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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 meleti wrote:

I'd feel weird doing that in a competitive game with a timer because you're definitely supposed to roll to hit/wound/save so you're actually giving someone an unfair advantage there, time-wise.

This is just one reason why I don't want chess clocks. Friendly play becomes a bad decision.

This is why I think the current proposal to just only use clocks at the few FLG-run events, on the second day, and only for players with winning records, is a fair one. Most people who fall into that bucket are there for competitive play, not friendly play.

 meleti wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Dice apps? Just play a computer game. There's a formal e-sports arena for this kind of thing already.

40k is a game that functions on good faith gameplay. Auditing everything your opponent does is beyond difficult if they're acting in bad faith.

I much prefer dice, but if my 30 devilgaunts rerolling 1s are firing on a 5 man Scout squad for some God-forsaken reason, I wouldn't mind using a dice app to save everyone a lot of time.

Or just ask your opponent if he wants you to roll. Most people are reasonable and would say "no, that's okay, i'll just pull them." I've played with a lot of competitive players over a lot of tournaments just this year. The good players will just pull the models, because time is more valuable than rolling meaningless dice. Which is why chess clocks won't work. They give you a way to force someone to spend time when it is meaningless to do so.

Yeah pulling them is also an option, but I'd feel weird doing that in a competitive game with a timer because you're definitely supposed to roll to hit/wound/save so you're actually giving someone an unfair advantage there, time-wise. Whereas if dice apps are permissible, that's a fast method that doesn't actually provide an unfair advantage (again, assuming the TOs allow them). Just something to think about.

The guys who run the ITC have encouraged the use of the GW official dice app all year on their podcast. in a tournament, id say anytime you are going to reach for more than 20 dice just plug it into the app really fast. Funny thing is even without it two player working on finishing a game in time shouldn't have an issue. And even without a dice app the LVO games where a TO was now aware of the slow play all magically finished. Its almost like the time issue had nothing to do with models moved or dice rolled but instead people either purposefully taking to long or simply being unaware of how long they took because of the lack of a clock ticking in the background


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
The previous system had no course of action except filling out a complaint form after you already lost the game and your chance at winning the tournament.

And here's where your whole argument falls apart. In a tournament with a reasonable pairing of point limit and round time the level of slow play required to end the game significantly early is going to be very obvious to everyone involved, and if your opponent starts doing it you call a judge over immediately. Either your opponent starts playing at a reasonable pace and you finish the game, or they are penalized for slow play. That's how MTG handles slow play, you don't wait until after the tournament to resolve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
So, your hatred for clocks makes you become TFG in such an obvious way that the judge is going to slap you silly with the rulebook before DQ'ing you and throwing you out of the event.

I'm sure no one will miss you.

Nice rule #1 violation there. You do understand that these are statements made from the hypothetical TFG's point of view, using the general 'I' and 'you', right? That they aren't actions I personally intend to do (mostly because I will probably never attend an event with chess clocks)?

And yes, TFG would get DQed in that situation. But they could already be DQed for being TFG without the clock system.

Funny how you think the previous rules were fine considering how thousands of people watched them fail live on twitch....... meanwhile you have to throw out wild hypotheticals to try to stop people from implementing a change (thats worked for other games) to help the previous system.Whats going to be funny is when the chess clocks work flawlessly and we see a record amount of games be finished and overall player enjoyment go up.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
The previous system had no course of action except filling out a complaint form after you already lost the game and your chance at winning the tournament.

And here's where your whole argument falls apart. In a tournament with a reasonable pairing of point limit and round time the level of slow play required to end the game significantly early is going to be very obvious to everyone involved, and if your opponent starts doing it you call a judge over immediately. Either your opponent starts playing at a reasonable pace and you finish the game, or they are penalized for slow play. That's how MTG handles slow play, you don't wait until after the tournament to resolve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
So, your hatred for clocks makes you become TFG in such an obvious way that the judge is going to slap you silly with the rulebook before DQ'ing you and throwing you out of the event.

I'm sure no one will miss you.

Nice rule #1 violation there. You do understand that these are statements made from the hypothetical TFG's point of view, using the general 'I' and 'you', right? That they aren't actions I personally intend to do (mostly because I will probably never attend an event with chess clocks)?

And yes, TFG would get DQed in that situation. But they could already be DQed for being TFG without the clock system.

TFG will always fine a way somewhere to dick about if he wants to. Clock abuse tends to be pretty obvious so its easier to punish for TO's.
None of this has anything to do with the general merit of using chess clocks in tournaments.

Peregrine and Marmatag - it is certainly your prerogative to be a TFG when you play. I can't imagine that you play that way when you play without a clock but so be it. If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling. Your arguments against a clock basically boil down to I don't like it and I'll do everything that I can to prove that I can be TFG. Anyone can be a TFG but I presume that most people will just play as they do without a clock. Should the clock prove to be inadequate or just not work for people then the ITC will probably drop it.

