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 ITC clock rules had more light shed on them, or were released.

As I understand them: (and you should go read them yourself)
1. Clock starts soon as a die roll, or pregame action. (So I guess when you’re ready to play, have used your first pregame CP, or rolled for who is going first be the clock start?)
2. Ship the clock back and forth as someone is doing an action. If your waiting for your opponent ship it to his time.
3. In the Fight phase, starting with the player who’s turn it is, can decide to forgo an assault, and in that case the opponent can decide the outcome, from total wipeout of the other side, to leaving them all untouched, to leaving just one to consolidate to, to avoid getting shot.
4. If your clock runs out (and your opponent still has time) you can only roll saves (on your opponents time? Clock paused? Shipped over to guy with no time?) and count scores for scoring units in place.
5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

Overall, I think it’s a good setup for 40K. Not as ruthless as some of the other games, but it should really kill some of the slow play. I think that for some people just seeing that they took 15 minutes more to deploy than the other guy might be all they need to buckle down a little to get the game done.

So number 3 means the opponent gets to decide the result of an assault?

So if I have to (because of time) not roll my 30 daemonettes against 5 Tactical Marines, then he can say his 5 tactical marines wiped all of them out and consolidated further onto an objective?

Guess I'd better not run Slaanesh Daemons at Nova, because resolving the assaults for them takes ages. (In fact, resolving any large-ish assault takes ages).

Y not give either side 10 mins per turn so 3 turns is 1 hour and 6 is 2. Anything undone in 10 remains undone...

 jeff white wrote:
Y not give either side 10 mins per turn so 3 turns is 1 hour and 6 is 2. Anything undone in 10 remains undone...

Because then if a player takes say 5 minutes for their first 2 turns they're left with only 10 minutes for their third turn which could result in things getting hurried and a less tactically involved game and they're being punished for playing at a better pace. Whereas if they 30 minutes total and their first 2 turns take 5 minutes each it gives them some breathing room to better analyse the situation and make the correct plays.

This is a joke. If you don't have time to play the game properly, then don't play.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So number 3 means the opponent gets to decide the result of an assault?

So if I have to (because of time) not roll my 30 daemonettes against 5 Tactical Marines, then he can say his 5 tactical marines wiped all of them out and consolidated further onto an objective?

Guess I'd better not run Slaanesh Daemons at Nova, because resolving the assaults for them takes ages. (In fact, resolving any large-ish assault takes ages).

Your opponent only decides the result if you forgo the combat, such as "I don't want to use my time to roll those saves".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
This is a joke. If you don't have time to play the game properly, then don't play.

Id say the joke was an ork player winning a Warhammer GT by slow playing and never getting past turn 3

Seems like a workable first pass. Problems will crop up with it that need adjustments, but it seems good enough for some field tests.

Just do the clock on a per turn basis, and not as a competitive tool. It is a great way of making slows players aware of how slow they are, without discussing it (they often dont feel slow because their mind is racing, but in my experience, their slowliness is often a result of not using the opponents turn to plan their own).

 Crimson wrote:
This is a joke. If you don't have time to play the game properly, then don't play.

I'd say me getting 1/2 the time allotted for the game by the tourney organizer is plenty of time to play properly.

 jeff white wrote:
Y not give either side 10 mins per turn so 3 turns is 1 hour and 6 is 2. Anything undone in 10 remains undone...

Turn 1 I have 50 models. turn 4 I have 10 models. My turn 1 will normally take longer then my turn 4.
By using a chess clock rather then a turn timer you can spend more time on your early turns and speed through your later turns allowing for a much more natural spending of time while reaching the same end point, both players having equal time for a game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So number 3 means the opponent gets to decide the result of an assault?

So if I have to (because of time) not roll my 30 daemonettes against 5 Tactical Marines, then he can say his 5 tactical marines wiped all of them out and consolidated further onto an objective?

Guess I'd better not run Slaanesh Daemons at Nova, because resolving the assaults for them takes ages. (In fact, resolving any large-ish assault takes ages).

Batch setup dice. Each Daemonette gets 2-3A. Set up your dice ahead of time so you can grab 12 or so dice and start rolling instead of having to count them out.

There are so gauges out there with a 3" and 1" side. Very easy to quickly Pile In, check who is in range, and start rolling.


Yes. A horde army is more affected by a clock than an elite army, but complaining when there are tricks/strategies available doesn't help anyone.

Northern85Star wrote:
Just do the clock on a per turn basis, and not as a competitive tool. It is a great way of making slows players aware of how slow they are, without discussing it (they often dont feel slow because their mind is racing, but in my experience, their slowliness is often a result of not using the opponents turn to plan their own).

Chess clocks work better than turn timers because they adapt to the natural flow of the game. 40k turns get faster and faster as the game progresses, so the game plays better if you can spend more time on the first turn at the cost of time for the last one. Chess clocks do this really organically regardless of army composition, though you generally have to play the army once on the clock to get a sense of pace first.

