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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

How about a little personal responsibility?

You can't honestly be expecting people to accept accountability for their choices can you?

SemperMortis wrote:

dkoz wrote:
I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.

Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.

Now, why does that matter? If your army cannot complete the game in the time limit then it deserves to be penalised. But this way players who bring armies which could complete the game don't lose out just because someone else can't.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I just looked something up and found an interesting fact. In international chess events each player gets 2 hours to make 40 moves and then an additional hour for their next 20 moves. So it can take up to 6 hours total for a single chess game.

So much for the argument that a low model count means you use less time.

If your argument is that the rules make 40K hard to play in a reasonable time then the problem won't be solved by any means until the rules get fixed. So to all you TOs just pack up your events and wait for GW to fix everything.

How about a little personal responsibility? Learn the rules for your army and the general rules for the game. If you're unsure about the resolution of a rule contact the TO in advance. If you move slowly then practice. After that most things should take care of themselves.

You're comparing apples and strawmen there.

SemperMortis wrote:

Cryogenicman wrote:
The argument that a horde army player deserves more time than his opponent is such a silly one, I'm surprised it keeps cropping up.

Imagine going to a tournament that has a 2.5 hour time limit for games. You bring your horde army. You know that when YOU play your army it takes 1.75 hours to move and roll everything, rather than 1.25. ALAS! your first opponent is all infantry guard, and your second is all Orc boys, your third is a foot-slogging Necron list. Suddenly it seems as though YOU are the slow player causing every game to end on turn 3. Could it be that YOU are the reason we would want to have chess clocks? And would it shock us to learn that you don't like them?

IF there is a problem, it lies squarely with the total time allotted to play the game. And I agree that perhaps it should be more like 3 or 3.5 hours to allow armies with more models more time. But to claim that you DERSERVE more time than your opponent because of the army you voluntarily brought to the event is ridiculous. When an event advertises its format, you will know if you are capable of participating with your army. If not, you should choose a different one, or refrain from participating.

By far the easiest solution is to let every player have half the total time, and to enforce it. I'm open to any solution that does that. Chess clocks are fun and easy to learn and use. They don't work perfectly but they are still effective. I am entitled to be able to play as much of the game as you are. You don't deserve more time than me. Perhaps I play a list with less models precisely because i'm a slower player and like not to be so rushed? What right do you have to take the bulk of the time in our game? How is that equitable?

Right, great points, So what you are saying is that events with these clocks should just exclude Ork armies right now until our codex comes out because horde is literally the only way to play and have a chance at victory. Even the Gargantuan squiggoth list still had over 100 models.

So again, great idea in theory, crap in practice because some of us have to take ridiculous numbers in order to be competitive. NOW on the other hand, I'll be happy to sign up for Time clocks if you convince GW to unfeth the other 4/5ths of our index/codex so I can actually start playing with the rest of my army that has been collecting dust since 8th dropped.

Conversely, what about the other player who realizes he's playing against a horde army and has to accept that he only gets to play half of the total turns of the game? That's not fair either.

Tournaments have a time limit. They just do, and it's not going to change.

If you want to bring an army that takes forever to get through a turn to a timed event, that's on you. You either need to find a way to speed it up, or bring a different army.

That's rough, I know. I wish it wasn't this way. I wish 40k had a system that moved fast enough or that tournaments had a more sane point limit for the time allotted.

I agree 40K is not set up for chess clocks. It works fine in other games (Warmachine and KoW being the two rough equivalents I can think of), but that's because both of this games are much better suited for it. 40K is far too complicated, with too many phases, way too much dice rolling, and with too much back and forth between players in any one player turn to be really suitable for chess clocks let alone organized play in general.

But, the reality right now is not OK either. Lacking the ability to rewrite the rules, and apparently unwilling to just accept that the point limit needs to go way down, organized play is shifting the problem to the players to simply play faster. I guess we'll see how well it works.

Remember, the issue is not "learn the rules for your army". In most cases the problem is deliberately playing slow. Will chess clocks fix that? Maybe, but I think there also needs to be harsh penalties for it. Most people can tell when they are specifically being gamed by slow play and just someone taking a bit longer than normal.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I just looked something up and found an interesting fact. In international chess events each player gets 2 hours to make 40 moves and then an additional hour for their next 20 moves. So it can take up to 6 hours total for a single chess game.

So much for the argument that a low model count means you use less time.

If your argument is that the rules make 40K hard to play in a reasonable time then the problem won't be solved by any means until the rules get fixed. So to all you TOs just pack up your events and wait for GW to fix everything.