Asmodios wrote:
Funny how you think the previous rules were fine considering how thousands of people watched them fail live on twitch....... meanwhile you have to throw out wild hypotheticals to try to stop people from implementing a change (thats worked for other games) to help the previous system.Whats going to be funny is when the chess clocks work flawlessly and we see a record amount of games be finished and overall player enjoyment go up.

A spectacular failure by incompetent TOs, both in allowing the initial slow play and in the idiotic penalty they applied to the other guy over a trivial "error", does not mean that the system is broken. If a MTG judge ignores the rules on slow play and lets a player spend 30 minutes staring at the wall until time expires that doesn't mean that the rules are broken, it just means that the judge failed to apply them and is not qualified to act as a judge. Every judge/TO involved in that debacle should be ashamed of their behavior and never be allowed to judge/TO an event again, but that failure has nothing to do with the rules that should have been applied.

And I agree, chess clocks will "work" most of the time without any problems, because most players aren't TFGs. But those games where chess clocks "work" would have been just fine in an event with no clocks and a proper pairing of point limits and round times. And in the cases where TFGs break the no-clock system imposing a clock system only changes the exact way that TFG is TFG and ruins the experience for everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling.

How do you determine the difference between rule disputes for the sake of stalling and the rule disputes that naturally occur in a poorly written game like 40k? It sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting a policy of "the judge makes a subjective decision about what is 'reasonable' and then penalizes a player who goes beyond that judge's personal limits", which is something you don't need a clock to have.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling.

Remind me again why you can't call a TO and ask them to DQ your opponent for slow playing..?

The clock has just replaced one need to all a judge for another, but added the extra need to manage the clock as well as the rest of the game.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Peregrine and Marmatag - it is certainly your prerogative to be a TFG when you play. I can't imagine that you play that way when you play without a clock but so be it. If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling. Your arguments against a clock basically boil down to I don't like it and I'll do everything that I can to prove that I can be TFG. Anyone can be a TFG but I presume that most people will just play as they do without a clock. Should the clock prove to be inadequate or just not work for people then the ITC will probably drop it.

^
Sums it up super well, enjoy the exalted post, I'm done reading hypotheticals about how they plan on being TFG and then when you show how it would be handled they simply throw another at you.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Funny how you think the previous rules were fine considering how thousands of people watched them fail live on twitch....... meanwhile you have to throw out wild hypotheticals to try to stop people from implementing a change (thats worked for other games) to help the previous system.Whats going to be funny is when the chess clocks work flawlessly and we see a record amount of games be finished and overall player enjoyment go up.

A spectacular failure by incompetent TOs, both in allowing the initial slow play and in the idiotic penalty they applied to the other guy over a trivial "error", does not mean that the system is broken. If a MTG judge ignores the rules on slow play and lets a player spend 30 minutes staring at the wall until time expires that doesn't mean that the rules are broken, it just means that the judge failed to apply them and is not qualified to act as a judge. Every judge/TO involved in that debacle should be ashamed of their behavior and never be allowed to judge/TO an event again, but that failure has nothing to do with the rules that should have been applied.

And I agree, chess clocks will "work" most of the time without any problems, because most players aren't TFGs. But those games where chess clocks "work" would have been just fine in an event with no clocks and a proper pairing of point limits and round times. And in the cases where TFGs break the no-clock system imposing a clock system only changes the exact way that TFG is TFG and ruins the experience for everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling.

How do you determine the difference between rule disputes for the sake of stalling and the rule disputes that naturally occur in a poorly written game like 40k? It sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting a policy of "the judge makes a subjective decision about what is 'reasonable' and then penalizes a player who goes beyond that judge's personal limits", which is something you don't need a clock to have.

Because when a Judge gets called to player X's table for the umteenths time to discuss a dumb issue a pattern emerges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling.

Remind me again why you can't call a TO and ask them to DQ your opponent for slow playing..?

The clock has just replaced one need to all a judge for another, but added the extra need to manage the clock as well as the rest of the game.

Slowplaying is a lot harder to catch for a judge when he comes up to a table. And they can rarely afford to stand and watch a game play for 30+ minutes to see a pattern of slowplaying.

Getting called to a table for the 5th time because 1 player is constantly disputing everything is a LOT more obvious and easier to punish

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Funny how you think the previous rules were fine considering how thousands of people watched them fail live on twitch....... meanwhile you have to throw out wild hypotheticals to try to stop people from implementing a change (thats worked for other games) to help the previous system.Whats going to be funny is when the chess clocks work flawlessly and we see a record amount of games be finished and overall player enjoyment go up.

A spectacular failure by incompetent TOs, both in allowing the initial slow play and in the idiotic penalty they applied to the other guy over a trivial "error", does not mean that the system is broken. If a MTG judge ignores the rules on slow play and lets a player spend 30 minutes staring at the wall until time expires that doesn't mean that the rules are broken, it just means that the judge failed to apply them and is not qualified to act as a judge. Every judge/TO involved in that debacle should be ashamed of their behavior and never be allowed to judge/TO an event again, but that failure has nothing to do with the rules that should have been applied.

