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.

The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Spoletta wrote:
The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Yeah chess clocks are not for the 1-3 game crowd. These are for tournaments, and often just the later rounds of tournaments and only for players with winning records. No one is saying your local club has to start using chess clocks or we’ll break all your models.

 Ordana wrote:

Don't play tournaments because the game wasn't designed for that.

You will be happy playing the beer and pretzel game as it was meant to be and the rest of us will happily play tournaments without you.

I will play wherever I want and provide my input on what makes different game experiences good or bad.

And aside from invitations and tournaments with qualifiers, tournaments are often the place where the most "casual" people come to play ... e.g. those that don't have a reqular gaming group, those that haven't taken their models out in 2 years, etc...

"Practice to play your list faster" is a fine thing for two hyper competitive people playing in their own basement or for an invitational. But if the event is open to little Timmy and his dad, and the TOs take their money just the same as they take the money of Nick Nanavati, the format cannot cater only to the latter.

if you want to split it off into a more professional, clock-using pro-circuit, you need to tier it off than. Don't do an LVO with 500 people, just do it with 40 who qualified and play it "hard core" there. As long as the LVO & co are open to everyone, the ITC rules used to play there have to reflect that.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Don't play tournaments because the game wasn't designed for that.

You will be happy playing the beer and pretzel game as it was meant to be and the rest of us will happily play tournaments without you.

I will play wherever I want and provide my input on what makes different game experiences good or bad.

And aside from invitations and tournaments with qualifiers, tournaments are often the place where the most "casual" people come to play ... e.g. those that don't have a reqular gaming group, those that haven't taken their models out in 2 years, etc...

"Practice to play your list faster" is a fine thing for two hyper competitive people playing in their own basement or for an invitational. But if the event is open to little Timmy and his dad, and the TOs take their money just the same as they take the money of Nick Nanavati, the format cannot cater only to the latter.

Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Don't play tournaments because the game wasn't designed for that.

You will be happy playing the beer and pretzel game as it was meant to be and the rest of us will happily play tournaments without you.

I will play wherever I want and provide my input on what makes different game experiences good or bad.

And aside from invitations and tournaments with qualifiers, tournaments are often the place where the most "casual" people come to play ... e.g. those that don't have a reqular gaming group, those that haven't taken their models out in 2 years, etc...

"Practice to play your list faster" is a fine thing for two hyper competitive people playing in their own basement or for an invitational. But if the event is open to little Timmy and his dad, and the TOs take their money just the same as they take the money of Nick Nanavati, the format cannot cater only to the latter.

Most events using chess clocks are only mandating chess clocks for later round players with winning records, if they're mandating them at all. This is about competitive 40k because that's literally what chess clocks are there for. If the casual crowd doesn't want to use a chess clock, that's great, they'll get filtered out of the top tables within 1-3 rounds anyway so they probably won't even see a chess clock unless their opponent asks if they want to use one.

 Ordana wrote:
Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sure. But we're talking about a current change to event rules on an online forum, whose sole purpose is discussion the pros and cons of such things.

If you don't actually have logical, reasoned arguments to make beyond "chess clocks (used as proposed) are fair because I think they are", maybe you should .. you know .. not go to discussion boards.

ITC rules didn't fall out of the sky as they are now. They evolved over years through community feedback, and probably so will any and all rules pertaining to use of clocks.

If you have a logic, objective argument why X is equal thus Y must also be equal would apply to 40K for clocks, when there is clearly precedent against it, please state it. If you can disprove that physically moving 100 things takes more time than physically moving 10 things takes more time, please state it.

Until then, I think the combination of a) bad experiences with chess clocks in 40K, b) the physical nature of moving different amounts of physical objects and c) the nature of a game fundamentally not designed for equal play-time warrant the consideration of whether or not (and it might be) equal time is actually a good fit and truly "fair" objectively speaking.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sure. But we're talking about a current change to event rules on an online forum, whose sole purpose is discussion the pros and cons of such things.

If you don't actually have logical, reasoned arguments to make beyond "chess clocks (used as proposed) are fair because I think they are", maybe you should .. you know .. not go to discussion boards.

ITC rules didn't fall out of the sky as they are now. They evolved over years through community feedback, and probably so will any and all rules pertaining to use of clocks.

If you have a logic, objective argument why X is equal thus Y must also be equal would apply to 40K for clocks, when there is clearly precedent against it, please state it. If you can disprove that physically moving 100 things takes more time than physically moving 10 things takes more time, please state it.

