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.

tneva82 wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running

Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.

No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.


Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions

Wow...what a bell end.

I roll so fast they never even hit the table and I always roll what I need.
Not my fault. You need to get good (spelling)

Reemule wrote:

secretForge wrote:
From the OP

Reemule wrote:
5. If a turn ends and both players have less than 10 minutes on the clock, the game ends.

I don't get the point of this rule, anyone have an idea why if two players are playing equally quickly they must dice down 19:59 minutes before the end of the round, seems pretty crazy to me.

Any ideas?

If you go read the article, they did say this point is still in debate. They want to switch it to 5 minutes.

The goal is to have the game end on a turn end. Not the clock dings in dice down and you drop dice in the middle of a game deciding save, or something like that.

I find this quite amusing. Wasn't the stated purpose of the chess clocks to ensure that games finished naturally on time? The fact that there's a clause that achieves the exact opposite of that seems like deliberate irony.

 Ordana wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well opponents better stay up with me when i'm rolling dice. I ain' slowing down for him to confirm. Keep up with the results on my pace. That or put your own clock running

Heck why not save more time and don't bother rolling.
Just call out the number of hits/wounds/saves.
Problem solved.

No i roll them alright. I just don't waste my limitea time so that you can verify them because you can't keep up.


Git gud following my dice roll or switch time to your clock for verifying. I ain't allowing you to waste my time with your actions

Oh look another one going for the "I'll turn into TFG" argument to show how to clock is a bad idea.
And like all those before you the only thing your doing is showing everyone your TFG.
And no one likes TFG.

^^ This. If your argument against chess clocks results in TFG behaviour that's not an argument against chess clocks, it's just demonstrating TFG will be TFG regardless of the rules of the game. The real question is does introducing chess clocks result in a fairer game overall. For this you need to take into account what chess clocks improve about the game and any potential problems they introduce. Highlighting that TFG exists isn't in itself an argument against chess clocks.

I feel like the "chess clocks will fix TFG behavior" argument is incompatible with the "well if they don't work it is because you are a TFG" fact.

Right now, all I can assume is that chess clocks aren't going to fix TFG behavior, they will just move it around a bit, which means the top levels of tournament play will still be weighed down with TFG behavior that the TO's still won't punish.

Therefore, the chess clocks only add an burden to the middle and lower tanks of tournament play, in the effort to get games to finish more on-time, and that is good because of reasons that are unclear.

What I find the most amusing is all the "This is how I'll abuse the mechanic designed to stop abuse" posts.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like the "chess clocks will fix TFG behavior" argument is incompatible with the "well if they don't work it is because you are a TFG" fact.

Right now, all I can assume is that chess clocks aren't going to fix TFG behavior, they will just move it around a bit, which means the top levels of tournament play will still be weighed down with TFG behavior that the TO's still won't punish.

Therefore, the chess clocks only add an burden to the middle and lower tanks of tournament play, in the effort to get games to finish more on-time, and that is good because of reasons that are unclear.

No, clocks will fix certain types of TFG behaviour, including some particularly egregious abuses that have been highlighted in recent big tournaments. It won't eradicate TFG behaviour. Advocates of chess clocks contend they are an overall good, removing more problems than they introduce and, importantly, giving a solution to already identified problems rather than purely theoretical ones. Claiming they introduce new issues doesn't in itself mean chess clocks are bad. If you're arguing against chess clocks you have to show the problems they introduce outweigh the problems they solve. Nobody has yet shown this and most attempts so far include using obvious TFG behaviour that any TO worth their salt would immediately put a stop to.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like the "chess clocks will fix TFG behavior" argument is incompatible with the "well if they don't work it is because you are a TFG" fact.

Right now, all I can assume is that chess clocks aren't going to fix TFG behavior, they will just move it around a bit, which means the top levels of tournament play will still be weighed down with TFG behavior that the TO's still won't punish.