How about a little personal responsibility? Learn the rules for your army and the general rules for the game. If you're unsure about the resolution of a rule contact the TO in advance. If you move slowly then practice. After that most things should take care of themselves.

You're comparing apples and strawmen there.

I don't see how. Many posters above keep saying that because chess has fewer pieces it is suitable for a game governed by timer rules. I'm just showing that fewer pieces doesn't mean less time for play.

The logical fallacy seems to be that because a player brings more models to the table than his opponent that he is entitled to/needs more time than his opponent. If this is the case it leads to problems when both players bring large numbers of models to the table. It also becomes a problem as both players lose models during the course of the game. Do you readjust clock usage as the model ratio changes? What happens when the person stating with the fewer models becomes the person with the larger amount of models? Does he get time back? Of course not, but that's the logical way to evenly divide the time allotment.

There can be no dispute that in an event there has to be a time limit on how long a game has to be played. The question seems to be how to ensure that each player has the same opportunity to participate as his opponent. The only method that has been suggested is a chess clock. I'd be open to other suggestions.

I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.

 Elbows wrote:
I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.

I think the problem with this approach is it further divides "ITC 40k" from "Base 40k". It's like how it was in 6th and 7th where ITC had their own restrictions and changes to the core rules to "fix" perceived issues for tournament play that GW (at that time) didn't care about. ITC requiring chess clocks just widens that gap further; you now have to find out if the area you play in is using ITC rules or "regular" 40k rules.

 Elbows wrote:
I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.

I own 1 army, Orkz. What build should I play instead of Horde that will be competitive and give me a chance to win? None? Ohh thats right, its not me bringing a annoying army because I want to be TFG its because GW did such a piss poor job designing my Army that the only competitive way to play is with a horde. When I play at tournaments I RUSH! I specifically ask opponents are you ok with me moving en mass rather then measuring every single model, I do everything in my power to SPEED the game up. The one thing I can not do though is not bring 100s of models and expect to have any kind of chance at winning. So I get you don't care about others, that is fine and is your right, just know that most Ork players don't want to be stuck into a horde play style, I miss my Speed Freakz and my Wagon Rush army.

Wayniac wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.

I think the problem with this approach is it further divides "ITC 40k" from "Base 40k". It's like how it was in 6th and 7th where ITC had their own restrictions and changes to the core rules to "fix" perceived issues for tournament play that GW (at that time) didn't care about. ITC requiring chess clocks just widens that gap further; you now have to find out if the area you play in is using ITC rules or "regular" 40k rules.

Tournaments "are" completely different from "Base 40K" though, that's why I don't really understand the issue here. 40K was not designed as a tournament game. The fact that the players keep trying to cram it into one doesn't really help things, so how can anyone be surprised when issues arise?

SemperMortis wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.

I own 1 army, Orkz. What build should I play instead of Horde that will be competitive and give me a chance to win? None? Ohh thats right, its not me bringing a annoying army because I want to be TFG its because GW did such a piss poor job designing my Army that the only competitive way to play is with a horde. When I play at tournaments I RUSH! I specifically ask opponents are you ok with me moving en mass rather then measuring every single model, I do everything in my power to SPEED the game up. The one thing I can not do though is not bring 100s of models and expect to have any kind of chance at winning. So I get you don't care about others, that is fine and is your right, just know that most Ork players don't want to be stuck into a horde play style, I miss my Speed Freakz and my Wagon Rush army.

You're bringing your army that takes a long time to play to a timed event. Why do you think that means the other player should have increased time pressure on him because of your army selection?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

dkoz wrote:
I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.

Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.

Now, why does that matter? If your army cannot complete the game in the time limit then it deserves to be penalised. But this way players who bring armies which could complete the game don't lose out just because someone else can't.

You want to penalize people for playing legal 40k thematic armies.

Why don’t we just lower the points for the armies? Sure that may prevent some low point cost armies from bringing all their toys, but if their units are expensive they deserve to be penalized. /s

Not a fan.

You think there are timing shenanigans now? Add a clock and you will be amazed at what you see. As a WM/H player, I hate the chess clock. I hate what it did to the game.

It dramatically affects your army list. Horde lists? Gone. Anything that takes a long time to resolve- gone. Someone above posted about line of sight and disputing it by clicking over the clock- you better believe there will be players that do exactly that.

What's being proposed is adding another facet to the game that it was not designed for.

It works like this:
Attacker on clock
Rolls hits and wounds
"Your unit takes this many wounds."
Switches clock to opponent
Defender rolls saves and removes casualties on his time
Switches clock back to attacker.