Until then, I think the combination of a) bad experiences with chess clocks in 40K, b) the physical nature of moving different amounts of physical objects and c) the nature of a game fundamentally not designed for equal play-time warrant the consideration of whether or not (and it might be) equal time is actually a good fit and truly "fair" objectively speaking.

Exalted.

Of course we can all just sell our models and buy Custodes or Knights as Reemule suggests, as that's the 'right thing'.

"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce. It's not about who "deserves" more or less time. It's about how a cumbersome beast like 40K can be made to work with regulated timing conditions it wasn't meant to work with. If trying to figure out a timing model that captures the diversity of 40K we love as good as possible and "equal time" is the overriding thing for you, why not just play competitive chess to begin with (prize money is better too, I heard).

This just a further continuation of tournaments mutating the game beyond recognition. Which would not be a problem except these days GW seems to rely heavily on these tournaments for their balancing fixes.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Your welcome to play in any event.
And when you do you will need to abide by that events rule. No matter what game your playing.
If you don't like chess clocks. Don't play in events that use them.

Let TO's know your not going to their tournament because of their clock rules. If enough people stay away they will likely change the rules.
But something tells me you will be in the minority.

Sure. But we're talking about a current change to event rules on an online forum, whose sole purpose is discussion the pros and cons of such things.

If you don't actually have logical, reasoned arguments to make beyond "chess clocks (used as proposed) are fair because I think they are", maybe you should .. you know .. not go to discussion boards.

ITC rules didn't fall out of the sky as they are now. They evolved over years through community feedback, and probably so will any and all rules pertaining to use of clocks.

If you have a logic, objective argument why X is equal thus Y must also be equal would apply to 40K for clocks, when there is clearly precedent against it, please state it. If you can disprove that physically moving 100 things takes more time than physically moving 10 things takes more time, please state it.

Until then, I think the combination of a) bad experiences with chess clocks in 40K, b) the physical nature of moving different amounts of physical objects and c) the nature of a game fundamentally not designed for equal play-time warrant the consideration of whether or not (and it might be) equal time is actually a good fit and truly "fair" objectively speaking.

Your right, rules don't fall out of the sky.
There has been a problem with slow play for decades. Increased streaming of games have increased evidence of this in ways we never had before. Instead of 'a feeling' of an opoonent taking longer we can now time a guy on Twitch taking an hour for his first turn.
This has brought increased scrutiny to the game and is pressuring TO's into taking steps.
The common conclusion to this problem seems to be chess clocks and the most immediately apparent way to split time between 2 people in a competition is equal for both. Go ask 100 random joe's (and jane's) on the street how to split X between 2 people.

Why should models be used as a means for splitting? And how feasible is it to do this in a live tournament setting for a match?
Is your Ork Boy with 1 slugga shot worth as much time as my Knight Castellan in the shooting phase?
Should we re-calculate the remaining time in a every round and re split it based on models remaining?
Or should we just take the obvious and give each person the same time...

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce.

You don't need more time to play with a horde army, you just need to get good. It's really that simple. This isn't a format that punishes horde armies, it's a format that punishes obnoxious, unready players who waste away time and leave a string of ruined games that never made it past turn 2.

The self entitlement is fairly thick in this thread.

Always interesting to see someone tell me with a straight face they should get better treatment than someone else.

One hidden benefit with clocks is ideally they will not come to those events, so I won't have to see them ever again.

 Crimson wrote:
This just a further continuation of tournaments mutating the game beyond recognition. Which would not be a problem except these days GW seems to rely heavily on these tournaments for their balancing fixes.

What mutates the game more?

Orks are OP because they win all tournaments (by parking 180 boys on an objective and only getting to turn 2). (no chess clocks)
Or Orks keep losing because they are an Index army with a number of faults and many tournament armies can kill 180 boys in 5 + turns. (chess clocks)

PS.
GW seems to agree that there was a problem with time constraints since they dropped the points level for their tournaments.

meleti wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce.

You don't need more time to play with a horde army, you just need to get good. It's really that simple. This isn't a format that punishes horde armies, it's a format that punishes obnoxious, unready players who waste away time and leave a string of ruined games that never made it past turn 2.

Agreed. Learn to Play.

 Marmatag wrote:
Exalted.

