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.

 meleti wrote:

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

You can't come up with a solution unless you've first identified the problem - is the problem that slow playing is endemic to all these tournaments, or is it that the points level is simply too high to be able to comfortably finish games within the set time limit?

I know which I find more likely.
(and clocks won't solve it)

But this gets back to the statement of what a fair game means.

People here do not agree that an equal number of turns, with equal opportunity, constitutes a fair game.

The only way, in their mind, to have a fair game, is when both players get equal time. And this gets back to the problem of there being no good way to measure time usage, which has been supported by numerous examples.

 Marmatag wrote:
But this gets back to the statement of what a fair game means.

People here do not agree that an equal number of turns, with equal opportunity, constitutes a fair game.

The only way, in their mind, to have a fair game, is when both players get equal time. And this gets back to the problem of there being no good way to measure time usage, which has been supported by numerous examples.

You're far better off with each player having somewhat different amounts of time, but the game running it's full length - ie. both players get sufficient time - than you are with both players having the exact same amount of time, but not being able to complete the full game.

I think that everyone agrees that fair means that no side gets a material advantage over the other. This is assuming also that neither side cheats by going outside the rules (such as using loaded dice or putting extra models to their forces for example).

To me, one of the basic materials is time in a timed event. If we as opponents are only given so much time to complete our game then I would assume that that means that each participant is allocated the same amount of time to accomplish our goals. It would be wrong of me to assume that I get more time than my opponent and the same standard should apply to my opponent.

Unfortunately there is only one way that I know of to distribute time in an equal measure and that is via a clock with a timer. Whether you want to put a time limit based on turns or the entire game is a decision that the TO needs to make. Personally I feel that game length is a more convenient way to go but timed turns are not unheard of.

No matter the point limit as long as there is a time limit then time should be split evenly between the participants. The details of how the clocks should be operated (who's time certain events take place on) should be clarified by the TO before the event begins. But this is a detail that can be dealt with after a conclusion has been reached as to whether a clock needs to be, or should be, used in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Damocles - how are you going to determine "sufficient" time? Are you going to base it on model count? What do you do when 2 players need a sufficient amount of time to finish that exceeds the time allotted for the round? While I agree in principle that everyone should have as much time as they need it isn't practical in an event with time constraints.

Time only becomes an issue when you impose specific minimum game lengths that are infeasible, clocks or not.

Clocks run contrary to the notion of each player getting the time they need. It is a system that blatantly favors some armies over others, and gives players an extra turn for happening to play an army that is suited to the clock.

Is it fair that a game ends on turn 4 because someone plays Orks? No in your view, right?
Is it fair that a player can't get the time they need to play their army? Yes in your view, right?

How are these materially different?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 meleti wrote:

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

You can't come up with a solution unless you've first identified the problem - is the problem that slow playing is endemic to all these tournaments, or is it that the points level is simply too high to be able to comfortably finish games within the set time limit?

I know which I find more likely.
(and clocks won't solve it)

Polls have been conducted - people don't want to reduce point limits. Plus, even reducing point limits wouldn't address the problem that you fail to recognize. Slow play is real - beit intentional or unintentional. The is no incentive to play quickly and there is an incentive to play slow (it might keep you from getting tabled). It is really no surprise games don't finish without chess clocks.

 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.

Who is going to shoot 50 guys at one just to take up time? I feel like this thread is an exercise in making up silly scenarios to prove a point and then claims from others about using it, but acting in bad faith just, because they don't like it and want to be a dick about it.

 Marmatag wrote:
Time only becomes an issue when you impose specific minimum game lengths that are infeasible, clocks or not.

21/2 is barely enough time - I agree with that. 3 hours should be the minimum. Because deployment and the whole first turn take a decent amount of time.

 Daedalus81 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.

Who is going to shoot 50 guys at one just to take up time? I feel like this thread is an exercise in making up silly scenarios to prove a point and then claims from others about using it, but acting in bad faith just, because they don't like it and want to be a dick about it.

If it's the last thing in range and it will score you points, hell yes. If it's the last turn and you took old school, that's 2 points (reaper, last strike) as well as counting+1 for kills. Could easily amount to 3 points for 1 model.

It's an example, but there are plenty of instances where people are committing overkill by necessity or because there aren't other options.

Charge a unit of 30 Boyz into 10 Guardsmen. It's done. Why roll? Because you can make your opponent roll his dice. What's the Ork player to do here?