Click back:
"That die was cocked, please reroll it"
"How many dice did you just roll? You didn't count them off"
"You picked the dice up too fast for me to verify what you rolled"
"Did you factor in the -1 to hit from heavy weapons?"

Can you imagine what kind of game you would have I did that during every attack phase? What it would be like if I asked random questions about your army and clicked the clock over to you for an answer? If you did that during every phase? How do you think the Judge would handle it? Being called over all the time because your opponent keeps clocking over to you? Is that poor sportsmanship? Or is that using the rules?

The chess clock is the single worst thing to ever happen to WM/H, and it would be the same for Warhammer.

The people that would do what you are suggesting are the same people who do other grey area/illegal/annoying things in the current system. There is no way to solve that problem short of banning them from events.

The purpose of the clock is to ensure that each side gets the same amount of time during a timed event. I know that people complain that their opponent took 1 1/2 hours of their 2 hour game and they still didn't finish the game. This will at least address that issue.

 Tamwulf wrote:


The chess clock is the single worst thing to ever happen to WM/H, and it would be the same for Warhammer.

Yet almost everyone in the community uses it and of the (many) complaints you jear about WMH it's never about the death clock. So you're probably in a minority there.

I think it has potentially to unfairly punish horde armies and push the meta towards lower model count forces due to it taking less time to choose the actions of and move 20 models compared to 200. However if the time limit is long enough I don't see the issue. Could even work out something where you get a small time bonus for every x number of models above say 50.

In general though having something to keep the game moving and stop people staling and stop games running for hours and hours sounds like a positive.

SemperMortis wrote:

dkoz wrote:
I think people saying horde armies will be at a disadvantage with chess clocks are wrong. If you know your army and move along at a good pace there is no reason you will run out of time. Also it's the player's decision to play a horde army so splitting time equally isn't unfair to anyone. No player should be entitled to more time than another just because of their army choice.

Take two steps back and think about this logically. Does it take more time to move 20 models or 200 models. If you think its the same then I can't even have a discussion with you on this subject since we can't even agree on basic facts.

We can agree that it takes more time to move 200 models than it does to move 20 but now that we no longer have to worry about template weapons the time consuming positioning is less important in competitive games. 200 models may not be able to be moved as fast as 20 but they can be moved quick enough to complete a game in 1.5 hours.

Wait so if I'm a ork player, and find i can't play to finish cause im a naturally a slow player, so i swap over to a Custodes army, you still going to screw me over by taking my time for some reason?

It's stupid.


(Almost) every chess move is identical. You move one game piece. That's it. 99.999999999% of what the chess clock is there for is track time for thinking. Hell, I've seen people who hit the chess clock just before they actually move their piece. The time for physical moving the game piece isn't really what matters.

In 40K, people in tournaments are rarely just standing there thinking for half an hour (if they do, fair enough, get a chess clock). The vast majority of time is logistics: measurements, dice rolls, etc.. and a lot of it is done by both players in either players turns (so what if I just think about 30 minutes on whether or not I use a defensive stratagem to react to your deep strike or you shooting at my units?). It just doesn't translate well to the clock that isn't designed for that kind of game.

The "I deserve more time than you" argument still persists and must be put down for any progress to be made. This is the first step.The underlying assumption here is that we want all games to complete through turn 6.

It is as obvious as the nose on your face that if a horde army who needs more than half the time matches up with another horde army who also needs more than half the time, you won't complete the game. This is basically the nail in the coffin for the "I deserve more time than you" argument. For those of you who still labor under the assumption that it can still work if we make it really complicated, consider this: If we have some sort of "how-much-time-you-actually-deserve" comparative calculation, And you match up with an army smaller than yours, then you would get more time (yay!) But if you match up with an army larger than yours (totally possible btw) then you would get less than half the total time. And if you can play the game in the shorter amount of time, you can play with that much time in ALL cases. If you simply cannot do it, then your army, or speed of play, was incompatible with the tournament format. (For which you would blame the format, and vote with your feet, supporting tournaments that provide enough time for all players.)

This is to say nothing of the practical problems that would be created in a large tournament by trying to calculate exactly how much time each player should get (Which by the way would still amusingly require some way of measuring that time) and then trying to enforce a different standard on each table.

When you are preparing to go to a tournament you must do so by being ready to play 6 turns in half the time or less. That is a requirement for preparation. If you need more than half the time in the game, it can easily lead to the unacceptable situation where the game is not completed, which is unfair to your opponent.

