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.

So if the main gripe from players with horde armies is moving around their units, what's the appetite for using movement trays that would facilitate moving large numbers of units quickly? It's been used in WHFB for decades.

Would this make it more palatable to introduce chess clocks? That would give them no excuse for slow play, since you can move a tray of 30 orks faster than moving 10 individual space marines. If they refuse, then it shows their intention is to use slow play to their advantage.

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].

Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?

Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.

Are you still willing to short him time?

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].

Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?

Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.

Are you still willing to short him time?

Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.

Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.

The whole idea of chess clocks is either

(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another

(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.

I would think that just the basic idea of fairness would imply that each person gets to use equal resources within the context of the game. That is that each person is given the same parameters to play a game to its conclusion. Both players know coming into the event the maximum points their army is allowed to be and how long each round is going to be.

Just because I choose to bring a smaller army doesn't mean that I'm conceding my time to you. Maybe I need longer to think about how/where I'm going to move or I want to make sure that everything I do is within the rules or I want to check that I'm not missing some special rule(s) on my models. Or I just feel that I might need more time to play in general.

You are no more entitled to take my time than I am to bring extra models to the table.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].

Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?

Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.

Are you still willing to short him time?

Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.

Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.

The whole idea of chess clocks is either

(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another

(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.

I disagree with your A/B premise. And also your idea that someone should due to army choice receive either less or more time at a event to be the active player.

I think there are plenty of none malicious players who just happen to play very slow. While I don't think that 40K 8th edition is a very complex game, there are people who either aren't practiced enough, or what ever.

I also think that there are people who have decided they want more time, so they do play smaller count armies to decide to give themselves that time.

Your entirely discounting them.

You place some weight on army model count as deciding who should receive time. If I design a force that is going to be very efficient in turns 4 and 5 to win a game, shouldn't I be given the time to use them?

 Marmatag wrote:

Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.

Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.

The whole idea of chess clocks is either

(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another

(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.

What if you can use movement trays to facilitate movement. If you are given tools to help you move around your units, then moving a unit of 30 orks on a movement tray would not take that much longer than an IK.

Clocks have been demonstrated to work effectively in other competitive scenes for tabletop wargames. There is no reason to suggest it can't work here.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].

Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?

Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.

Are you still willing to short him time?

Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.

Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.

The whole idea of chess clocks is either

(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another

(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.

a. It is much harder to game a chess clock, and much easier to prove cheating with the correct clock ruleset. This is a very misleading argument. Nothing is perfect. The idea is to make it as difficult as possible, and when it happens to make it as easy as possible to prove. There are degrees here, nothing is totally black and white. A chess clock is far harder to game and much easier to prove slowplay with than without one, the fact that it is still technically possible does not remove its relevance. All rules can be broken and stretched, the point is to disincentive those who would do so. Someone will always have the incentive, but the goal is to limit the number of people who do. The most egregious offenders are not the reason why such a large percentage of tournament players don't finish their game. As horrible as they are, they are so few and far between they are not the issue here.

b. Because it is built into the rules? Because the game is balanced around a full 5+ turn game? This is not a casual game with your pal. Sure I play my friend, we take a little too long and we need to go home, all good no issue. This happens at table 52 probably no issue either. But at the end of the day a tournament requires a set of expectations and game standards be met, one of those standards is the length (both in time and in # of turns) of the game. It doesn't matter what you think of that concept it is a tenant of 40k, it matters to the integrity of a competitive game. You clearly don't seem to care about the competitive aspect of the game, which is fine, but we are talking about tournaments, which by nature feature a competitive aspect. This is a piece of that, regardless of the reasons you go to a tournament.

Overall premise: I think we all agree that we want a fair game. Right?

Where we disagree:
(a) Definition of fair game
(b) How to make the game fair

Before we can even talk about (b) we need to agree on (a) or just walk away from the discussion.

If your definition of a fair game is equal time for both players that reaches turn 6, I don't agree with that.

A player should have access to the time they need. If you play a sufficient number of turns (up to your own definition of what that is), and one player ends up using 30 minutes more, but neither player is impacted, is there a problem? I would say NO, because the game reached its natural conclusion with neither player being slighted by time.

Secondly, you need to define equal time, but within the context of 40k. Rules discussions, rules disagreements, rules clarification, dice rolling out of phase (saves, denial, etc), actions out of phase (stratagems, etc), make it immensely difficult to actually measure time in the first place. And even if you can, you would need to make the case that an army with heavy out of phase or out of sequence actions is slighting your opponent.