Therefore, the chess clocks only add an burden to the middle and lower tanks of tournament play, in the effort to get games to finish more on-time, and that is good because of reasons that are unclear.

This has been addressed several times before.
Chess clocks do not stop TFG from being who he is.
It does promote faster play and does a ton to address slow play.
The problem with slow play is that it isn't easy to catch in the act. Looking back afterwards its easier but by then the damage is done. Catching slow play in the act requires a judge spending a significant amount of time observing a table.
If with chess clocks TFG can't slow play anymore and moves on to other things, those other things are often much easier to catch.

And if you think there are no clear reasons why games finishing on time is a good thing then you have much deeper problems.

Also, if ITC is only implementing chess clocks on Day 2 when people are already 3-0, that means they've already had 3 games to slow play before having to deal with clocks. So early rounds of tournies can still be manipulated by TFG.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My personal preference would be to cap the games at 5 turns, and keep it at 10 minutes to start a new turn. There has to be a cutoff. Having a 5 minute turn is ridiculous, I don't think 40k is a game that is meant to be played at that speed.

Quick question, Marmatag - in theory, this cut-off criteria should be coming into play late in the game, probably T4, T5, etc. How much stuff do you tend to find still exists on the board by that point, and how long do you think you'd really need to play your average turn 5?

Turn 5 you still have assaults going on. Position matters greatly in the end of the game because you want linebreaker, or last strike/deny last strike, and you might need to pick up another secondary point you needed.

If the argument is that there's effectively nothing left on the table, then i would also counter with - why even have those turns at all then? The main argument for chess clocks is that turns 5 and 6 matter. If they can be played in 5 minutes they really don't.

Capping at turn 5 seems reasonable.
If i had my way - which I know most people disagree with - games would be capped at 4 turns.

I would create a poll to see what turn-cap a tournament game would have, but every poll i create ends so badly i'll just forego it. I would imagine if a tournament game turn length poll was created, and the vote was restricted somehow to people who play in tournaments, (not people like Primark G who are very vocal in these threads but have 0 competitive games under their belt), you'd see that the average would probably be around 5, or maybe slightly higher. The options would be 3, 4, 5, 6. I doubt anyone would vote for 3, but i'd be curious to see. The earlier games end the better, then you can fit more games in the day or have more breaks and socializing time. As it stands tournaments are a freaking GRIND, especially if they're more than 1 day. My feet hurt, i'm sore, sweaty, thirsty and want to go home at the end of every event. I usually always say "i'm never doing this again," but by the time the next one rolls around it's "hey who's going?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I feel like the "chess clocks will fix TFG behavior" argument is incompatible with the "well if they don't work it is because you are a TFG" fact.

Chess Clocks in no way fix TFG behavior. I find they make it more obvious though, and give the TO better cause to expel them.

Sounds like we can avoid the issue altogether if we just lower the points level and level penalties on games that dont make it to time. Play 1500pts and call any game that doesnt make it to turn 5 a loss for both players.

If need be have the TO call out the 90 minute mark and announce that players should at least be on turn 3 by then and that if there is some issue with slowplay or an extenuating circumstance to call a judge at that time.

No need for clocks and their fiddlyness (real or perceived), just a modification to the points level and a clear time requirement and consequence known ahead of time.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sounds like we can avoid the issue altogether if we just lower the points level and level penalties on games that dont make it to time. Play 1500pts and call any game that doesnt make it to turn 5 a loss for both players.

If need be have the TO call out the 90 minute mark and announce that players should at least be on turn 3 by then and that if there is some issue with slowplay or an extenuating circumstance to call a judge at that time.

No need for clocks and their fiddlyness (real or perceived), just a modification to the points level and a clear time requirement and consequence known ahead of time.

I can see this causing vindictive players who know they are going to lose to intentionally slow-play so that their opponent is disqualified as well.

