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 many models does it take to trigger "asymetrical"? If I have 1 more model than my opponent do I get more time than him? How about 10? 20? You are choosing to field a large model count army. Why should I have to give up time to compensate you for your choice. If I have an elite army does that mean that I'm automatically getting to go first and/or choose which side of the table I get? What is your penalty for choosing a large army? Oh, maybe it's that you have less time per model to do things.

You could count the number of models; infantry, vehicles, weapon teams, etc. Vehicles might count 2-3 times. Add modifiers for Orks and Tyranids, because they need to move a lot. This will help you assess the expected amount of time needed to play that particular list adequately.

Bear in mind, I wrote "generous threshold". If for example each game is set to take 160 minutes, then both players would normally have 80 minutes each. If one army is significantly numerically larger than the other, he could get perhaps as much as 90 minutes, and his opponents would have his time reduced to 70 minutes. You wouldn't really notice having your time reduced by 10 minutes because of the way 40k is designed with defensive dice rolls taking place during your opponent's turn, and it would relieve your opponent of a lot of unnecessary pressure.

However, the majority of "horde" faction army shouldn't receive more than 5 extra minutes, so you're looking at 85/75 minutes on average.

The obvious penalty for bringing a numerically large army to a tournament or event, should always be the risk of running out of time. I'm on board with the chess clock, as long as it doesn't punish certain factions.

I am unfamiliar with what happen at LVO, I assume people were slow playing to prevent a new turn that will harm them.

This is dumb its only going cause more issues than it will solve.

 Zingraff wrote:

Reemule wrote:
This doesn't work. What if 2 players show with mirror forces, and each should get extra time? Should they both get extra time and the remaining players sit around watching after their games are done on proper time watching these 2 yahoos finish?

What if I find I can't play my force, so I swap to a much lower model count so I have the time I need to play it as I'm a much slower player? I should be punished and my time I need removed for some reason? How is that fair?

No. Please don't suggest this anymore. It is roundly a terrible idea.

Yes! Slower players should always be punished!

Why are you a "slower player"? If you've entered a tournament, you should be expected to be able to carry out the game with some degree of finesse and efficiency. Playing slowly on purpose is seriously disrespectful to your opponent(s), and one of the worst habits you can exhibit in any miniature or board game.

Either way, that's not what I was describing at all! If you have 30 dudes and I have 90, and we both spend X amount of time moving our game pieces, then you will spend 30X to my 90X number of minutes doing that. It's really very simple, and just one example of why a numerically larger force will take more time to play.

Also, I will not stop suggesting my idea! There's no such thing as 110%. If both armies are abnormally large, then the time allotted to their game will most likely be divided evenly between them, and they will probably find themselves running out of time.

Congrats on your trolling. I won't feed you any longer.

 Tamwulf wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
This thread is full of people explaining stupid situations which in 99% of games wouldn't occur because 99% of the player base are out to roll some dice and have a good time.

If that is the case, then why do we need clocks? To prevent that 1% from winning while punishing the other 99%?

Because to many games are not finishing on time and even someone who has no intention at all to slowplay will notice that they play faster when the clock exists to remind them of their time.
Stopping slowplay is just a big added benefit, but the real goal is simply to help games reach their natural conclusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zingraff wrote:
From a purely practical point of view, handling a materially larger army is going to take more time, than a small elite force. If you field a "horde" army, you should expect your turns to be longer, simply due to the amount of time spent setting up, moving, etc., - that's just the reality of it. It's absurd and unreasonable to expect a "horde" army to be equally time efficient as a more conventional MEQ army.

I don't see chess clocks working in a reasonable, satisfactory manner, unless this asymmetry is taken into account in some way.