Orks charge 30 Boyz into 10 guardsmen.
No Clocks: Guard player may just pull the Guardsmen saving time.
Clocks: Guard player insists Ork player rolls all hits, then all wounds. Time is wasted.

Normally insisting someone rolls these dice impacts both players, as there is less overall game time. But with clocks, there is no downside for the Guard player not to draw out the Ork players turn as much as humanly possible.

 Marmatag wrote:
Time only becomes an issue when you impose specific minimum game lengths that are infeasible, clocks or not.

Clocks run contrary to the notion of each player getting the time they need. It is a system that blatantly favors some armies over others, and gives players an extra turn for happening to play an army that is suited to the clock.

Is it fair that a game ends on turn 4 because someone plays Orks? No in your view, right?
Is it fair that a player can't get the time they need to play their army? Yes in your view, right?

How are these materially different?

The problem lies with defining how much time each player needs. As a practical matter a TO can not do a table by table determination of "sufficient time" for each player and game. And even with that determination how would you deal with the situation if your opponent exceeds even that time? How would you go about proving that he exceeded his "sufficient" time? Just like points are an arbitrary decision so is time.

It's fine by me if the game ends on Turn 2 if both players want to use their time in that manner. I have no problem with a game ending before turn 5 or whatever. The game ends for a player when he decides to end it based on his usage of time. It's no different from being tabled in that you can seek to prolong the game by having your models "run away" without having any intention of scoring more points.

To me, if all of the materials given to me are the same as my opponent then I feel it's fair. If you're going to give my opponent more time then why not give him more points as well? Or why not limit how many of my units I can use on any given turn? Time is a precious commodity in an event I don't want more than my opponent but I'm not willing to give my opponent more than I get.

 Marmatag wrote:


If it's the last thing in range and it will score you points, hell yes. If it's the last turn and you took old school, that's 2 points (reaper, last strike) as well as counting+1 for kills. Could easily amount to 3 points for 1 model.

It's an example, but there are plenty of instances where people are committing overkill by necessity or because there aren't other options.

Charge a unit of 30 Boyz into 10 Guardsmen. It's done. Why roll? Because you can make your opponent roll his dice. What's the Ork player to do here?

Orks charge 30 Boyz into 10 guardsmen.
No Clocks: Guard player may just pull the Guardsmen saving time.
Clocks: Guard player insists Ork player rolls all hits, then all wounds. Time is wasted.

Normally insisting someone rolls these dice impacts both players, as there is less overall game time. But with clocks, there is no downside for the Guard player not to draw out the Ork players turn as much as humanly possible.

I don't think I've ever pulled a unit and games and it never served as a huge detriment to the finishing of the game. And they're the ones rolling 90 shots on their turn and then 45 or so wounds. If I roll in batches of 10 i'll get to the full unit way faster than it took them to roll all that, so who is really benefiting here?

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 meleti wrote:

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

You can't come up with a solution unless you've first identified the problem - is the problem that slow playing is endemic to all these tournaments, or is it that the points level is simply too high to be able to comfortably finish games within the set time limit?

I know which I find more likely.
(and clocks won't solve it)

According to the guys that run the ITC then they had run smaller point levels the number of games finishing on time did not increase by a significant amount and the fact that the same players that were suspected of slow play finished turns quickly when a TO was hovering in the final games points to the fact that it is the players and not the current point level.

Even if reducing the point level did increase games finished players have (once again according to there internal polls I don't have access to but they have referenced) said that they really do not want a point decrease. being a business I'm sure that the number of players opposed to using clocks was smaller than the number of players opposed to dropping points. They are running a business after all and I'm sure they are trying to keep the maximum number of people happy.... and they do run the most successful and largest 40k tournament in the world so they seem to have been making the correct choices to get to this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
But this gets back to the statement of what a fair game means.

People here do not agree that an equal number of turns, with equal opportunity, constitutes a fair game.

The only way, in their mind, to have a fair game, is when both players get equal time. And this gets back to the problem of there being no good way to measure time usage, which has been supported by numerous examples.

I guess I'm honestly confused by this statement still, "no good way to measure time usage". A clock measures exactly how much time usage you are using down to the second. I have a problem with "equal turn opportunity" as some armies perform better in different turns of a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Time only becomes an issue when you impose specific minimum game lengths that are infeasible, clocks or not.

Clocks run contrary to the notion of each player getting the time they need. It is a system that blatantly favors some armies over others, and gives players an extra turn for happening to play an army that is suited to the clock.