I watched this discussion and haven't said anything because I don't really have a dog in the fight. However, I have a somewhat radical solution. Why are there even time limits at all? As many people have pointed out, WH40k is not a game designed around time limits. Why not just have the next tournament round start whenever all of the previous tournament round games end, and not impose arbitrary time limits on the players? If the players lag too far behind and everyone is kind of waiting on one game or something, the judge can disqualify both players if it becomes an issue.

w1zard wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Sounds like we can avoid the issue altogether if we just lower the points level and level penalties on games that dont make it to time. Play 1500pts and call any game that doesnt make it to turn 5 a loss for both players.

If need be have the TO call out the 90 minute mark and announce that players should at least be on turn 3 by then and that if there is some issue with slowplay or an extenuating circumstance to call a judge at that time.

No need for clocks and their fiddlyness (real or perceived), just a modification to the points level and a clear time requirement and consequence known ahead of time.

I can see this causing vindictive players who know they are going to lose to intentionally slow-play so that their opponent is disqualified as well.

I watched this discussion and haven't said anything because I don't really have a dog in the fight. However, I have a somewhat radical solution. Why are there even time limits at all? As many people have pointed out, WH40k is not a game designed around time limits. Why not just have the next tournament round start whenever all of the previous tournament round games end, and not impose arbitrary time limits on the players? If the players lag too far behind and everyone is kind of waiting on one game or something, the judge can disqualify both players if it becomes an issue.

So what you're suggesting is instead of players having a set time that everyone is aware of people should get to play as long as they want and just have the judges DQ people when they feel like it? Having set times for rounds is essential for any organised tournament no matter the game. It gives people time to get drinks, quickly have a snack or go relieve themself because the know when the next round starts. Having everything operate at the whims of the judges would just create chaos.

IronBrand wrote:
Having everything operate at the whims of the judges would just create chaos.

Not at the whims of the judges.

Once everyone is finished and people are just waiting for the last game to finish, those two players get a friendly warning. Their game ends in, say 20 minutes or sooner. It can be a disqualification, or simply that the game ends with whatever score is current. Judges have only 1 table to watch for signs of slow play at this point, so it's a non-issue at this stage.

I also have an alternative solution to the slow-play problem... Have an impartial referee at each table that watches both players and elevates any issues he/she sees to the judges. This would cut down on cheating too. If money is the issue preventing this from being possible, I think there would be many volunteers for something like this.

 Vaktathi wrote:


No need for clocks and their fiddlyness (real or perceived), just a modification to the points level and a clear time requirement and consequence known ahead of time.

Well there it is. These simple things. Man if we had only thought of this 25 years ago, we could have implemented this, and enjoyed the benefits for a quarter century.

Smaller game sizes and a renewed interest in getting rid of slow players early!

Look I am making fun of you but really man. Those things have been tried.

Games have a certain "even point" where you can in general bring the things needed to be competitive, and have the game fit into a certain time length. At this time, acceptable perceived game length is around 2 hours.And that point limit is 2K points.

Changing those isn't a matter of getting Mat the local TO to change his mind. In general TO's are working to run events people want to play in.The biggest drive in events is the people looking to go to bigger events.

When someone says Play less points, and play longer games, it is really out of the scope of the clock discussion. Go tell GW to run 1500 point events. Go get GT's changed, Get the ITC to change to 1500 points. When you do, you will see that ripple and spread.

Or they will hear what your saying and push clocks even more.

But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

 Marmatag wrote:
But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

If the points values and time limits are clearly posted before people sign up for the even this is only on the people who chose to bring armies they can't play effectively in conditions given. Every player theoretically has access to every combination of units to take to the tournament. Sure not everyone has unlimited funds so they're mostly stuck with the models they have but they made the choice to run them. The person playing custodes might greatly prefer playing a horde of guard or orks but they knew the conditions of the tournament and chose to enter with custodes. Giving players extra time because they brought a horde army will just shift every list into being a horde army.

Let's take this back to the roots for a second.