If this game was truly 100% i-go-you-go, then it would be far easier to measure time properly, but it isn't. Since it can't accurately be measured, i can't agree that it is a requirement for a fair game.

Finally, games are generally decided far before turn 6. And before you call me a casual player to totally disregard that, I play in tournaments, competitively. It should be apparent by turn 3 who is going to win, and games become an exercise in scoring as much as you can to affect overall standings. I have yet to see a game shift points after turn 4, where one person was winning and another was losing. I feel an appropriate turn to end a game is turn 4. You're only skipping turns 5 and 6, where the scores will be at most totaling 4 points for 1 player in the vast majority of cases. You could make the case that this alters the value of old school. I am 100% on board with refining the secondaries in the first place, there are quite a few "auto-take" secondaries and a few "never take" as well.

So this falls apart pretty quickly. You can't measure time properly in the first place, and equal time doesn't really imply equal opportunity, which is what i believe what you're after.

My definition of a fair game:
A game wherein both players get 4 full turns with equal opportunity to act throughout the game.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.

I agree with this.

Good faith games, and players, shouldn't be considered. Chess clocks should be discussed in the context of unfair play.

So for instance, the guy who every time you open your mouth to speak he hits the clock, or the guy who rolls a billion dice to wound and immediately hits the clock, letting you count the dice yourself, or the guy who challenges your rules and hits the clock, or the guy who intentionally moves his models too far so you have to challenge and hits the clock, or the guy who starts bending the rules (he was probably already doing this) to get you to challenge them and hits the clock...

When players play in bad faith the clock is easily abused. When players play in good faith, there is no need for a clock. Equal time is not a concept that makes sense in 40k. There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army. Equal turns is totally reasonable, though.

If someone ships the clock to me when they haven't bothered to provide me with the information needed to complete my portion of the game I promise you I will ship the clock right back. Most of your examples of how to abuse the clock seem to be under the assumption that your opponent is the only person capable of switching it over.

 Marmatag wrote:
Overall premise: I think we all agree that we want a fair game. Right?

Where we disagree:
(a) Definition of fair game
(b) How to make the game fair

Before we can even talk about (b) we need to agree on (a) or just walk away from the discussion.

If your definition of a fair game is equal time for both players that reaches turn 6, I don't agree with that.

A player should have access to the time they need. If you play a sufficient number of turns (up to your own definition of what that is), and one player ends up using 30 minutes more, but neither player is impacted, is there a problem? I would say NO, because the game reached its natural conclusion with neither player being slighted by time.

Secondly, you need to define equal time, but within the context of 40k. Rules discussions, rules disagreements, rules clarification, dice rolling out of phase (saves, denial, etc), actions out of phase (stratagems, etc), make it immensely difficult to actually measure time in the first place. And even if you can, you would need to make the case that an army with heavy out of phase or out of sequence actions is slighting your opponent.

If this game was truly 100% i-go-you-go, then it would be far easier to measure time properly, but it isn't. Since it can't accurately be measured, i can't agree that it is a requirement for a fair game.

Finally, games are generally decided far before turn 6. And before you call me a casual player to totally disregard that, I play in tournaments, competitively. It should be apparent by turn 3 who is going to win, and games become an exercise in scoring as much as you can to affect overall standings. I have yet to see a game shift points after turn 4, where one person was winning and another was losing. I feel an appropriate turn to end a game is turn 4. You're only skipping turns 5 and 6, where the scores will be at most totaling 4 points for 1 player in the vast majority of cases.

So this falls apart pretty quickly. You can't measure time properly in the first place, and equal time doesn't really imply equal opportunity, which is what i believe what you're after.

For starters I think your premise about having the time you need is flawed. In an ideal world both players should be given the time they need. Great, awesome, but time is not an unlimited resource. No Tournament can function properly with more then 3 hours per round (3 hours is pushing it and can be very hard to pull off) 2.5 hours is usually more realistic. If both players could consistently conclude all of their turns in those necessary time constraints in Tournaments we would not be having the discussion we are. Which brings us to, okay so if we can't just allow each player to naturally conclude their game, how do we divy up time? Is it in direct relation to model count? Number of shots fired per round? The precision of movement necessary to that army? The complexity of the armies rules? The players personal speed? I am a particularly fast player. I practice a game a lot before I go to a tourney, I generally have all rules memorized and I am decisive (sometimes for ill) when making decisions. That means that rarely do I take more then 30 minutes to complete 5-6 game turns after set up when I am prepared, regardless of the army I am using (for the sake of this discussion I will humor you the misconceptions that hordes take a massive amount of time to play). So in theory if we have 2 and a half hours and lets just say it takes me 40 minutes to complete set up and all of my turns, would I care if my opponent then took an hour and 50 minutes for his actions? No, not really, but here in lies the rub. How on earth does a tourney plan for that. How do we guarantee he has that much time? What if I take an hour for my turn, and he still needs almost a full 2 hours for his? Oh but I only have 40 models to his 150 so that is okay? How do we objectively decide that so you know before the tournament has even started how much time you will have each and every round to complete your turns? It is impossible.