Is it fair that a game ends on turn 4 because someone plays Orks? No in your view, right?
Is it fair that a player can't get the time they need to play their army? Yes in your view, right?

How are these materially different?

The issue with this is that the "Is it fair that a player can't get the time they need to play their army? Yes in your view, right? " is subjective. Players have proven that you can play any army in this time if you are hustling (i play a horde guard army and have no issues finishing games in 2-3 hours depending on time allotted. But there's nothing a player can do if games are concluding on turn 3 in a game that it not designed to auto end on turn 3 every game.

@Marmatag your argument that the clock is going to turn people into TFG is flawed because it depends on the idea currently no one is made into TFG in the current system.

I’ll be honest, not finishing the game, and having someone else take 2/3rds of the time turns me into TFG. And many others. Significantly more than the clock will turn into TFG.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

The TO can do this without the clocks

One of the reasons your wrong on this is poor not superhuman me takes quite some time to determine I'm playing against a slow player. I don't see him put that first model down and ping to... Ohh crap, slow player, better get a judge as he is reaching to place the second.

By the time I have identified him as a slow player, its generally closer to end of 2, or even the top of 3.

By that time the ship has sailed. Even with a TO coming over and watching Mr Slow, I'm not going to have the time to finish the game.

Why are you guys still arguing with this one guy? Clocks are proven to work and 40k TO's are already talking about using them. Its moving forward despite his weird fringe hypothetical and extreme examples.

9breaker wrote:
Why are you guys still arguing with this one guy? Clocks are proven to work and 40k TO's are already talking about using them. Its moving forward despite his weird fringe hypothetical and extreme examples.

This is a discussion forum. The point of being here is to discuss things. Did you not get the memo?

I like the idea of chess clocks. I dislike this implementation.

To me, chess clocks should be used to catch only the most obvious slowplayers. This is their best use case. When you start auditing people down to the 10 minutes, that's where things get ridiculous. I said this from the start, but it gets lost in the haze.

In earnest the best solution would have been for Frontline to just ban Tony from all future FLG events. Take a hard line stance against slowplaying. All they've shown so far is that there is no punishment for it.

9breaker wrote:
Why are you guys still arguing with this one guy? Clocks are proven to work and 40k TO's are already talking about using them. Its moving forward despite his weird fringe hypothetical and extreme examples.

My main reason is honestly that I'm super confused how anyone could think that a clock is a bad metric for measuring time usage. I'm over his crazy examples of "if player x does unrealistic y then you could shave 4 seconds off the clock". Usually, I can at least understanding where someone's argument originates even if I don't agree, but arguing that equal time on a clock is somehow unfair for players time used is so abstract to me I just can't grasp it. It's like saying it's not fair that Usain bolt starts on the same starting line as other runners because he's faster and its only fair to adjust the starting lines before a race by comparing the two runners and coming up with an "appropriate" average speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
@Marmatag your argument that the clock is going to turn people into TFG is flawed because it depends on the idea currently no one is made into TFG in the current system.

I’ll be honest, not finishing the game, and having someone else take 2/3rds of the time turns me into TFG. And many others. Significantly more than the clock will turn into TFG.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

The TO can do this without the clocks

One of the reasons your wrong on this is poor not superhuman me takes quite some time to determine I'm playing against a slow player. I don't see him put that first model down and ping to... Ohh crap, slow player, better get a judge as he is reaching to place the second.

By the time I have identified him as a slow player, its generally closer to end of 2, or even the top of 3.

By that time the ship has sailed. Even with a TO coming over and watching Mr Slow, I'm not going to have the time to finish the game.

Exactly to identify a slow player without a clock requires him to slow play then call a judge (if you call him before slow is obvious then your the one slow playing by stopping the game for a TO). So to identify slow playing slow play must occcure which means you have already been slow played and thus its too late now to get those turns in

 Marmatag wrote:
Time only becomes an issue when you impose specific minimum game lengths that are infeasible, clocks or not.

Clocks run contrary to the notion of each player getting the time they need. It is a system that blatantly favors some armies over others, and gives players an extra turn for happening to play an army that is suited to the clock.

Is it fair that a game ends on turn 4 because someone plays Orks? No in your view, right?
Is it fair that a player can't get the time they need to play their army? Yes in your view, right?

How are these materially different?

There is a massive material difference.

With chess clocks - the player that chooses to bring an army that he can't play fast enough (whether that is too many models, not familiar enough with the rules, just too slow a player, whatever) is penalised.
Without chess clocks - that player's opponents are also penalised.