And I agree, chess clocks will "work" most of the time without any problems, because most players aren't TFGs. But those games where chess clocks "work" would have been just fine in an event with no clocks and a proper pairing of point limits and round times. And in the cases where TFGs break the no-clock system imposing a clock system only changes the exact way that TFG is TFG and ruins the experience for everyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling.

How do you determine the difference between rule disputes for the sake of stalling and the rule disputes that naturally occur in a poorly written game like 40k? It sounds an awful lot like you're suggesting a policy of "the judge makes a subjective decision about what is 'reasonable' and then penalizes a player who goes beyond that judge's personal limits", which is something you don't need a clock to have.

last response to the thread "How do you determine the difference between rule disputes for the sake of stalling and the rule disputes that naturally occur" simple every hypothetical you've throw out has been a blatant attempt to stop the clock you flat out said earlier that you would say something was in LOS that clearly wanst to stop the clock. Like I said if the TO suspected you did this after 1 or 2 he would keep an eye on you then act accordingly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1VVpRyddgQ seriously watch there podcast they answer all of this and nobody is saying the system is 100% fail proof (nothing in life is) but its an address to solve an existing issue and i bet it solves 99.9% of slow play issues.

 Ordana wrote:
Because when a Judge gets called to player X's table for the umteenths time to discuss a dumb issue a pattern emerges.

Yeah, god I wish my opponents would learn the rules better and stop making me call a judge to resolve issues. TBH they should probably be DQed for it.

I think we can all see why discouraging players from calling a judge is a really bad idea, can't we?

And they can rarely afford to stand and watch a game play for 30+ minutes to see a pattern of slowplaying.

Then you need more judges.

People keep on saying that Movement trays would alleviate the time issues for Horde players. That's simply not the case.

I have played a 150 Ork Boy list where I did all my movement in my opponent's turn. During my turn, I only did shooting, rolling for run moves, psychic tests etc. The game still blew out massively long. The reason was that whilst my movement was a non-issue, the dice rolling wasn't. I had Kustom Force Fields protecting my mobs and a Painboy buffing two of them. So whenever they were shot, I had saves to roll.

But that paled next to close combat. I was trying to tear down elite Chaos units with sheer force of attacks, so I had to roll them. There was one moment when a mostly intact Ork boyz mob made contact with a handful of cultists and my opponent just removed the cultists, a fair call. But otherwise I had to keep rolling those die to try and take out terminators and Land Raiders. Worse, even if I had movement trays, it would have made little difference for assault, because you have to move them off the trays to maximise the number that can fight.

Ironically, there's an existing technology that would help to alleviate that very issue: dice aps. But there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the community to using dice aps because of the fear that they can't be trusted.

Asmodios wrote:
Like I said if the TO suspected you did this after 1 or 2 he would keep an eye on you then act accordingly.

The TO can do this without the clocks. If your answer to the flaws of the clock system is "the TO makes an arbitrary ruling, based on their personal subjective ideas about what is 'too much' that are not found in the written rules of the event, and penalizes the slow player" then having a formal clock system isn't helping. The TO is acting outside of the formal clock system, applying the resolution they believe to be fair even though the rules for the clock system and the time remaining on each clock say otherwise. The clock system itself is not resolving the problem, it is merely giving a pretense of objectivity to the TO's subjective decisions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glane wrote:
But there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the community to using dice aps because of the fear that they can't be trusted.

Which is a pretty reasonable fear. Making a biased dice app is a very easy thing to do. The TFGs that are going to abuse a no-clock system with slow play will be perfectly happy to use a biased dice app if using dice apps is endorsed as a solution to slow play.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Like I said if the TO suspected you did this after 1 or 2 he would keep an eye on you then act accordingly.

The TO can do this without the clocks. If your answer to the flaws of the clock system is "the TO makes an arbitrary ruling, based on their personal subjective ideas about what is 'too much' that are not found in the written rules of the event, and penalizes the slow player" then having a formal clock system isn't helping. The TO is acting outside of the formal clock system, applying the resolution they believe to be fair even though the rules for the clock system and the time remaining on each clock say otherwise. The clock system itself is not resolving the problem, it is merely giving a pretense of objectivity to the TO's subjective decisions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glane wrote:
But there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the community to using dice aps because of the fear that they can't be trusted.

Which is a pretty reasonable fear. Making a biased dice app is a very easy thing to do. The TFGs that are going to abuse a no-clock system with slow play will be perfectly happy to use a biased dice app if using dice apps is endorsed as a solution to slow play.

No see without a clock you do not need to make up a phony rules dispute (draw the attention of the TO) you simply move slowly, roll slowly and think slowly. By the time it gets to the point where a TO is called not only has an irrepressible amount of time been lost but your recourse now goes like this
P1. the guy is slow playing me
P2. no I'm not
T.O now watches the game but because time has been wasted the slow player has achieved the goal and there is now no evidence that any slow playing occurred as slow play is different based on who you talk to (just look how some players think certain codexes deserve more time).