This is where the chess clock and equitable turn length comes into play. Does a Knight list need an hour and 15 minutes to set up and play his turns? No, he doesn't. But guess what if you enter a tournament KNOWING EXACTLY how much time you need to do everything you need to do in a game, and you are going to need more time than the tournament can logistically provide, why on earth are you bringing that army? Either you need to alter your list to fit the confines of the venue, or you need to put in some real work to increase your play efficiency. If you are a casual player, who cares? Go, have fun, throw some dice and if you run out, well you and your opponent can have a good laugh as you try to figure out what would have happened if you guys had had the time to finish, and he likely wins oh well. Time management and game knowledge are an aspect of the hobby whether you like it or not. They are no less important then anything else. If you don't know your book, shame on you, if you don't have enough dice organized properly, shame on you, if you hate movement trays and don't bring them, it is up to you to make up the time lost moving each individual model. It is all about managing expectations and ensuring the integrity of the game and that of the tourney results is maintained. As long as everyone knows what they are in for, it is their responsibility to be prepared for it. The second you throw in the unknown, that is when feelings are hurt, that is when people leave angry, that is when games are ruined, and that is when tourney's fail.

EDIT: Also, when you feel an apropriate turn it end is irrelevant. If your solution to this problem is that all games should end at the close of turn 4 great. That is not the position you have spent most of this thread arguing from, instead just saying it doesn't matter if you finish the game (It does, and always will to many). Your tournament will have managed that expectation, and those players who's armies that thrive in the end game, which you say don't exist will need to adjust accordingly. That is a comp you can introduce as a TO. But the game as written, and those tournaments who choose to play to the game length as written must do everything in their power to make the game length as advertised, or you will get a festival of disappointment and woe at the end of it as I have seen so often in both the days of Warhammer fantasy and now with 40k.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].

Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?

Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.

Are you still willing to short him time?

Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.

Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.

The whole idea of chess clocks is either

(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another

(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.

Your argument itself shows the need for chess clocks. There's a reason why there are rules in 40k for everything and now frequent FAQs on rules. Your definition of "common sense" for how much time you get to move your army may or may not be the same as your opponent.

Think of it for army balance one player brings 1000 orks to a tourney the other player brings 5 custodians. The ork player says it is fair just read the lore of what happened to orks with a greater number advantage in lore. The Imperium player points out that it's obviously not equal. The solution is to assign points to all models and give players an equal amount of points. This obviously cant account for player skill or just plain luck but it give an equal playing field to play on.

So you think you deserve 2 hours and 20minutes of the 3 hour game for your ork army and the Imperium player thinks he deserves 2 hours of the 3 hour game because he really likes to think out deployment "orks don't need to strategize just line up and run at the enemy". Both players are entitled to there own opinion but you solve the problem by giving each player exactly half and having rules for how and when time is passed back and forth.

arguing you deserve more time is just as laughable for you walking up to the table and pulling out another 1000 points claiming your army is subjectively harder to play.

I just feel this a knee jerk reaction by FLG to the fiasco that was the LVO 40k finals this year.

Asmodios wrote:

So you think you deserve 2 hours and 20minutes of the 3 hour game

This thread, in a nutshell.

 Primark G wrote:
I just feel this a knee jerk reaction by FLG to the fiasco that was the LVO 40k finals this year.

There were more games than just the finals that had issues. I saw more than a few during my games (though thankfully didn't experience it myself).

@marmatag : if the goal is not to get to the end of the game (ie turn 5or 6 or whatever that is for a mission) then I’d agree chess clocks don’t make much sense. Considering the outcome of the game can be very different if it ends on turn 3or turn 6 though, I believe it matters. It’s particularly an issue in games that are scored at the end of every round for objectives or if objectives can change during the game.