Of course we can all just sell our models and buy Custodes or Knights as Reemule suggests, as that's the 'right thing'.

Or learn to play your army within the time limit because its certainly possible. Esp in 8th edition where you can use shortcuts like movement trays to help speed up movement.

Marmatag's a smart guy, once he's done complaining about chess clocks I am sure he will recognize you can just practice playing faster, use a dice engine, and agree to play by intent whenever possible.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce. It's not about who "deserves" more or less time. It's about how a cumbersome beast like 40K can be made to work with regulated timing conditions it wasn't meant to work with. If trying to figure out a timing model that captures the diversity of 40K we love as good as possible and "equal time" is the overriding thing for you, why not just play competitive chess to begin with (prize money is better too, I heard).

There is only 1 fair way to distribute time. It is called - equally.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

meleti wrote:
"I deserve to take time from other players in tournaments because that's more fair."

Maybe a game designed with asymmetric model counts simply isn't usable for events where "both people get the same time" is a condition you want to introduce. It's not about who "deserves" more or less time. It's about how a cumbersome beast like 40K can be made to work with regulated timing conditions it wasn't meant to work with. If trying to figure out a timing model that captures the diversity of 40K we love as good as possible and "equal time" is the overriding thing for you, why not just play competitive chess to begin with (prize money is better too, I heard).

There is only 1 fair way to distribute time. It is called - equally.

I will readily admit that there are multiple factors you can base the distribution of time off of. I just thing Equal is the best place to start.

meleti wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Yeah chess clocks are not for the 1-3 game crowd. These are for tournaments, and often just the later rounds of tournaments and only for players with winning records. No one is saying your local club has to start using chess clocks or we’ll break all your models.

A solution that is not applicable to 99% of the players is a bad solution. I like the GW solution better.

 Ordana wrote:
,
GW seems to agree that there was a problem with time constraints since they dropped the points level for their tournaments.

Which is a sensible approach. If there is no time to play the game of certain point level in allotted time, then either increase the time or decrease the points.

ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Spoletta wrote:

meleti wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
The biggest problem with chess clocks is that if you don't play regularly with them, you will forget to switch the clock.

The majority of 40 k players play 1-3 games per month. Even if they practice with clocks in advance, they will still have a quite big chance of forgetting to switch the clock at least once.

I can understand using chess clocks in the top 8 or maybe top 16, but lower than that is something that you simply cannot ask to players.

Yeah chess clocks are not for the 1-3 game crowd. These are for tournaments, and often just the later rounds of tournaments and only for players with winning records. No one is saying your local club has to start using chess clocks or we’ll break all your models.

A solution that is not applicable to 99% of the players is a bad solution. I like the GW solution better.

The GW solution is to reduce points. It's quite literally a misunderstanding of the problem. 2000 points is perfectly playable in 2 1/2 hours if both players are trying to finish the game. 90% of slow play is probably due to incentive. If you are winning and know you have an advantage if the game doesn't finish - you lose urgency and naturally start to play slower. Chess clocks eliminate that - as you have an incentive to play quickly - because if you don't you automatically lose. I assure you that is where most of the problem lies.

It's also completely unfair for a game to be called for time when your opponent got a significant amount more time to play than you. It is totally unacceptable - this will fix it. Lowering game points will not fix it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
,
GW seems to agree that there was a problem with time constraints since they dropped the points level for their tournaments.

Which is a sensible approach. If there is no time to play the game of certain point level in allotted time, then either increase the time or decrease the points.

Ehh - I see no distribution where equal allocation of time is not preferable to unequal.

FWIW, at least in Warmachine, chess clocks in no way invalidated swarms and this was before the game added turn limits. Turn limits make it even easier, as you've got a pretty clear structure to budget your time in and less need to keep pace with your opponent. No matter what your army composition, you have ~75 minutes to complete 5 turns with your army. Play games; see where you're at at the end of each turn and you'll get a sense of how far off you really are.

Also, its been my experience that people are generally surprised how fast their games play when they add the clock. It keeps the game moving and the players focused and that results in players realizing that they don't need to rush nearly as much as they need to keep from getting distracted. I've seen players that regularly clock in 4+ hour games go to the end with 15-20 minutes left to spare, not because they rushed, but just because they stayed focused on the game.