I've got a couple of suggestions as to how I imagine chess clocks could be applied to games of 40k:

1. Time is divided, for example 60/40 between the players, to provide the player with the "handicap" more time. The percentages allotted to the players is determined according to a straightforward formula, which awards more time to players with forces larger than a preset, generous threshold. Unless both players are in need of more time, in which case the proportions are more likely to come out 50/50.
2. Only Space Marine armies are allowed, and/or you can only use an army list created by the tournament organisers.
3. Your army cannot exceed a certain head count, which means an IG player might have to trade in a good portion of his infanty for massive LoW tanks.

We are playing a tournament, we have 3 hours to complete a game.
Why does one player deserve more time then the other?

According to Zingraff it's only fair if the larger army gets more time than the smaller army (in terms of model count). Since larger armies take more time to do things like move, shoot and/or, melee.

It doesn't matter that they also probably have an advantage of more weapons, attacks and/or, wounds. Also more screening of major models and the opponent needing more time to decide target priority (wait that last thing isn't important to his P.O.V.).

Nope, all that matters is the disadvantage you have by playing a larger army.

 Ordana wrote:

We are playing a tournament, we have 3 hours to complete a game.
Why does one player deserve more time then the other?

Only when people honestly answer this question is when can we move forward.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

We are playing a tournament, we have 3 hours to complete a game.
Why does one player deserve more time then the other?

Only when people honestly answer this question is when can we move forward.

Actually, it's even worse than that.

Why does one player deserve to have some of the other player's time taken away and given to them instead?

If it was "extra" time as some people have disingenuously suggested that might be reasonable (albeit impractical) but it's not.

I now only play in local tournaments, so I do not have a dog in the ITC/LVO fight. I note, though, that ITC practices have a way of being ported into the wider the community. The thought of chess clocks bothers me as I see a game of 40K as a conversation between two players and "passing the clock" might harm that dialogue. Perhaps I am just being too conservative and I shouldn't have a strong opinion about something I haven't tried. I wish them well in their efforts to improve the experience of those who attend their events.

I played in the 1997 Canadian Grand Tournament (2nd Ed, 1500 points). Running out of time was simply unheard of back then. I think that there are simply too many models now at 2000 points for the 2.5 to 3 hr competitive format. There may also be some incentives for folks to play slow in ITC tournaments? Perhaps the organizers could study those incentives and find an more elegant solution than chess clocks?

Having said all that, I cannot understand why somebody would expect to get to use more time than the other player if time is a limited commodity. You know its a time-limited format and you chose your list. Perhaps horde players worried about chess clocks have already been counting on taking more time than their opponents? Otherwise they shouldn't be worried.

Cryogenicman wrote:

Insularum wrote:
In principle I'm against the use of player clocks as a direct control over game length, as it creates a built in advantage to low model count armies that has nothing to do with player skill or the absence/presence of intentional slow play.

The thing is, chess clocks don't create an advantage for low model count armies. They just limit each player to half of the available time. The real constraint is the overall time limit, determined by the tournament format, which has nothing to do with how that time is measured. If you are unable to play 6 turns in half the available time, you are bringing the wrong army to that event. Or perhaps you need more practice on how to play faster.

Can you really stand on an argument where you claim to deserve more than half the available time? Just imagine saying it out loud, or hearing it: "I deserve more time than you because ________". And if you had a mirror matchup, what then? Do you both deserve more than half of the available time?

I totally get it if people think that the allotted time is too short to play in. but let's direct that criticism to the time limits established for an event, or to a players particular ability. Chess clocks don't have anything to do with it.

This. I will not play in a competitive 40K event again unless they use chess clocks. I have been slow played one too many times, the last by an opponent who monopolized time during the game such that I didn't even get my turn 4, and he still used up the vast majority of time. In a two hour game I got roughly 30 minutes of play time. Tell me how that was equitable? If you can't play your army in half the allotted time, then don't bring it to the event. Don't like that? Too bad.

 auticus wrote:
I played a 200+ model count IG army with chess clocks in play and I did just fine.

The reason for chess clocks is purely to stop intentional slow play.