With clock, it goes like this
P1. asks dumb rules question to stop the clock
TO comes over answers
P1. 2nd dumb question
TO now sees a pattern and is watching. The time used is the amount the tournament has put in place for questions and now P2 will still get his half of the time and any further slow play by the other player will either result in a DQ or if not malicious the questions will at least be placed on his time

 Marmatag wrote:
50 Termagant devourer shots versus 1 living Guardsmen.

Each shot as a ~20% chance to kill him.

The odds of him surviving 50 shots are roughly 1/50,000.

The scenario you illustrated is about 2000 times more likely. The fact that you think they're comparable? Come on.

And this is why clocks wouldn't work. The majority of time spent in games is spent on dice rolling, not movement. Thank you for proving why clocks wouldn't work, and would encourage TFG behavior. I will make you waste 5 minutes on attempting to kill that Guardsmen when it is already a foregone conclusion.

For reference a comparable number of saves is ~27. Taking 27 saves on your 5+ guardsmen and getting all 5s and 6s is comparably likely.

(4/6)^x = 1/50000 => x = - ln(50000)/ln(4/6); x=26.68

Except the time is still split between both players rolling to wound and to save. So this is another strawman argument because both players have to waist their time if you insist on rolling all to wound rolls your opponent just insist you roll all to save rolls. So you can get as indignant and abusive I your post as you like but it won't make you right.

Asmodios wrote:
By the time it gets to the point where a TO is called not only has an irrepressible amount of time been lost

This is not true at all. In a game with a proper pairing of point limit and round time the level of slow play required to gain an advantage will be immediately obvious. At most you might be losing a few minutes of time, in a game where you're expecting to finish with a decent margin. You lose those few minutes, call a TO, and the slow play issue disappears.

And, again this is how MTG handles it, in tournaments with tens of thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake. There is no chess clock, only calling a judge over when your opponent starts stalling. And somehow things work out fine.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
By the time it gets to the point where a TO is called not only has an irrepressible amount of time been lost

This is not true at all. In a game with a proper pairing of point limit and round time the level of slow play required to gain an advantage will be immediately obvious. At most you might be losing a few minutes of time, in a game where you're expecting to finish with a decent margin. You lose those few minutes, call a TO, and the slow play issue disappears.

And, again this is how MTG handles it, in tournaments with tens of thousands of dollars in cash prizes at stake. There is no chess clock, only calling a judge over when your opponent starts stalling. And somehow things work out fine.

wow, it's amazing that slow play isn't really possible but somehow happened at top tables at the LVO that get the most attention in the biggest 40k tournament in the world. it's really amazing that the slow play wasn't apparent to some of the top players in the world until it was far too late.... hahaha guess they just suck. Those ITC guys that run the largest most successful tournament circuit for 40k in the world must just be idiots that they aren't able to get games to finish right now under the current way it's done.

Asmodios wrote:
wow, it's amazing that slow play isn't really possible but somehow happened at top tables at the LVO that get the most attention in the biggest 40k tournament in the world. it's really amazing that the slow play wasn't apparent to some of the top players in the world until it was far too late.... hahaha guess they just suck. Those ITC guys that run the largest most successful tournament circuit for 40k in the world must just be idiots that they aren't able to get games to finish right now under the current way it's done.

It happened because the TOs failed. LVO was a shameful debacle that should kill the event forever, and it's ridiculous how people kept making excuses for it. But failures in running a tournament don't say anything about the actual rules. You might as well argue that chess clocks don't work because this one time someone's clock ran out and the judge said "it's ok, you can keep playing".

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
wow, it's amazing that slow play isn't really possible but somehow happened at top tables at the LVO that get the most attention in the biggest 40k tournament in the world. it's really amazing that the slow play wasn't apparent to some of the top players in the world until it was far too late.... hahaha guess they just suck. Those ITC guys that run the largest most successful tournament circuit for 40k in the world must just be idiots that they aren't able to get games to finish right now under the current way it's done.

It happened because the TOs failed. LVO was a shameful debacle that should kill the event forever, and it's ridiculous how people kept making excuses for it. But failures in running a tournament don't say anything about the actual rules. You might as well argue that chess clocks don't work because this one time someone's clock ran out and the judge said "it's ok, you can keep playing".

It's not like LVO is the only tournament in 8th edition to report problems with games finishing.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
wow, it's amazing that slow play isn't really possible but somehow happened at top tables at the LVO that get the most attention in the biggest 40k tournament in the world. it's really amazing that the slow play wasn't apparent to some of the top players in the world until it was far too late.... hahaha guess they just suck. Those ITC guys that run the largest most successful tournament circuit for 40k in the world must just be idiots that they aren't able to get games to finish right now under the current way it's done.