When you're preparing you know what the time limits and other tournament rules are. You prepare to play within those limits.

Reemule wrote:
@Marmatag your argument that the clock is going to turn people into TFG is flawed because it depends on the idea currently no one is made into TFG in the current system.

Argument: clock will encourage poor behavior.

Counter Argument (you): people are TFG in the current system, therefore, the clock will not encourage poor behavior.

Or are you assuming all poor behaviors are the same?

This isn't a zero sum game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Time only becomes an issue when you impose specific minimum game lengths that are infeasible, clocks or not.

Clocks run contrary to the notion of each player getting the time they need. It is a system that blatantly favors some armies over others, and gives players an extra turn for happening to play an army that is suited to the clock.

Is it fair that a game ends on turn 4 because someone plays Orks? No in your view, right?
Is it fair that a player can't get the time they need to play their army? Yes in your view, right?

How are these materially different?

There is a massive material difference.

With chess clocks - the player that chooses to bring an army that he can't play fast enough (whether that is too many models, not familiar enough with the rules, just too slow a player, whatever) is penalised.
Without chess clocks - that player's opponents are also penalised.

When you're preparing you know what the time limits and other tournament rules are. You prepare to play within those limits.

Actually you're making the assumption that someone isn't designing a list to use more time and end the game before turn 4. You are tacitly inserting a value judgment that someone who has an army designed to see turn 4 at the latest is playing unfairly. When, it's just operating within the system.

Designing an army that limits your opponents turns because of a clock, and designing an army that limits your opponents turns because of no clock, are two sides to the same coin.

No, I'm thinking that a TFG is a TFG it doesn't matter what the rule being implemented is. That person is just going to be true to himself. It's the same with any game.
A clock just eliminates one of his avenues of operation and forces him to find new ways to be TFG (in my opinion).

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No, I'm thinking that a TFG is a TFG it doesn't matter what the rule being implemented is. That person is just going to be true to himself. It's the same with any game.
A clock just eliminates one of his avenues of operation and forces him to find new ways to be TFG (in my opinion).

I've played in enough tournaments to know you'll never stop TFG from being TFG.

Clocks impact everyone, TFG or not. In my home town they banned fireworks altogether because someone burned down a house due to negligence. So, all of the responsible people get screwed because it's difficult to police donkey-caves.

A lot of what is being said in this thread on both sides is opinion. I'm of the opinion that clocks will encourage TFG behavior in players who wouldn't otherwise be TFG.

TFG will always be TFG. TFG doesn't need a "legal" way to ruin your experience or cheat the system.

Chess clocks do nothing but ensure each player has a equal amount of time to play the game.

 Marmatag wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No, I'm thinking that a TFG is a TFG it doesn't matter what the rule being implemented is. That person is just going to be true to himself. It's the same with any game.
A clock just eliminates one of his avenues of operation and forces him to find new ways to be TFG (in my opinion).

I've played in enough tournaments to know you'll never stop TFG from being TFG.

Clocks impact everyone, TFG or not. In my home town they banned fireworks altogether because someone burned down a house due to negligence. So, all of the responsible people get screwed because it's difficult to police donkey-caves.

A lot of what is being said in this thread on both sides is opinion. I'm of the opinion that clocks will encourage TFG behavior in players who wouldn't otherwise be TFG.

I have read all the damn arguments up to this point and I have to say your point is weak.

If TFG will exist in either system, then its best to have some third party arbitration of the division of time. Chess clocks ensure both get equal time, you literally can't get more fair than that. It also forces the game along which is the most important thing in a tournament. There are far more benefits to a chess clock system than otherwise. Your counterpoint of having a IG player "force" the Ork player into rolling everything is moot because under the old system the IG player would likely make you do that anyway.

I don't agree that chess clocks will result in equal time.

Kind of over this debate anyway. I just went ahead and voted no. This implementation is not one that I like, and I will not play in any tournaments that use it. cheers.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't agree that chess clocks will result in equal time.

Kind of over this debate anyway. I just went ahead and voted no. This implementation is not one that I like, and I will not play in any tournaments that use it. cheers.

You’re not wrong, but I think you are underestimating how much someone can already slow play, waste time, etc... now. I (finally) think I understand what you’re saying and where you’re coming from. Yes, TFG will find ways to run someone else’s time down using chess clocks. 40K has too much back and forth for it to ever be entirely on 1player to control time in a game. It’s impractical to ensure that one player actually gets the same amount of time, and impossible to try to have some dynamic time sharing system based on the number of models in an army, how may attack’s they have, how many units stay in reserve, etc... there are definite cons to using chess clocks.