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Yeah, no one wants to hear that if they want to be competitive with a list they need to practice with the clock... I mentioned it in an earlier post but Warhammer is way behind the times on moving to chess clocks for competitive play... I have been through several other game system that have made the transition and it's always the same arguments against them:
"People will cheat"
"I can't play a horde army"
"I deserve more time"

Then all of those systems went to chess clocks anyways and the sky didn't fall, horde armies still made really good showings, games finished on time and it was very rare someone would lose because they ran out of time.

Flamephoenix182 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Yeah, no one wants to hear that if they want to be competitive with a list they need to practice with the clock... I mentioned it in an earlier post but Warhammer is way behind the times on moving to chess clocks for competitive play... I have been through several other game system that have made the transition and it's always the same arguments against them:
"People will cheat"
"I can't play a horde army"
"I deserve more time"

Then all of those systems went to chess clocks anyways and the sky didn't fall, horde armies still made really good showings, games finished on time and it was very rare someone would lose because they ran out of time.

This.

In 6 months your going to hear people saying they prefer to play with the clock. It promotes honest game play, civility, and takes all the time pressure off you.

Reemule wrote:

Flamephoenix182 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Yeah, no one wants to hear that if they want to be competitive with a list they need to practice with the clock... I mentioned it in an earlier post but Warhammer is way behind the times on moving to chess clocks for competitive play... I have been through several other game system that have made the transition and it's always the same arguments against them:
"People will cheat"
"I can't play a horde army"
"I deserve more time"

Then all of those systems went to chess clocks anyways and the sky didn't fall, horde armies still made really good showings, games finished on time and it was very rare someone would lose because they ran out of time.

This.

In 6 months your going to hear people saying they prefer to play with the clock. It promotes honest game play, civility, and takes all the time pressure off you.

Often so far as saying they play with it casually at the shop because it lets them finish their games before closing or even sometimes get a second game in.

Having played Warmachine steamroller, with practice chess clocks arn't to bad, and once you get into the groove of using them its an interesting challenge. What I am not a fan off is the "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.", just time everything, different armies are going to take up differing amounts of time in different phases anyway and it takes out the chance of things like the hero guardsman who holds up a assault unit when the dice run you're way.

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people who have never played WMH under Steamroller format.

You have a horde army. You learn it, you get good. So you can use it in the allotted time you've been given. This is what players do in other games. You've chosen to run this list, if you cannot do it in the time given you modify it.

Everything above is on the player and not the fault of the system itself. It is entirely up to you how you distribute the time you have.

Hrm, I would argue there is a whole lot of difference. Warmahordes, as a system, is built around a a style of play that suits a faced past competitive event with time limits. Army model counts are limited (the largest Warmahordes 75pt lists Ive seen have about as many models as a typical 1500pt Space Marine list, 40-50 or so), random rolling for extraneous effects is limited, army construction possibilities are much more limited, record keeping is more limited, the number of rules sources and references is more limited, there are inbuilt sudden death mechanics, the gaming mindset it espouses is more attuned to that style of play, time requirements are identical across all events (at least as far as ive seen), etc. Time restraints are very much inherently accomodated for at multiple levels by the developers themselves. I don't think its possible to build a Warmahordes army that couldnt be run within time limits.

Games Workshop meanwhile doesnt care about time limits and makes little accommodation for time within the game, especially any sort of balancing time availability between players, and have done very little for competitive play and tournament organization beyond setting some basic ground rules on spamming things like psychic powers and detachments. It's entirely possible to make armies that will have trouble with time limits at higher levels like 2k.

Games Workshop's general solution has pretty much always been that if time is an issue, a smaller game should be played, though nobody appears to want to exercise that option.

Play 1500pts and score any game that doesn't clear turn 5 after 2.5 hours as loss for both players. I'd be far happier playing that than dealing with a chess clock at 2k.

meleti wrote:
Marmatag's a smart guy, once he's done complaining about chess clocks I am sure he will recognize you can just practice playing faster, use a dice engine, and agree to play by intent whenever possible.

Not sure if sarcastic, but I am already practicing with clocks. If it isn't obvious from my posts I play 40k competitively. I already play with intent, and use the GW approved dice app. It's like the only way to get to turn 5.

I would have 0 objections to clocks if the games were capped at 5 turns. 6 turns in 2.5 hours is just infeasible. And you're talking about a significant points swing if you can't make it to turn 6, but your opponent can with time. They'll probably get +2 for kills, +2 for objectives, and you'll be denied last strike, or possibly linebreaker.