It happened because the TOs failed. LVO was a shameful debacle that should kill the event forever, and it's ridiculous how people kept making excuses for it. But failures in running a tournament don't say anything about the actual rules. You might as well argue that chess clocks don't work because this one time someone's clock ran out and the judge said "it's ok, you can keep playing".

Yup, i forgot LVO in 8th was the first time 40k had issues with slow play.... yup it's a new development over the last year

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
wow, it's amazing that slow play isn't really possible but somehow happened at top tables at the LVO that get the most attention in the biggest 40k tournament in the world. it's really amazing that the slow play wasn't apparent to some of the top players in the world until it was far too late.... hahaha guess they just suck. Those ITC guys that run the largest most successful tournament circuit for 40k in the world must just be idiots that they aren't able to get games to finish right now under the current way it's done.

It happened because the TOs failed. LVO was a shameful debacle that should kill the event forever, and it's ridiculous how people kept making excuses for it. But failures in running a tournament don't say anything about the actual rules. You might as well argue that chess clocks don't work because this one time someone's clock ran out and the judge said "it's ok, you can keep playing".

I really enjoy how your vitriol at clocks as morphed into trying to take down the event I really love.

Sure, keep blaming the TOs That is really going to help the situation. As if judging and TO'ing wasn't thankless enough.

Reemule wrote:
I really enjoy how your vitriol at clocks as morphed into trying to take down the event I really love.

"I really love the event" does not excuse their actions. Nor do I care if you love the LVO or hate it, my criticism remains the same.

Sure, keep blaming the TOs That is really going to help the situation. As if judging and TO'ing wasn't thankless enough.

This is also a terrible argument. If TOs screw up then they get called on it. If they don't want to be blamed then they shouldn't make inexcusable decisions in their events.

 Peregrine wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I really enjoy how your vitriol at clocks as morphed into trying to take down the event I really love.

"I really love the event" does not excuse their actions. Nor do I care if you love the LVO or hate it, my criticism remains the same.

Sure, keep blaming the TOs That is really going to help the situation. As if judging and TO'ing wasn't thankless enough.

This is also a terrible argument. If TOs screw up then they get called on it. If they don't want to be blamed then they shouldn't make inexcusable decisions in their events.

Your criticism of the LVO is completely unfounded all things considered they did a fine job.

 Glane wrote:

Ironically, there's an existing technology that would help to alleviate that very issue: dice aps. But there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the community to using dice aps because of the fear that they can't be trusted.

Given how poor many people's understanding of probability and statistics is it's not just deliberately biased apps that are the problem. We had a dakka user that made a dice app. He was really proud of how it always generated the average result every time (if you rolled ten 4+ to hits you you'd always get five successes) and he didn't see what the problem with that was...

That said, there is an easy fix. Inspecting the source code for Web based apps is trivial so organisers can pick one and players can easily check that their opponent is using the correct app by looking at the url in the browser. It is still abusable but no more so than using regular dice.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Glane wrote:

Ironically, there's an existing technology that would help to alleviate that very issue: dice aps. But there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the community to using dice aps because of the fear that they can't be trusted.

Given how poor many people's understanding of probability and statistics is it's not just deliberately biased apps that are the problem. We had a dakka user that made a dice app. He was really proud of how it always generated the average result every time (if you rolled ten 4+ to hits you you'd always get five successes) and he didn't see what the problem with that was...

That said, there is an easy fix. Inspecting the source code for Web based apps is trivial so organisers can pick one and players can easily check that their opponent is using the correct app by looking at the url in the browser. It is still abusable but no more so than using regular dice.

I think people will still baulk at using dice aps even with measures like that. Hell, I get the feeling that GW could put out an official dice ap and people would still refuse to use it. I suppose people figure it's easier to hack a dice ap than it is to use weighted dice, since dice would have to be specially made and supposedly would be easy to spot.

I'm in the pro-clock camp so decided to play a home game with a 1hr 30 clock last night. Competitive lists and style.

There was only 1 issue which was when the clock came over to me on his turn, for me to do a combat, and I forgot to pass it back. I think I lost about 3 or 4 minutes.

I would have won the game fairly handily, but.... I went first. Took 12 mins to deploy. About the same for T1. Long T2 - perhaps 40 mins... then clocked out during the T3 fight phase. We didn't have opponent use his remaining 40 mins to do his T3 or later as he didn't have a huge amount left on the board to hurt me with, but in my mind I lost the game.

It's easy to play with the clock, but my god you need to go fast to stick to 1hr 30. I suspect i have been quietly absorbing my opponent's time in games.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Peregrine and Marmatag - it is certainly your prerogative to be a TFG when you play. I can't imagine that you play that way when you play without a clock but so be it. If you want to keep causing disputes that eat up my clock then I'm calling a TO and asking him to DQ you for stalling. Your arguments against a clock basically boil down to I don't like it and I'll do everything that I can to prove that I can be TFG. Anyone can be a TFG but I presume that most people will just play as they do without a clock. Should the clock prove to be inadequate or just not work for people then the ITC will probably drop it.