My own experience is that I want my games to go to their actual conclusion, and not end on turn 3just becuase we’re out of time. I also don’t want every game of 40k to take 4hours to play even if there isn’t a clock running.

I’m still a little bewildered that they don’t just cut down the point limit, but as long as we’re trying to fit a 2k game into a 2.5hour time slot, I think chess clocks are the lesser of two evils here. The situation right now is not good IMO, with 1player hogging all the time in a game (intentionally or not) and games often ending on a very early turn count of 3 or 4. Some don’t get past turn 2.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So you think you deserve 2 hours and 20minutes of the 3 hour game

This thread, in a nutshell.

Making misleading, oversimplified, or downright fallacious approximations of other people's arguments appears to be this thread, in a nutshell.

Slowplaying will still be a thing, but just in a different form.

For instance, before clocks, if i shoot 90 dice into 10 guardsmen, opponents will just pull the models.

Now, you are totally within your rights to make me roll in proper sequence, rolling all the dice. It's slowplaying, just in a different package. I charged 19 genestealers into a squad of 10 guardsmen in a tournament recently, and my opponent required i roll the dice. I mean, he's within his rights to do this, and it does eat into the game time. Although in this case, it would eat into my time only.

The idea that clocks won't be, or can't be gamed, and that it will fix slowplaying? come on. Slowplaying has many forms. Any opportunity to make your opponent burn time, people will capitalize on. And if you're a good player, who wants to win an event, you'll do this too. Because you're operating strictly within the rules by doing so.

 Marmatag wrote:
Overall premise: I think we all agree that we want a fair game. Right?

Where we disagree:
(a) Definition of fair game
(b) How to make the game fair

Before we can even talk about (b) we need to agree on (a) or just walk away from the discussion.

If your definition of a fair game is equal time for both players that reaches turn 6, I don't agree with that.

A player should have access to the time they need. If you play a sufficient number of turns (up to your own definition of what that is), and one player ends up using 30 minutes more, but neither player is impacted, is there a problem? I would say NO, because the game reached its natural conclusion with neither player being slighted by time.

Unfortunately events may not have all the time a player needs thus the time constraint in the first place. Your second point goes to the "No harm, no foul" ideal. The problem is that neither player can say how long he'll need for any given game. TOs can't go around adjusting everyones time to suit their needs. Therefore, an arbitrary time limit is given to each player.

Secondly, you need to define equal time, but within the context of 40k. Rules discussions, rules disagreements, rules clarification, dice rolling out of phase (saves, denial, etc), actions out of phase (stratagems, etc), make it immensely difficult to actually measure time in the first place. And even if you can, you would need to make the case that an army with heavy out of phase or out of sequence actions is slighting your opponent.

This should be clarified by the TO before the start of events. Each TO will have a different preference for how players handle their clock vis-a-vis a dispute. Some will say that the person making the challenge should be using their clock time to get the TO other TOs may say that the players should pause the clock and then get him. When another player wishes to take an action then he should hit the clock over to himself and take his action. At the resolution of his action he hits the clock back to his opponent. Obviously there can be special circumstances but that should be the general rule.

Finally, games are generally decided far before turn 6. And before you call me a casual player to totally disregard that, I play in tournaments, competitively. It should be apparent by turn 3 who is going to win, and games become an exercise in scoring as much as you can to affect overall standings. I have yet to see a game shift points after turn 4, where one person was winning and another was losing. I feel an appropriate turn to end a game is turn 4. You're only skipping turns 5 and 6, where the scores will be at most totaling 4 points for 1 player in the vast majority of cases. You could make the case that this alters the value of old school. I am 100% on board with refining the secondaries in the first place, there are quite a few "auto-take" secondaries and a few "never take" as well.

Whether a game is "over" by turn 4 or not the rules say to play to 5+. Just because you've never seen a comeback doesn't mean that it can't happen. Also sometimes the game can be close and maybe that extra turn can get you that extra point that you need.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army.[b].

Why isn't the Imperial Player entitled? He spent the same money. He made the effort to go to the event. Why isn't he entitled?

Let me go further in your hypothetical. Say Imperial Knight player is an amputee who plays imperial knights as he is literally a 1 armed man and knows he needs more time, as he is working.. well one handed.

Are you still willing to short him time?

Common sense should dictate an army with 4 models is going to play much, much faster than an army with 100+ models.