It really is simple. You buy a clock that has 2 buttons. Each player gets 1:15 minutes to play their game.

Any action you complete you shift the action to your opponent. If ether players 1:15 mins run out - they can no longer score points/move/cast powers/use abilities/ or play stratagems - all they can do is roll saves. If it is proven they are not rolling saves in a timely manner they are disqualified from the event and full points awarded to the other guy.

I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.

When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.

Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army.

 Marmatag wrote:
I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.

When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.

Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army.

Good thing the clock stops when you do that then. At least it does in Steamroller format, which is what they're aping here.

 Marmatag wrote:
I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.

When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.

Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army.

Seems like a slippery slope fallacy.

 Marmatag wrote:
I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.

When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.

Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.

When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.

Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.

When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.

Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army.

Aware of the time limit, you still brought a force your un-equipped to play, then your going to get angry and blame your opponent and treat them poorly?

Classy...

Making assumptions, super classy.

I know how to play my army.

I am not angry.

Why should i enable my opponent to play faster when it directly hurts my chances to win?

Just so everyone is aware, there is no argument you can make here. Marmatag has decided he hates chess clocks and he will never change his mind. Just don't bother.

That means your argument is good. If you can't argue it, but can label the opposition, that means you're a genius and win everything. Also, you won LVO with that post! Good job.

Naw dude, he is saying you answer every point with well I wanna win my way, and I don't care about the rule, the guidlines, or the event organizers.

You have demonstrated you are That Guy. Cool. Move along. This thread is clear, its not for the Faint Hearted.

Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

Clarification on what counts as your time for a bunch of stuff that isn't dice rolling or model moving would be good. The game can be pretty granular with a lot of decisions on both sides throughout.

It's not even about people abusing it, they've just created a scenario where enabling your opponent to play faster by providing information freely is to your disadvantage.

I don't think this is the right step for a game like Warhammer. The game requires good faith gameplay to function. There are logical extremes, like Unit is pointing out, but also the simple fact that people will play within the rules and force their opponent to use their time.

Another example would be firing 72 shots into a unit. Normally you might just pull the unit and say "they're toast." However, in chess clock land, you'll require your opponent roll them all. This isn't breaking the rules in any way, it's just bad faith gameplay, and chess clocks reward it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

No, they also shed light on people who don't think they're slow playing, too.

Reemule wrote:
Naw dude, he is saying you answer every point with well I wanna win my way, and I don't care about the rule, the guidlines, or the event organizers.

You have demonstrated you are That Guy. Cool. Move along. This thread is clear, its not for the Faint Hearted.

Of course this entire post is ridiculous. You can scream chess clocks are great as loud as you can, but it doesn't change that there are fundamental flaws in them, and those will become apparent once they're seeing use.

My personal preference to the solution would be to require that games go to turn 4, max it at turn 5, and implement clocks for deployment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

And then you pause clock, call the judge, he makes a ruling, game goes on.

So your both wrong?

The value in taking time off the clock only matters if that player was going to struggle with going to full time. If I can play my army in under half the time limit anyway, it doesn’t matter what you do or don’t make me roll for.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

No, they also shed light on people who don't think they're slow playing, too.

Fun fact. I play an assault army with about 100 models. (Dropped it in response to chess clocks, and also, because of the DS nerf).

I timed my turns in some practice games. Turn 1 & 2 i can get done in about 20-25 minutes, after that they're much faster.

Here's the problem. 25 minutes on turn 1 & 2 means i'm behind the 6-turn-game curve. You need to be 20 minutes and under. I can speed my game up further by being less courteous to my opponent. For example, I always let my opponents view my dice clearly before i scoop and continue rolling. I announce everything i'm doing and give them ample time to ask questions and understand, even while playing fast. What incentive do i have to do this when clocks are a factor? I'm punished for being a good opponent, because I play a list that lives on the razors edge of what amounts to arbitrarily chosen game length.

I can do a 5 turn game in 2.5 hours. I'm fast with deployment and i'm fast with movement, etc. But you can only be so fast with Tyranids unless you play full gunline.

Maybe now is a good time to play a Knight army.

Reemule wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Marmatag has a point though.

Chess clocks exist to stop the 5% of players who deliberately slowplay.

Now, those players will instead slowplay their opponent by forcing their opponent to look up every single rule they question (e.g. *counting out dice for combat* "Daemonettes get +1 attack for every 5 models in the unit" "Hey that's not true!" *hands over codex and flips clock*)

And then you pause clock, call the judge, he makes a ruling, game goes on.

So your both wrong?

And then that happens every ten minutes while you wait around for 5 waiting for a judge, the game ends before both players have used up all their time (because it's a tournament, and the round still has to end in 2.5 hours whether or not both player's clocks are empty) and then we're back where we were: games not finishing on time.

Sounds ideal, sound plan, 10/10 implementation.