Also, this. For the love of the emperor, read your posts guys. None of the counter arguments to using clocks have any weight or validity past "I don't like the idea"

Someone is TFG because they don't yank their models and actually roll their saves?

Pathetic.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time

We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?

Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.

So... By following the rules of 40k, you are now a slow player? Just because you choose to ignore some of the core rules of "how to play 40k" sometimes, doesn't mean that when you follow the rules in a strict event game you are suddenly "in the wrong".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.

Exactly. And you can be sure that I'm going to make you count those dice very carefully, and question your count at every step of the process.

And if you continue to challenge the amount of dice counted over and over (even when i make it plainly obvious), i'd happily just pass the clock back over to you and allow you to verify the amount of dice i have stacked up yourself - as you're the one the wants the verification. I wonder how quickly you'll retract your request for a recount if it's suddenly on your own clock.

Just because someone can be a complete and utter dick and try to waste your time, doesn't mean it's either going to happen, or there are options for you to pass the clock over to him and allow him to use his time. Besides, repeatedly doing this would likely result in me calling the judge over anyway and reporting the fact that you are deliberately and repeatedly attempting to "game the clock" and are playing in a completely unsportsmanlike way. While most events don't have "sportsman" points that get added into the final scores, many have a "good game/bad game" system, which results in investigations and disciplines. Try to be a dick and/or game the clock repeatedly in a game and i'll just report you via the systems in place. Whether or not the TO does anything about it, is on them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
He is saying that whoever challenges the LoS is the person who's time is run while waiting for the judge

Ok, great. My unit has LOS through this solid wall. Would you like to let my units shoot through walls, or would you like to burn clock time to argue about LOS? Keep in mind that I'm going to argue very stubbornly, and should be able to waste at least a few minutes of your clock time on each LOS check.

Again, if you want to question LoS, i'd happily let it run on my time initially - but, if it isn't obvious, or is only 100% clear from my side of the table due to terrain and point of view, then i'd happily allow you to walk around to the other side of the table to check and verify yourself. Of course, walking to the other side of the table would be done on your clock - just as walking back around after would be the same. Sure, it then leads to POTENTIAL situations where people continually claim they have LoS when they don't, but again, that is then a case for the TO/Judge to review, as that player is now, not only trying to force you to run down your clock, but also cheat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

(assuming you don't play the ITC way which is to pause the time all together while the judge makes his decision).

Awesome. So if I need more time to think about a decision I can just create a minor rules dispute and call a judge, giving me plenty of time to think it over while I wait for the judge to finish whatever they're doing and come give a ruling. Too bad the clock is now pointless, as having non-trivial amounts of time where neither clock is running means that setting a total of X minutes on the two clocks no longer ensures that your round will finish in X minutes. At that point why bother with the clocks?

And what do you think the judge will do to YOU if you do this repeatedly over the course of a game/event?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
yup you got me there how could a clock possibly show who is using more time

We've already explained this, over and over again. A clock doesn't show who is using more time because "who is using time" is a poorly defined concept in 40k. For example, which player's clock should be running if there's a dispute over whether or not a unit has LOS?

Or, if you shoot 50 shots into 1 remaining guardsmen. Yes he will die. But you are within your rights to make someone follow the proper sequencing and roll his hits, and then roll his wounds, and only then roll saves. You can waste time by playing strictly within the rules.

So your argument is that you are breaking the rules by asking someone to follow the official rules? I can never say "hey I'm shooting a lot of stuff at your guardsmen please remove them even though I haven't rolled"

When you declare your shots in this manner, only That Guy wouldn't pull the model. Clocks encourage That Guy behavior in this specific scenario. I pull models all the time in tournaments, and people do the same for me.

And you'll notice i never said breaking the rules. Stop arguing in bad faith.

He’s the question though, does playing correctly in a competitive tournament event make you “that guy”?
Sure, if they are making you roll those 50 shots to remove that 1 guardsman, it can be a frustration, but, on the flip side there are 2 things you aren’t considering.
1- They will -HAVE- to roll their saves
2- How often are you going to be shooting 50 shots at 1 guardsman?
Now, if it was vs an MEQ, Terminator, or low-mid invuln save, I’d always make you roll the dice, as 50 shots (usually based on the armies that have them) would only be hitting with 17 (not counting re-rolls) and then only wounding with 5-6. This then leaves me with a good chance of surviving the shots.

Essentially, all this does is make you, as a player, make better choices.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
50 Termagant devourer shots versus 1 living Guardsmen.

Each shot as a ~20% chance to kill him.

The odds of him surviving 50 shots are roughly 1/50,000.

The scenario you illustrated is about 2000 times more likely. The fact that you think they're comparable? Come on.

And this is why clocks wouldn't work. The majority of time spent in games is spent on dice rolling, not movement. Thank you for proving why clocks wouldn't work, and would encourage TFG behavior. I will make you waste 5 minutes on attempting to kill that Guardsmen when it is already a foregone conclusion.