I simply believe if nothing else changes chess clocks are better than what we have now; which is far easier to game, and more difficult to TO effectively. It’s not what I would have chosen to do, but it’s better than doing nothing IMO.

All I could think of.......

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't agree that chess clocks will result in equal time.

Kind of over this debate anyway. I just went ahead and voted no. This implementation is not one that I like, and I will not play in any tournaments that use it. cheers.

That's fine, but the premise is still flawed. If you roll 50 attacks to kill one guy then the time it takes to roll 50 attacks and whatever number of wounds...is so so much more than the 5 to 10 dice I'll roll at a time until I die.

 Marmatag wrote:
But this gets back to the statement of what a fair game means.

People here do not agree that an equal number of turns, with equal opportunity, constitutes a fair game.

The only way, in their mind, to have a fair game, is when both players get equal time. And this gets back to the problem of there being no good way to measure time usage, which has been supported by numerous examples.

That's because with equal time unless you waist your own time you get an equal number of turns, with equal opportunity, and a fair game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But this gets back to the statement of what a fair game means.

People here do not agree that an equal number of turns, with equal opportunity, constitutes a fair game.

The only way, in their mind, to have a fair game, is when both players get equal time. And this gets back to the problem of there being no good way to measure time usage, which has been supported by numerous examples.

You're far better off with each player having somewhat different amounts of time, but the game running it's full length - ie. both players get sufficient time - than you are with both players having the exact same amount of time, but not being able to complete the full game.

Well my fair share/sufficient time is at least 2hrs no matter the size of my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't agree that chess clocks will result in equal time.

Kind of over this debate anyway. I just went ahead and voted no. This implementation is not one that I like, and I will not play in any tournaments that use it. cheers.

That's fine, but the premise is still flawed. If you roll 50 attacks to kill one guy then the time it takes to roll 50 attacks and whatever number of wounds...is so so much more than the 5 to 10 dice I'll roll at a time until I die.

Except your opponents time is what runs when they roll.

dkoz wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't agree that chess clocks will result in equal time.

Kind of over this debate anyway. I just went ahead and voted no. This implementation is not one that I like, and I will not play in any tournaments that use it. cheers.

That's fine, but the premise is still flawed. If you roll 50 attacks to kill one guy then the time it takes to roll 50 attacks and whatever number of wounds...is so so much more than the 5 to 10 dice I'll roll at a time until I die.

Except your opponents time is what runs when they roll.

The idea was that he would target a single model with 50 attacks to make me waste time, but in reality he's wasting more time than I would lose. I have so many fewer rolls in these scenarios.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


The idea was that he would target a single model with 50 attacks to make me waste time, but in reality he's wasting more time than I would lose. I have so many fewer rolls in these scenarios.

No, the idea was that he would force you to roll the 50 attacks rather than just removing the model as the inevitable outcome of the attack. You're free to not attack it and allow it to live, if you need to save clock time.

And of course the same thing can be applied to other situations. Attacking with a flamer? Better roll to hit with all of those dice, even though you automatically hit. And if you want to complain about how you auto hit and shouldn't have to roll, well, those complaints are coming off your clock. Want to give a unit with 12" movement speed a 1" nudge? I'd better see a tape measure out, measuring every single model's move as accurately as possible to ensure that it is less than 1". You are not allowed to make any time-saving shortcuts while your clock is running.

 Peregrine wrote:
No, the idea was that he would force you to roll the 50 attacks rather than just removing the model as the inevitable outcome of the attack. You're free to not attack it and allow it to live, if you need to save clock time.

And of course the same thing can be applied to other situations. Attacking with a flamer? Better roll to hit with all of those dice, even though you automatically hit. And if you want to complain about how you auto hit and shouldn't have to roll, well, those complaints are coming off your clock. Want to give a unit with 12" movement speed a 1" nudge? I'd better see a tape measure out, measuring every single model's move as accurately as possible to ensure that it is less than 1". You are not allowed to make any time-saving shortcuts while your clock is running.

These examples are ridiculous. Your opponent will freeze the clock and call for a judge, who will slap this type of behavior down post-haste. The existence of a cloak is not a license to be an . Trying to use it as such will certainly result in negative consequences if the Tournament has judges worthy of the title.