It shouldn't matter if horde armies need more of the chess clock. IF I have to choose between horde players having to get a little faster vs the rampant douchebaggery of intentional slow play that is a regular thing, I'll choose the chess clock every time.

My point exactly.

I don't see how giving people equal time isn't fair, in all competitive events I'm aware of each side gets the same amount of time.

One thing that I’ve not heard discussed in the cost. Cheapest ones I’ve seen are in the $20 range. When the local warmachine started into Chess clocks, we ran 3 tourneys with $10 entry fees to purchase 10 clocks. And many players bought their own.

Something thing like that is a factor. But as I already own 2 clocks, it’s not a big deal I think.

dkoz wrote:
I don't see how giving people equal time isn't fair, in all competitive events I'm aware of each side gets the same amount of time.

It 100% is fair and I say that as a horde player. I picked my army knowing I'd get 75~ minutes of a 2.5 hour game. It is incumbent upon me to either be able to play that army in that time frame or to choose a different army. I honestly think a thing people are missing here is this is about tournaments, not your local. At your local no one wants to punish you for for playing a horde army and taking more time but at a tournament the time limit is the time limit, you have to be able to function within it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
One thing that I’ve not heard discussed in the cost. Cheapest ones I’ve seen are in the $20 range. When the local warmachine started into Chess clocks, we ran 3 tourneys with $10 entry fees to purchase 10 clocks. And many players bought their own.

Something thing like that is a factor. But as I already own 2 clocks, it’s not a big deal I think.

We've talked about it and yeah we just plan to bump the cost of a few events to cover our club having a pool of available ones (and of course I'm sure people will pick up their own as well).

There are also several free chess clock apps that are good. If you know the majority of you normal players have smart phones you wouldn't even have to buy that many right away.

Chess clocks (or Death Clocks as sometimes noted) are going to be a great addition for time management for a Tournament environment.

As previously stated, each player should have the same amount of time in a game. Many have mentioned that large armies shouldn't be penalized, however small armies shouldn't be penalized either to have to wait hours at a time for the other player to get through -their- phase because that's the army they wanted to play. The opponent with the smaller army didn't make you choose a horde list, it's the list you wanted to play.

Ontop of that, I too am a horde Guard player that's able to get my times in check. It just takes planning. I understand not wanting to feel rushed, which is fine for a non-competitive environment. However, in a tournament setting a player should be knowledgeable enough for their own armies to be able to move quicker through turns and not waste other peoples' time and patience. It is honestly mind-numbing to sit and watch someone contemplate their every minute decision while mowing through your units.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I now only play in local tournaments, so I do not have a dog in the ITC/LVO fight. I note, though, that ITC practices have a way of being ported into the wider the community. The thought of chess clocks bothers me as I see a game of 40K as a conversation between two players and "passing the clock" might harm that dialogue. Perhaps I am just being too conservative and I shouldn't have a strong opinion about something I haven't tried. I wish them well in their efforts to improve the experience of those who attend their events.

I've actually found it to be the opposite. Passing the clock between players familiar with the clock has a certain formality to it that actually a sort of well mannered "after you" moment where a player locks in their decision to pass on something optional by shipping the clock back. Someone passes me the time, asking if I want to do... whatever, and I say no thank you and flip it back. Honestly, I've played chess clock games that are among the most "pinkies out" affair this side of a Tzeentch mirror match.

The main advantage of chess clock systems is simply that they largely keep the responsibility of time management isolated to the player affected. I can play a large model count army if I want, but if I do its my responsibility to play that army faster. It also grants the freedom to determine how I accomplish this by playing the first turn positioning game faster or simply knowing my stats better to resolve rolls quickly.

I look at it this way. If I clock out, it has a big impact on my game, but the impact is to me and the responsibility and capability of adjusting to improve is entirely on me. If a game ends on time and goes to tie breakers... there might not be anything I could have done to improve. Worse yet, I might win and be rewarded for not keeping up with the rest of the players and being respectful of their time. The big big reason chess clocks work is that despite having a larger potential impact on the game at the end, they create a game that rewards the exact same play that wins your everyday untimed game.... assuming you can complete an untimed game in the window provided by a tournament of course.