For reference a comparable number of saves is ~27. Taking 27 saves on your 5+ guardsmen and getting all 5s and 6s is comparably likely.

(4/6)^x = 1/50000 => x = - ln(50000)/ln(4/6); x=26.68

Why would the guardsman be making 27 saves from 50 termagant shots? Average wise, he'd only need to make 16.6 (25 hits, 16 wounds). Maybe he is in cover, maybe with +1 save, maybe he has a FNP. Sure, it's HIGHLY likely he'll die, but, there are situations where it's worth rolling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Dice apps? Just play a computer game. There's a formal e-sports arena for this kind of thing already.

40k is a game that functions on good faith gameplay. Auditing everything your opponent does is beyond difficult if they're acting in bad faith.

And WTF seriously, you're telling me if i force you to roll 30 saves on your 1 guardsmen, you're going to take the time to roll all 30? Give me a BREAK

I agree with the middle statement there. 40k is all about good faith gameplay, and if it existed universally there would be no need for chess clocks.

But it doesn’t exist universally, less so in competitive events. The main reason why chess clocks are being trailed, is because of a distinct lack of good faith, fair play, gameplay at events.

Sure, the number of these games is likely less than the number of games played in actual good faith, but, you can’t, unfortunately target one without the other.
In good faith games that are finishing on time, chess clocks will have pretty much zero impact on the game, as, you’ll be playing properly and fairly to begin with.


If I force you to roll all the shots onto the guardsman, you’d be 100% within your rights, and the rules, to force your opponent to roll all of the saves. If they refuse to do so, then you have grounds to get the judge involved. By doing one, and not the other, you are essentially attempting to break the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Because when a Judge gets called to player X's table for the umteenths time to discuss a dumb issue a pattern emerges.

Yeah, god I wish my opponents would learn the rules better and stop making me call a judge to resolve issues. TBH they should probably be DQed for it.

And therein lies the difference. If you’re having to continually call the judge over because your opponent is getting rules wrong and is debating it resolutely despite all the evidence, then the judges isn’t going to penalise you for it, are they? They will instead be questioning the play of your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
wow, it's amazing that slow play isn't really possible but somehow happened at top tables at the LVO that get the most attention in the biggest 40k tournament in the world. it's really amazing that the slow play wasn't apparent to some of the top players in the world until it was far too late.... hahaha guess they just suck. Those ITC guys that run the largest most successful tournament circuit for 40k in the world must just be idiots that they aren't able to get games to finish right now under the current way it's done.

It happened because the TOs failed. LVO was a shameful debacle that should kill the event forever, and it's ridiculous how people kept making excuses for it. But failures in running a tournament don't say anything about the actual rules. You might as well argue that chess clocks don't work because this one time someone's clock ran out and the judge said "it's ok, you can keep playing".

And this, is a prime example of why clocks will help the game.

Everyone accepts that TOs have a hard time, and, often they are seen as not actually doing something/not doing it quick enough. The LVO stream was a debacle, I’m sure everyone can agree to that, but, by adjusting how the time is measured, not only fixes the issues of being slow played, but also fixes the issues of TOs and their ability to react to/monitor slow play.

So, in a sense, chess clocks resolve some of the issues with TOs that you are pointing out. By making the issue of time completely standard across the board, it removes the human error and individual perspective of each TO, leading to a fairer and more reliable outcome.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, my response post seemed to develop into a bit of a wall of text, but, I feel like it was needed. Once people take a step back and view things objectively, you can often come to reasonable solutions to all the “what if” questions you might personally have. Arguing blindly about all the potential what ifs isn’t going to help you, or anyone else.

There are also plenty of things you, as a player, can do prior to a tournament game to reduce the impact of the “what ifs”.
One example of this, is to have a photo copied pack of all your rules, the datasheets for the units you are using etc. This can then be passed to your opponent at the start of the game. Any questions they then have, can be quickly addressed in their own time, as they now have the resources and don’t need you to flick through a book yourself. If they want to question the validity of the photocopies, you can just hand them your codex and let them crack on. If they insist on having a dialogue about said rules/interactions, they, as they have the resources available to them, and they are the ones asking the question, this can easily be done on their clock, rather than yours. In regards to stratagems and powers, that’s even easier, as you can just pass the clock when you pass over the relevant card from your deck, and when they are done, they can pass both back.

It's an initial ball ache for you in terms of prep work, but, covers you against so much potential time wasting by putting the ball firmly back into your opponent’s court. It also gives you a handy grab pack to reference yourself, rather than needing to flick through the codex, you only have a few a4 pages.

Personally, I think any legitimate questions should be able to be answered quickly and easily on your behalf anyway, whilst you are making your move.

Managing and protecting your time can be done before the game, not just during it.