If for some reason you don't want all games to go through turn 6 then you are a part of the problem.



Stated again: There is no good reason for another player to deserve more time than his opponent IN A TOURNAMENT. If you disagree, please try to explain.

Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I just looked something up and found an interesting fact. In international chess events each player gets 2 hours to make 40 moves and then an additional hour for their next 20 moves. So it can take up to 6 hours total for a single chess game.

So much for the argument that a low model count means you use less time.

Or, so much for the idea that chess clocks enable faster, more competitive play.
At the beginning of 8th, it was arbitrarily decided that we’d do 2000 points in 2.5 hours (7th was 1850 in 2.5ish). We can all acknowledge that the game and meta has changed with the introduction of codecies, but we can’t acknowledge that an initial guess on game size/length made when everyone had an Index might have been wrong?
I’m not against chess clocks, IF we can make sure the game is the right size and length first. Competitive chess gets 6 hours. My problem is with a tournament organizer (in this case the biggest one) saying the best solution is “you all need to be reminded to play our game faster”.

 Elemental wrote:
Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?

I've played with clocks, and I found it to be fun and effective. However, I don't think many people will find my opinion very helpful. I'd rather argue in their support based on their intrinsic merit.

I have two concerns here.

1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.

2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.

secretForge wrote:
I have two concerns here.

1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.

2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.

The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.

 Sim-Life wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I have two concerns here.

1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.

2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.

The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.

Exactly, which means that there is an additional barrier to entry for people. Which is not something I like.

 Sim-Life wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I have two concerns here.

1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.

2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.

The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.

Exactly. If someone brought a chess clock into a store for a pickup game and wanted to use it I can see them being left alone very quickly.

Outside of the US, ITC type missions are rare so I doubt this will effect me in any way. (not to say that ITC is not played, but it seems like its more accepted universally in the States)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

secretForge wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

secretForge wrote:
I have two concerns here.

1. If chess clocks become the norm, I feel we will loose some of the social aspects of the game.

2. Until its a 100% standard that GW suggest and provide in their stores, then the gap is being widened between the 'competitive' game, and what everyone else is playing, and its a big enough divide for those who have the opportunity to have a group of 'competitive' people to practice with, and the rest of the gaming population as is.

The clocks are just for ITC rule tournaments. Almost no one would use them outside of that.

Exactly, which means that there is an additional barrier to entry for people. Which is not something I like.

I don't see it as a barrier to entry. If you wanted to sign up for any tournament you would need to download the mission pack and learn the rules etc that the tournament would be using. You'd do the same with this.

(for the record, I still think clocks are a terrible idea for 40k and just as open to abuse as any other shenanigans, TFG's would implement.)

 Elbows wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
I have to say, I've got zero sympathy for people playing horde armies (particularly those which are intentionally large as part of their tactics/strategies). You're going into a timed event, you have to adjust to the event - the event has absolutely no requirement to adjust to your army/play style. The onus is on the player 100% to field an army he can effectively play during the allotted time period.

I think the problem with this approach is it further divides "ITC 40k" from "Base 40k". It's like how it was in 6th and 7th where ITC had their own restrictions and changes to the core rules to "fix" perceived issues for tournament play that GW (at that time) didn't care about. ITC requiring chess clocks just widens that gap further; you now have to find out if the area you play in is using ITC rules or "regular" 40k rules.

Tournaments "are" completely different from "Base 40K" though, that's why I don't really understand the issue here. 40K was not designed as a tournament game. The fact that the players keep trying to cram it into one doesn't really help things, so how can anyone be surprised when issues arise?

I think GW should come up with a tournament ruleset so those of us who don't play in them don't have to deal with all the BS they breed.

there should be a divide between the two. I have no interest in competitive play and hate when I'm playing a pick up game against someone practicing for a tourney.

I really like the idea of PL for fun and points for competitive. I'm not going to cheese and like my army pretty much staying the same.

I don't think the issue is that 40K wasn't designed as a tournament game so much at that non-competitive players keep trying to impose their desire for a non-competitive seen on everyone. I like a more narrative/fluff style game more often then not but I always ensure I talk to my opponents before hand to decide what kind of game we're going to have. Now if chess clocks help keep games moving faster and I can't see how they won't it only good for competitive play.

 Elemental wrote:
Do we have any feedback from people who have actually played 40K with clocks, or is this all still raging about hypotheticals?

I've posted a couple times in this thread that my area has used clocks off and on for a solid decade and it worked out fine, even with horde players.