In general I like chess clocks because I have all my time up front and can freely distribute it across my turns as I see fit. It feels more organic and closest to the way games play casually. Ultimately it just says, learn to get your game done; which is the real goal of any timer system anyway.

I only wish Fantasy Tournaments had implemented this rule back when it existed! I only recently got back into 40k, but between my experience in both 40k tourneys (admitedly limited) and fantasy (extensive and slow play was very much an issue in that game too, no matter the edition), I can say that in general slow play has much less to do with the army and much more to do with the player. horde armies are not an excuse. I have seen some players that played massive lists with a lot of complex and intricate movement tactics involved who never failed to finish a game, while I have seen armies of under 40 models in a 2.5k fantasy tourney struggle to get past turn 3.

It is almost always the player, whether intentional or not, who is the issue.

It is about:
A. knowing the games rules
B. knowing your army's rules
C. Having a working knowledge of the other armies in the game (this very much comes with D)
D. Practice
E. Being prepared (IE having right amount of dice, movement trays, etc etc).
F. Time management (Stop overthinking dumb things) this one especially applies to top players. Always know your priorities based on the length of the game and how much time you need to finish.

That is all. Chess Clocks help to require this combination of knowledge, skill and practice. They should be required of anyone hoping to win a tourney. I have never seen someone or their opponent not finish a game in 2.5 hours who didn't fall into one of these categories (or intentionally slow play it), in any tabletop game I have played. I have never seen it happen because they just had too many dice to roll, never. If your casual or new, it is just a new part of the experience that you can learn from and easily adapt to. For the tourney player, if you run out of time you have failed in an important aspect of this game, its not bias against your horde, figure out what ate up your time and fix it for the next tourney. I always take pride at a tourney, win or lose, if I finish all of my games early. It almost always means my opponent and I played an efficient and argument free game, and best part it means I get to watch some of the other games before the next round.

 LunarSol wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I now only play in local tournaments, so I do not have a dog in the ITC/LVO fight. I note, though, that ITC practices have a way of being ported into the wider the community. The thought of chess clocks bothers me as I see a game of 40K as a conversation between two players and "passing the clock" might harm that dialogue. Perhaps I am just being too conservative and I shouldn't have a strong opinion about something I haven't tried. I wish them well in their efforts to improve the experience of those who attend their events.

I've actually found it to be the opposite. Passing the clock between players familiar with the clock has a certain formality to it that actually a sort of well mannered "after you" moment where a player locks in their decision to pass on something optional by shipping the clock back. Someone passes me the time, asking if I want to do... whatever, and I say no thank you and flip it back. Honestly, I've played chess clock games that are among the most "pinkies out" affair this side of a Tzeentch mirror match.

The main advantage of chess clock systems is simply that they largely keep the responsibility of time management isolated to the player affected. I can play a large model count army if I want, but if I do its my responsibility to play that army faster. It also grants the freedom to determine how I accomplish this by playing the first turn positioning game faster or simply knowing my stats better to resolve rolls quickly.

I look at it this way. If I clock out, it has a big impact on my game, but the impact is to me and the responsibility and capability of adjusting to improve is entirely on me. If a game ends on time and goes to tie breakers... there might not be anything I could have done to improve. Worse yet, I might win and be rewarded for not keeping up with the rest of the players and being respectful of their time. The big big reason chess clocks work is that despite having a larger potential impact on the game at the end, they create a game that rewards the exact same play that wins your everyday untimed game.... assuming you can complete an untimed game in the window provided by a tournament of course.

In general I like chess clocks because I have all my time up front and can freely distribute it across my turns as I see fit. It feels more organic and closest to the way games play casually. Ultimately it just says, learn to get your game done; which is the real goal of any timer system anyway.