Why should you be entitled to time you don't need? And again, this is where it gets back to the expected number of rounds. If the game is expected to go to 6 rounds, then the IK player may have a legitimate gripe. If the game is expected to go to 4 rounds, then the IK player gets all the time he needs, regardless of what his opponent brings.

The whole idea of chess clocks is either

(a) To stop slowplaying - players cheating to gain an advantage - you need to demonstrate that a clock is not game-able by these players, or you're just trading one problem for another

(b) To increase the number of turns played in a game - I don't agree the game needs 5+ turns to be a good game. Change my mind.

Sorry but this isn't socialist Venezuela you don't get to take time from some just be cause the have more of it. Both players agreed to play in a tournament w/a time limit on the game so they are both only entitled to half the time. Just because you have a larger army doesn't mean you need more time. I've seen plenty of 200+ model armies complete games in their allotted time of 1.5hrs without having to rush to an extent that would make the game unenjoyable. People are only entitled to an equal opportunity not an equal outcome if you choose to play a larger army and not practice with the time constraints that's your choice.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So you think you deserve 2 hours and 20minutes of the 3 hour game

This thread, in a nutshell.

Obviously, you don't have an actual reply. The point is your argument has no firm line in the sand. Exactly what percentage of time does an ork player deserve? does it change based on the army he's playing? what about his army comp? At what exact point does someone cross from "orks take longer to play" to "thats intentional slow play". unless you can come out with an official formula that every TO could walk over and say yes or no to if someone slow played then a chess clock is the only way to fairly distribute time per game. Just saying "obviously the ork deserves more time" just doesn't cut it.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Chess clocks are a broken mechanic in 40k. The only situations where they work, games between two reasonable people making a good-faith effort to finish the game on time and play honestly, are the ones where they aren't necessary.

I agree with this.

Good faith games, and players, shouldn't be considered. Chess clocks should be discussed in the context of unfair play.

So for instance, the guy who every time you open your mouth to speak he hits the clock, or the guy who rolls a billion dice to wound and immediately hits the clock, letting you count the dice yourself, or the guy who challenges your rules and hits the clock, or the guy who intentionally moves his models too far so you have to challenge and hits the clock, or the guy who starts bending the rules (he was probably already doing this) to get you to challenge them and hits the clock...

When players play in bad faith the clock is easily abused. When players play in good faith, there is no need for a clock. Equal time is not a concept that makes sense in 40k. There is no reasonable expectation that an Imperial Knight army should be entitled to equal time when playing an Ork army. Equal turns is totally reasonable, though.

These actions are a hell of a lot more opaque than slow play.

 Marmatag wrote:
Slowplaying will still be a thing, but just in a different form.

For instance, before clocks, if i shoot 90 dice into 10 guardsmen, opponents will just pull the models.

Now, you are totally within your rights to make me roll in proper sequence, rolling all the dice. It's slowplaying, just in a different package. I charged 19 genestealers into a squad of 10 guardsmen in a tournament recently, and my opponent required i roll the dice. I mean, he's within his rights to do this, and it does eat into the game time. Although in this case, it would eat into my time only.

The idea that clocks won't be, or can't be gamed, and that it will fix slowplaying? come on. Slowplaying has many forms. Any opportunity to make your opponent burn time, people will capitalize on. And if you're a good player, who wants to win an event, you'll do this too. Because you're operating strictly within the rules by doing so.

I don't have the new clock rules in front of me, but I don't think this has changed at all. If it has it is easily fixed by altering the rules for the chess clocks, as these rules are not dictated by GW but by the tournament organizer, hiccups like this are easily fixed. And again the "But it is still technically possible argument!" does not nullify the justification for an action. Very few things in life are completely unabuseable, saying something has no value just because it is not perfect is a ridiculous statement. It is fairly apparent chess clocks would reduce slow play. Notice the key word here "reduce". That does not mean impossible to abuse. Just that it will improve upon the problem. All of you're arguments here appear to be based on extremes, and oversimplifications. The goal of this change is not to eliminate the extreme, but alter the norm. Very different.

 Marmatag wrote:
Slowplaying will still be a thing, but just in a different form.

For instance, before clocks, if i shoot 90 dice into 10 guardsmen, opponents will just pull the models.

Now, you are totally within your rights to make me roll in proper sequence, rolling all the dice. It's slowplaying, just in a different package. I charged 19 genestealers into a squad of 10 guardsmen in a tournament recently, and my opponent required i roll the dice. I mean, he's within his rights to do this, and it does eat into the game time. Although in this case, it would eat into my time only.