I have 2.5 hours to play a game.
It doesn't matter if it's a game at home (wife needs me) or a tournament.
It doesn't matter if it's competitive or not - I want to play my army as much as my opponent.

Why should either player get more time than the other one?

IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

If the points values and time limits are clearly posted before people sign up for the even this is only on the people who chose to bring armies they can't play effectively in conditions given. Every player theoretically has access to every combination of units to take to the tournament. Sure not everyone has unlimited funds so they're mostly stuck with the models they have but they made the choice to run them. The person playing custodes might greatly prefer playing a horde of guard or orks but they knew the conditions of the tournament and chose to enter with custodes. Giving players extra time because they brought a horde army will just shift every list into being a horde army.

Be careful, this is a dangerous argument.
It means that ITC and untimed 40K have even less in common that usually agreed upon, so any claim of OP/UP broken/useless coming from an ITC source should be automatically ignored, it's that person's fault for using rules and points made for one game with a different game.
Time limits should never impact a model's performance.

 Marmatag wrote:
But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

True. But since we're talking about a tournament environment your suggestion is not practical. There have to be time limits in place in order for the event to actually work at all. Your problem is also mitigated, as IronBrand points out, by posting the event rules beforehand so people can make educated decisions about what armies to bring. This may well lead to some army compositions being advantaged/disadvantaged. The idea behind using chess clocks is to give each player more control over the extent of some of those potential disadvantages. Now if I bring a horde of 200+ models it's entirely down to me to be able to play it in the time limit and it shouldn't depend on what my opponent brought or how slow they are. We probably need to stop thinking of tournaments as ways of determining who's better at 40k, and more as ways of determining who's better at playing that particular combination of missions, time limits and other elements imposed by the event.

 Marmatag wrote:
But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

Learn to play faster. A quicker player has all the time he needs to use Hormaguants effectively.

Spoletta wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

If the points values and time limits are clearly posted before people sign up for the even this is only on the people who chose to bring armies they can't play effectively in conditions given. Every player theoretically has access to every combination of units to take to the tournament. Sure not everyone has unlimited funds so they're mostly stuck with the models they have but they made the choice to run them. The person playing custodes might greatly prefer playing a horde of guard or orks but they knew the conditions of the tournament and chose to enter with custodes. Giving players extra time because they brought a horde army will just shift every list into being a horde army.

Be careful, this is a dangerous argument.
It means that ITC and untimed 40K have even less in common that usually agreed upon, so any claim of OP/UP broken/useless coming from an ITC source should be automatically ignored, it's that person's fault for using rules and points made for one game with a different game.
Time limits should never impact a model's performance.

You know that's an opinion held by quite a lot of people already, right? It's a pretty common criticism of ITC/ETC that they change the nature of the game so much it's difficult to draw conclusions about how powerful things are purely from looking at those tournaments. Many of those advocating for chess clocks would probably agree with that opinion. I'm not really sure what it has to do with whether chess clocks should be used in tournaments though.

Spoletta wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

If the points values and time limits are clearly posted before people sign up for the even this is only on the people who chose to bring armies they can't play effectively in conditions given. Every player theoretically has access to every combination of units to take to the tournament. Sure not everyone has unlimited funds so they're mostly stuck with the models they have but they made the choice to run them. The person playing custodes might greatly prefer playing a horde of guard or orks but they knew the conditions of the tournament and chose to enter with custodes. Giving players extra time because they brought a horde army will just shift every list into being a horde army.

Be careful, this is a dangerous argument.
It means that ITC and untimed 40K have even less in common that usually agreed upon, so any claim of OP/UP broken/useless coming from an ITC source should be automatically ignored, it's that person's fault for using rules and points made for one game with a different game.
Time limits should never impact a model's performance.