That's encouraging to hear. I suppose I should try a chess clock out a few times before hitting the panic button! I have not had a timing out problem in local tourneys yet, but I know a few guys only got one and a half turns done at our last one. A chess clock probably couldn't have hurt their game experience and might have helped.

Maybe the problem is more an ITC thing? That format seems to play slower and have needles extra complication with no great upside. I hardly ever play it though as it's not a common tournament format here, thankfully.

Anyone arguing that they deserve more time for play a horde army is part of the reason im so in favor of chess clocks (i play guard with mass infantry, played an all goblin army in WHFB and am planning on playing tyranids next so i have always played horde). Just because i choose to bring more models then you in no way means i have more of a right to monopolize the set time at a tournament. I was the main practice partner for my friend who went to LVO and we never didn't make it past turn 5 in a game and i can honestly say the majority of my turns were faster. If you know your units stats and are proactively thinking about what you want to accomplish in your turn during there turn you should be able to fit an entire game length in no matter the size of your army.

I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.

These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.

A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.

I do not support this implementation.

It has been used in other games (like PP and their death clock), and it becomes part of the rules for some competitive formats in those games. If a tournament you sign up for explicitly states that they are using a means to measure your play time, and it may affect the outcome of the tournament, then you should design a list based on the rules given and applied to everyone. If you consciously bring a massive horde army to a timed tournament, then you are self-imposing a handicap to yourself. If you are skilled enough of a player, then you should be able to play around it, or allow tools to aid in faster play (movement trays).

There are ways to tweak the rules. Perhaps awarding points based on the difference in time played, rather than losing if your time runs out. If you play (for example) 20 minutes less than your opponent, then you are awarded "X" extra points, and every 10 minutes beyond that, an extra "Y" points. This would award players for faster play. If two players bring an equally sized army, and we are seeing these huge discrepancies, then the faster player is rewarded.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.

These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.

A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.

I do not support this implementation.

The game is not designed to end at turn 4 and the fact is some armies are simply better at the early stages of the game. There is no reason why 95% of games played by two players motivated to make it through and who know the rules shouldn't be able to finish a game of 40k to its natural conclusion with the standard amount of time in a tournament.

If that becomes the standard I just won't play in tournaments with clocks.

The idea of being unable to use half of my troops because of the time invested in moving, deploying, and using them, rankles me.

It's like the idea that the game must be 5 turns is somehow better than people bringing diverse armies that actually take some effort to play.

40k is simply not balanced enough, nor designed around, high competitive play, with a time limit, where the rounds have X games and must be played on a single day.

A better redesign for this game would be to eliminate all unnecessary rolling, and bring in a framework for automated hits. Rolling a ton of dice, and having to count rerolls, all over the place, is a big problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.

These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.

A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.

I do not support this implementation.

The game is not designed to end at turn 4 and the fact is some armies are simply better at the early stages of the game. There is no reason why 95% of games played by two players motivated to make it through and who know the rules shouldn't be able to finish a game of 40k to its natural conclusion with the standard amount of time in a tournament.

That's just not true, 2.5 hours is nothing. If you take 30 minutes to accomplish all pregame activities, that leaves you two hours for 5 turns. All you do with clocks is force people to skip certain actions.

Can you please explain how ending at turn 4 is somehow an artificial conclusion that doesn't reflect the games design, yet forcing one player to skip activating a huge chunk of his force is not?

 Marmatag wrote:
If that becomes the standard I just won't play in tournaments with clocks.

The idea of being unable to use half of my troops because of the time invested in moving, deploying, and using them, rankles me.

It's like the idea that the game must be 5 turns is somehow better than people bringing diverse armies that actually take some effort to play.

40k is simply not balanced enough, nor designed around, high competitive play, with a time limit, where the rounds have X games and must be played on a single day.