The idea that clocks won't be, or can't be gamed, and that it will fix slowplaying? come on. Slowplaying has many forms. Any opportunity to make your opponent burn time, people will capitalize on. And if you're a good player, who wants to win an event, you'll do this too. Because you're operating strictly within the rules by doing so.

So you build an army with the idea you’re going to go play a tourney and not roll dice?

And then doing the actual rolls is him slow playing you?

I’m starting to get the idea you might be the guy the clock is going to protect me against….

Actually no.

I abbreviate my rolling wherever possible and pull squads when it's clear they'll die.

There is no incentive for me to do this with the clock involved.

And i'm not going to reply to everyone, especially considering we can't even agree on what a fair game means in the first place, without someone bringing up hyperbole (is it really not Venezuela on the forums? thanks for reminding me! Oh whoops, i forgot that i'm asking to use the vast majority of the game time, thanks for reminding me).

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually no.

I abbreviate my rolling wherever possible and pull squads when it's clear they'll die.

There is no incentive for me to do this with the clock involved.

And i'm not going to reply to everyone, especially considering we can't even agree on what a fair game means in the first place, without someone bringing up hyperbole (is it really not Venezuela on the forums? thanks for reminding me! Oh whoops, i forgot that i'm asking to use the vast majority of the game time, thanks for reminding me).

A fair tournament game is where both players have a equal chance at winning, within the rules laid out by the game and the tournament organizers.

What is your definition?

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually no.

I abbreviate my rolling wherever possible and pull squads when it's clear they'll die.

There is no incentive for me to do this with the clock involved.

And i'm not going to reply to everyone, especially considering we can't even agree on what a fair game means in the first place, without someone bringing up hyperbole (is it really not Venezuela on the forums? thanks for reminding me! Oh whoops, i forgot that i'm asking to use the vast majority of the game time, thanks for reminding me).

We seem to be unable to agree because some people seem to think their owed more time than their opponent because of their army choice. It's completely mind blowing that some think becaus the have more models their owed more time. Sure you already have the advantage of having more models and a larger footprint but sure let's give you more time as well. Your going to a tournament where the TOs are creating as equal a footing as possible within the games design for the players, your owed no more time than another play just because of the size of your army.

I don't feel i'm owed more time. Both players are owed equal opportunity. That's all.

I just don't feel a clock will adequately represent who is using more time.

I can unnecessarily force you to use your time. This will be fairly easy.

This encourages bad faith play between otherwise good people. Currently I make an effort to play as fast as humanly possible, and already skip a fair bit of rolling, or allow my opponent to skip theirs.

And if you guys think time is spent in the movement phase, you're crazy. Even with 150+ models this is an incredibly short phase for me.

 Primark G wrote:
I just feel this a knee jerk reaction by FLG to the fiasco that was the LVO 40k finals this year.

Aren't FLG currently playtesting for GW? I'm sure that comes with a lot of benefits for FLG.

When an event they're in charge of (and that GW supports/endorses) very publically displays what could be described as the ultimate example of TFGness (and easily the worst aspect of the hobby) I can imagine GW would be less than pleased by having their community represented by people who display unsporting behaviour. Remember they sell this game as a friendly roll dice with your mates game, not a cut throat game where abuse of the rules to the detriment of your opponents fun is the order of the day.

I don't blame FLG for trying to force the tournament community into behaving better. It's nit a community I'd ever want to be a part of because it fosters some horrible aspect of the game. But if I was FLGI'd want to keep those GW perks they're getting as well, so I don't blame them.

 Marmatag wrote:
I can unnecessarily force you to use your time. This will be fairly easy.

This encourages bad faith play between otherwise good people. Currently I make an effort to play as fast as humanly possible, and already skip a fair bit of rolling, or allow my opponent to skip theirs.

Why would you become TFG just because there is a clock on the table? Why would a clock turn good people into bad faith players? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they will do everything they can to get rid of clocks. Why? I understand if you feel that clocks aren't necessary but to actively subvert a rule is beyond my understanding.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Why would you become TFG just because there is a clock on the table? Why would a clock turn good people into bad faith players? I'm seeing a lot of people saying that they will do everything they can to get rid of clocks. Why? I understand if you feel that clocks aren't necessary but to actively subvert a rule is beyond my understanding.

I'll use them in good faith. However, you can bet I'll be slapping that timer the split-second I have to wait for my opponent's actions for anything at all, every save, every tape measurement, every time he asks a question about my list, ev-er-y-thing.