I never said they should. I was just taking it to the logical conclusion of the argument "I should get more time because I have more models to move". If that were ever enacted then we would only ever see horde armies with roughly the same amount of models. The vast majority of armies would be rendered completely unusable and everyone would have equal time. The only way to have a fair game outside of re-balancing literally every single aspect of the game so every single model was equally viable as the equivalent points in any other model is to present every player with the exact same options. Equal, points, equal time, full access to the rules and policies of the events and access to the same models. Players have access to the same models, limited by their personal funds and money but there are no models that one player could purchase that it is impossible for their opponent to also purchase.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's take this back to the roots for a second.

I have 2.5 hours to play a game.
It doesn't matter if it's a game at home (wife needs me) or a tournament.
It doesn't matter if it's competitive or not - I want to play my army as much as my opponent.

Why should either player get more time than the other one?

There really isn't an any reason. Marmatag is his search for pure balance in a fairly unbalanced rules system, in a fairly unbalanced faction system does not really make sense. A Ork 200 boy list is much more likely to lose due point system failures, and the fact they don't have a codex then getting clocked for being a slow player.

But that doesn't argue the point he wants to make.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are tournaments the best place to measure model effectiveness?

Yes.

You get a lot of data very quick, under somewhat controlled circumstanced. And also its documented. X list showed up X times over X tourneys, and preformed X well. These guys played under this rule set, with this terrain, in these missions.

Casual player 1, and casual player 2, don’t keep those records, and might not even be aware and able to recall what home rule they used and when, and terrain and board circumstances might been a pike of old text books, and don’t forget Casual Player 2 had a few long necks.

Spoletta wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But if you really want a game of 40k to be fair and balanced, removing the time constraint is the best way to do it.

It doesn't make sense that an army with 4 models have the same amount of time in the movement phase as an army with 100 models. The idea is that this armies are balanced around being able to play to their full potential. By imposing an artificial time restriction, armies that should be balanced based on points become unbalanced based on logistics.

In an example, Hormagants are 5 points and have a specific statline. They were given these under the assumption that they could be move/charge/pile in/fight/consolidate with precision to get maximum effect. By imposing a time restriction, these guys don't get to realize their full potential. They are no longer worth their points. The idea that a 2000 vs 2000 point game is balanced, comes from the fact that every unit can be used to its full potential. When that becomes infeasible for some armies, naturally they will be underpowered relative to armies that don't face the same logistical challenges.

If the points values and time limits are clearly posted before people sign up for the even this is only on the people who chose to bring armies they can't play effectively in conditions given. Every player theoretically has access to every combination of units to take to the tournament. Sure not everyone has unlimited funds so they're mostly stuck with the models they have but they made the choice to run them. The person playing custodes might greatly prefer playing a horde of guard or orks but they knew the conditions of the tournament and chose to enter with custodes. Giving players extra time because they brought a horde army will just shift every list into being a horde army.

Be careful, this is a dangerous argument.
It means that ITC and untimed 40K have even less in common that usually agreed upon, so any claim of OP/UP broken/useless coming from an ITC source should be automatically ignored, it's that person's fault for using rules and points made for one game with a different game.
Time limits should never impact a model's performance.

Yes and No.
You might (will) see less hordes with clocks because of people who know they can't play them fast enough (top players who want to bring a horde will have no trouble playing fast enough). In that sense you are right that it will draw ITC further away from 'normal' 40k.
But by the same token you will no longer have hordes win a tournament because they put 180 bodies on the objectives and the game ended on turn 3. Something that doesn't happen a lot in casual 40k that has all afternoon/night to play a single game.

I would argue that the results for the lists that do show up are more in line with untimed 40k then they are now because of games not running their full course.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Let's take this back to the roots for a second.

I have 2.5 hours to play a game.
It doesn't matter if it's a game at home (wife needs me) or a tournament.
It doesn't matter if it's competitive or not - I want to play my army as much as my opponent.

Why should either player get more time than the other one?