A better redesign for this game would be to eliminate all unnecessary rolling, and bring in a framework for automated hits. Rolling a ton of dice, and having to count rerolls, all over the place, is a big problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm going to jump off of the chess clocks bandwagon here.

These should be used to catch slowplayers, not to punish people who are playing fast enough. The whole idea that you can have equal time in a game like this seems like an unrealistic expectation.

A better expectation is that the game goes to turn 4 and both players get their 4 turns. And if neither player is slowplaying this is feasible.

I do not support this implementation.

The game is not designed to end at turn 4 and the fact is some armies are simply better at the early stages of the game. There is no reason why 95% of games played by two players motivated to make it through and who know the rules shouldn't be able to finish a game of 40k to its natural conclusion with the standard amount of time in a tournament.

That's just not true, 2.5 hours is nothing. If you take 30 minutes to accomplish all pregame activities, that leaves you two hours for 5 turns. All you do with clocks is force people to skip certain actions.

Can you please explain how ending at turn 4 is somehow an artificial conclusion that doesn't reflect the games design, yet forcing one player to skip activating a huge chunk of his force is not?

Firstly your entire assumption is wrong.
You are assuming that
>2.5 hour is not enough time to finish a game of 40k without skipping steps
This is 100% false as i helped my friend practice for LVO and out of the 8-10 timed games we played only one ended on turn 5 because we didnt finish and it was because we were talking to much about the super bowl party we were going to attend that night.
The fact is that 2.5 hours is plenty of time to finish the game if both players know that stats for there units and aren't sitting there strategizing too long (this is your own fault if you cannot make decisions quick enough and that's on you not your opponent). Not playing to the natural conclusion of the game cheats certain armies especial those that aren't gun lines because they often cannot bring the true strength of there army to bear until turns 2-3 so you are cheating them out of optimal turns by ending the game early. If you are really incapable of playing your army quick enough then it is on you to either
A. bring an army you can manage
B. forfit your later turns because of your slow play
C. simply dont play in tournaments with a set amount of time

Your post doesn't address the core question I raised, which is how your view of 40k is some how better than mine, wherein games sometimes end before turn 5. I don't agree with the premise that 40k needs to go turn 5 in every game, and frankly I don't see why it should ever go past turn 5. Assuming you can always get 5 turns because you helped someone practice for the LVO... come on man. You may as well say, "I did this thing once therefore it has become the standard."

Things shake out quite a bit different in an actual event. There are discussions around rules, stat profiles, line of sight, measurements, ranges, the list goes on. People don't always play by the rules (intentionally or unintentionally) and auditing that takes time.

Lastly you haven't made a case that chess clocks will actually increase the number of turns. People getting equal time in a perfect world doesn't mean games go to turn 5. If the goal is an equal number of turns, I do not believe the chess clock accomplishes this. Although it does give people an opportunity to be TFG and game the system.

TFGs don't need the clock as an excuse to game the system. They already do that, it's why they're TFGs in the first place.

The clock merely ensures that each player gets the same amount of time to play their army. It's no different from each player getting the same amount of points. If people make bad decisions in either instance then they should suffer the appropriate consequences. What the penalty should be for clock violations is a separate matter.

 Marmatag wrote:
Your post doesn't address the core question I raised, which is how your view of 40k is some how better than mine, wherein games sometimes end before turn 5. I don't agree with the premise that 40k needs to go turn 5 in every game, and frankly I don't see why it should ever go past turn 5. Assuming you can always get 5 turns because you helped someone practice for the LVO... come on man. You may as well say, "I did this thing once therefore it has become the standard."

Things shake out quite a bit different in an actual event. There are discussions around rules, stat profiles, line of sight, measurements, ranges, the list goes on. People don't always play by the rules (intentionally or unintentionally) and auditing that takes time.

Lastly you haven't made a case that chess clocks will actually increase the number of turns. People getting equal time in a perfect world doesn't mean games go to turn 5. If the goal is an equal number of turns, I do not believe the chess clock accomplishes this. Although it does give people an opportunity to be TFG and game the system.