But, the main thing to understand from all this, is that it is not going to be an issue the majority of the time. Sure, there will be genuine questions and issues, but, it will only happen to the level of what some people here are predicting, if you come up against a player that has made the choice to try and sabotage your time. You can always give your opponent the choice. If they want to verify something, like a rule, LoS, movement distance etc, always offer them the opportunity to do so, but ensure that they understand that such verification is done on their clock, as they are the ones seeking said verification.

Most people aren’t like this though, and the game will flow normally as it does now. The only difference is that you have a fixed personal time, as opposed to a fixed total time to keep an eye on.

 Glane wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Glane wrote:

Ironically, there's an existing technology that would help to alleviate that very issue: dice aps. But there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the community to using dice aps because of the fear that they can't be trusted.

Given how poor many people's understanding of probability and statistics is it's not just deliberately biased apps that are the problem. We had a dakka user that made a dice app. He was really proud of how it always generated the average result every time (if you rolled ten 4+ to hits you you'd always get five successes) and he didn't see what the problem with that was...

That said, there is an easy fix. Inspecting the source code for Web based apps is trivial so organisers can pick one and players can easily check that their opponent is using the correct app by looking at the url in the browser. It is still abusable but no more so than using regular dice.

I think people will still baulk at using dice aps even with measures like that. Hell, I get the feeling that GW could put out an official dice ap and people would still refuse to use it. I suppose people figure it's easier to hack a dice ap than it is to use weighted dice, since dice would have to be specially made and supposedly would be easy to spot.

Loaded dice are not easy to spot except in the hands of an imbecile. In running leagues we had three people caught over several years and I've seen people busted at tournaments with them, but the number of guys I know that should go to vegas with their dice rolling is pretty high. In any of our league finals for any game, the dice used are my dice and the two players share those.

I'm willing to bet that the number of people on this board that use weighted or skewed dice knowingly is probably more than we'd like to admit and that I'm willing to bet most if not all of us that have played in a competitive environment have played against multiple people using weighted or skewed dice but you had no proof short of demanding that they roll each and every dice 1000 times to weigh the result, which in tournaments or leagues is not really going to happen. The ones that can cloak it mix their dice in with normal dice so that they get a more controlled mix, while the ones that usually get caught do not do this and always roll super high and are easy to pick out.

I'd love it if there was an official "dice app" that was used in tournaments.

 Peregrine wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I really enjoy how your vitriol at clocks as morphed into trying to take down the event I really love.

"I really love the event" does not excuse their actions. Nor do I care if you love the LVO or hate it, my criticism remains the same.

Sure, keep blaming the TOs That is really going to help the situation. As if judging and TO'ing wasn't thankless enough.

This is also a terrible argument. If TOs screw up then they get called on it. If they don't want to be blamed then they shouldn't make inexcusable decisions in their events.

I just love your world where you have so many judges and T.O's you get to pick them at will and get rid of the ones you don't feel are working fast enough for you.

 Glane wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Glane wrote:

Ironically, there's an existing technology that would help to alleviate that very issue: dice aps. But there's a tremendous amount of resistance in the community to using dice aps because of the fear that they can't be trusted.

Given how poor many people's understanding of probability and statistics is it's not just deliberately biased apps that are the problem. We had a dakka user that made a dice app. He was really proud of how it always generated the average result every time (if you rolled ten 4+ to hits you you'd always get five successes) and he didn't see what the problem with that was...

That said, there is an easy fix. Inspecting the source code for Web based apps is trivial so organisers can pick one and players can easily check that their opponent is using the correct app by looking at the url in the browser. It is still abusable but no more so than using regular dice.

I think people will still baulk at using dice aps even with measures like that. Hell, I get the feeling that GW could put out an official dice ap and people would still refuse to use it. I suppose people figure it's easier to hack a dice ap than it is to use weighted dice, since dice would have to be specially made and supposedly would be easy to spot.

Its easier to register a domain that looks like the url for the selected dice app, arrange for website hosting, take a copy of that app and upload it and then modify it to slightly improve the results but not too much than it is to order loaded dice from ebay?

It definitely isn't easier and it definitely is easier to spot.

 Marmatag wrote:
50 Termagant devourer shots versus 1 living Guardsmen.

Each shot as a ~20% chance to kill him.

The odds of him surviving 50 shots are roughly 1/50,000.

The scenario you illustrated is about 2000 times more likely. The fact that you think they're comparable? Come on.

And this is why clocks wouldn't work. The majority of time spent in games is spent on dice rolling, not movement. Thank you for proving why clocks wouldn't work, and would encourage TFG behavior. I will make you waste 5 minutes on attempting to kill that Guardsmen when it is already a foregone conclusion.

For reference a comparable number of saves is ~27. Taking 27 saves on your 5+ guardsmen and getting all 5s and 6s is comparably likely.

(4/6)^x = 1/50000 => x = - ln(50000)/ln(4/6); x=26.68

And even so, I still prefer that to one guy using 1hour+ on his first turn. Clock is simply a lesser evil.