Horde Privilege.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

I watched this discussion and haven't said anything because I don't really have a dog in the fight. However, I have a somewhat radical solution. Why are there even time limits at all? As many people have pointed out, WH40k is not a game designed around time limits. Why not just have the next tournament round start whenever all of the previous tournament round games end, and not impose arbitrary time limits on the players? If the players lag too far behind and everyone is kind of waiting on one game or something, the judge can disqualify both players if it becomes an issue.

Money. Big events would simply not be able to function properly. If you're running an event in a local shop then you can probably be a bit more flexible. But I'm sure the owner and employees would like to go home at a reasonable time. Waiting for a horde player to finish their game would not make them very popular with the other players or staff.

Hordes aren't winning ITC events now. Progressive scoring and secondaries have done away with that. They win GW events, because GW uses their very flawed mission pack. Of course a guy who pushes 200 models onto the 3 eternal war objectives is going to win if he plays slowly. That doesn't fundamentally work in ITC.

Reemule wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:


No need for clocks and their fiddlyness (real or perceived), just a modification to the points level and a clear time requirement and consequence known ahead of time.

Well there it is. These simple things. Man if we had only thought of this 25 years ago, we could have implemented this, and enjoyed the benefits for a quarter century.

Smaller game sizes and a renewed interest in getting rid of slow players early!

Look I am making fun of you but really man. Those things have been tried.

Well, at least from my perspective in this thread and attending tournaments, they have not.

Tournaments have been pushing points levels up for several editions. 1500 was the norm for years and for a while stuff bounced between 1500/1750/1850/2000, but nobody wants to try playing smaller events these days, I'm not seeing where that was tried recently. Slow play appears to be much more of an issue/concern than it used to be. It was a very minor concern in 5E tournaments for example.

Games have a certain "even point" where you can in general bring the things needed to be competitive, and have the game fit into a certain time length. At this time, acceptable perceived game length is around 2 hours.And that point limit is 2K points.

Well, the problem is that the time limits clearly arent working if this is such an issue. We can either address that in the manner the game intends (game size), or add new pieces of equipment that arent something the game considers and adds new potential for issues.

Changing those isn't a matter of getting Mat the local TO to change his mind. In general TO's are working to run events people want to play in.The biggest drive in events is the people looking to go to bigger events.

When someone says Play less points, and play longer games, it is really out of the scope of the clock discussion. Go tell GW to run 1500 point events. Go get GT's changed, Get the ITC to change to 1500 points. When you do, you will see that ripple and spread.

Or they will hear what your saying and push clocks even more.

This is an internet discussiom board for plastic toy soldier games, all of us have the right to chime in, none of us individually are going to any meaningful impact on any of these things. If I quit my job and just full time pushed and lobbied for 1500pt games full time, i probably still would not change anything. Im just not in a position to influence that.

All I can do is add my voice to the discussion when it arises and choose to attend or not attend events based on my preferences.

 Marmatag wrote:
Hordes aren't winning ITC events now. Progressive scoring and secondaries have done away with that. They win GW events, because GW uses their very flawed mission pack. Of course a guy who pushes 200 models onto the 3 eternal war objectives is going to win if he plays slowly. That doesn't fundamentally work in ITC.

That's more of a banana bike domination problem. Hordes of different styles have done very well for those willing to run them.

 Vaktathi wrote:
This is an internet discussiom board for plastic toy soldier games, all of us have the right to chime in, none of us individually are going to any meaningful impact on any of these things. If I quit my job and just full time pushed and lobbied for 1500pt games full time, i probably still would not change anything. Im just not in a position to influence that.

All I can do is add my voice to the discussion when it arises and choose to attend or not attend events based on my preferences.

As you should! Vote with your feet. As a TO nothing stops events quicker than no one showing up.

But as I said, locally, looking at events, If your running a 2K ITC event a certain number of people show. If its a 2K none ITC, about the same number show, a few less. If its a different point level, attendance drops in half. If you want the change your advocating, you now know where to go it I feel.