You either have very bad reading comprehension or are intentionally trying to take what I said out of context. Obviously not every round of warhammer goes to turn 5-6 you can obviously be tabled turn 2 or crippled so badly hat you concead defeat. Much of the length of a game in turns is decided by matchup and if an army has the staying power to make it the full distance. What I mean by “warhammer is not made to be played in 3-4 turns” is that he rules dictate that the game does not end until an army is completely destroyed, an objective is reached, a player conceads defeat or the game reaches the specified number of turns. So when you are playing slowly and have to end a game before one of those conditions are met you are not playing the game the way it was designed to be played. Game length turn wise should always reach its natural conclusion in a tournament so you can see who really won the game. Just ending a game on turn 3 arbitrarily because you played the game too slowely is cheating your opponent out of a proper game.

Your inability to finish the game to the natural conclusion is the exact need for the chess clock because ending a game because you are too slow and not because you met a victory condition is not fair to your opponent. I am also well aware of how tournaments work and of all the ones I’ve ever played in I only had a single game that ended because of time and not playing out the full length and that was because my opponent showed up with an army he had never played and spent half of OUR time to play he game looking up rules. It was the least fun I have ever had in an event and something I hope never happens again.

A chess clock is no different then a point limit in a game 2000 points ensures both players have an equal playing field for the game. Chess clocks ensures that they both have equal time to try to complete their objective.when you take more then half the time you are using up more then your equal share of a resource that your opponent has the right too.

 Marmatag wrote:
If that becomes the standard I just won't play in tournaments with clocks.

The idea of being unable to use half of my troops because of the time invested in moving, deploying, and using them, rankles me.

It's like the idea that the game must be 5 turns is somehow better than people bringing diverse armies that actually take some effort to play.

40k is simply not balanced enough, nor designed around, high competitive play, with a time limit, where the rounds have X games and must be played on a single day.

A better redesign for this game would be to eliminate all unnecessary rolling, and bring in a framework for automated hits. Rolling a ton of dice, and having to count rerolls, all over the place, is a big problem.

Your assumption is that people's lists would not get adjusted with time resource in mind. They used it in Privateer press games, and it has worked for years. Players (at least the good ones) will redesigned lists to play to the rules of the tournament. You can bring a diverse army list, but understand that you are playing to a clock and adjust your list accordingly, so the player is punishing themselves to gain a list advantage. Its their responsibility to manage that balance and show they are a player worth their salt.

Its not a TO's job to design a tournament ruleset that fits all lists. Its the player's job to bring a list that can perform well in the rules that are fairly applied to everyone.

 Sim-Life wrote:
If you KNOW theres a time constraint at an event and you still choose to play a horde then have some accountability rather than whinging and demanding more time because you made a difficult choice.

Anyway, I play horde nids all the time an never have a problem with games lasting longer than usual.

Except for many armies it's not CHOICE to bring horde but decision spoon fed by GW because anything other than that is throwing money into garbage coming into tournament with 0 chance of actually even drawing game let alone avoiding anything but getting roflstomped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

And it's not even moving that takes btw longer. It's the bazillion dices you need to roll with bazillion rerolls. Which models tend to shoot more? 200 models than 20? No 20 model army tends to roll more than 10x dices...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

No. Onus is on tournament organizers to ensure tournament works for all armies. That or just make note no ork etc horde armies are allowed to bring. Or if allow dont' take money if the tournament organizers make house rules that effectively ban those armies. Otherwise they are just greedy taking money while banning their armies.

If they can't provide enough time for game then drop the point cost. THAT is basic requirement.

If we're going to introduce a time limit, and understand the fact that it will take longer to move my 60 Ork boys than your 25 Space Marines, are we then going to include a points cut or other balencing rule to compensate the hoard units for the new additional disadvantage they will bring to the game? Unless ya'll think GW pointed them to include the disadvantage that they may cause you to lose the game on time?