend?

That's a lot of wasted time flicking the clock - especially for single but frequent dice rolls.

Personally, I wouldn't bother switching versus a reasonable opponent, but if someone is intentionally slow-rolling their armour saves, it would be nice to have the option.

 koooaei wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
I think people are misunderstanding how a chess clock would work in a event with comments like "shooting takes longer then assault".

Say each player gets 1 hour 30 minutes on the clock, anything you do is on your clock.

Say, you've inflicted 30 bolter wounds to at an ork unit with 6+ armor and 6+++ fnp. Now he has to roll around 55 dice. And which player's time is ticking?

Completely agree with koooaei - "anything you do is on your clock" will just make the new slow play strategy to force you to perform as many actions as possible to run your timer down before your turn starts, if there is no clock switching it then just becomes operation slow play in opponents turn.

A chess clock only works in chess as you have a mirror match and an exact number of moves per turn - every turn should be equal.

 wuestenfux wrote:

I dont think a chess clock would work for 40k, as 40k simply isn't designed with that in mind.

Indeed. Moreover, it has never been designed for competitive play.
Just beer and brezel. Having fun.

That's why there is a large section dedicated to competitive play in the rulebook. Seems legit.

The real solution is to go back down to 1500 or 1750 games.

Putting in some words to competive play section is one thing. Having actual rules that work for that is another.

I can put words on articole about quantum physics. Doesn't mean it's worth a damn for it though.

As a Harlequin player I'm sad. Any other faction that didn't make it to the top 100?

I really wish there was a way to see the guard lists. I am curious how many IG superheavies made it into the top 100 vs how many superheavies of other types, e.g. magnus, mortarion, monoliths, etc.

Flipping the clock doesn't take any time. It takes substantially less time than telling your opponent to do whatever it is they're failing to do.