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.

Never forget that GW and Frontline gaming are both retailers first and foremost, and have a vested interest in larger games.
2K is an arbitrary number decided on because the people who won tournaments with undercosted Eldar or free transports at 1850 in 7th felt like their armies got smaller. 1850 before that was pushed because it was the optimum points value for TauDar to function at. But even before then at 1999+1, slow-playing wasn’t really an issue...not even in the convoluted psychic-summoning deathstar days of 7th. Up until now, chess clocks haven’t gained any traction. But now they are, and I think it’s for 3 reasons:
1. Games are taking longer because people are unfamiliar with the game. We don’t instinctively know what weapons and unit profiles are anymore, so our opponents look it up. Deployment takes longer, and precision deepstrike adds time to both deployment and deepstrike. Clocks try to make you play faster.
2. Slow play (and other cheating) is now more visible. Whether by internet anecdotes or video stream, people see when it happens, which leads to...
3. People are fed up with celebrity 40K. We’re tired of watching “the GT winners” cheat at the top tables, and the TOs do nothing about it over and over again.
My personal opinion? ITC panicked after the LVO incident. The TOs are too much in bed with the guys who win their events to actually sanction them (read the “Tony’s a great guy!” posts after LVO), so they invented this narrative of “everyone slowplays!” which got extrapolated from “everyone plays slow”. Cause then it’s not so bad if poor Tony does it, right?
Unless you believe that at least 25% of tournament goers are cheating, then chess clocks to stop said cheating aren’t the only answer. There are a lot of other possible solutions that should also be considered and implemented alongside chess clocks.

Some are trying to make a big deal about clocks but truly they are sorely needed. The LVO semifinal proves this.

One thing that nobody has brought up is the crazy amount of issues you would run into if you attempted to give armies time based on how many models you bring

Firstly for this argument, we have to accept the simple reality that we cannot have 0 time limits. Tournaments would stop existing as you could not properly plan out a decent event as every shop/ venue has to close and nobody is going to show up to an event where you might fly to vegas and play 6 games but you might also only play 1 if a couple tables match up horde v horde with slow players and you end up waiting for 2 days for round 1 to finish. If you want no time limits that's what playing at home is for, there's nothing wrong with it and that's where i play the majority of my games.

Now onto the issues you would face if you tried to give armies time based on the model count.
1. Are we going to do it simply based on model count?
2. What if you have more transports so your models' aren't actually on the table?
3. What if you deep strike a large portion, are we going to adjust the time until they make it onto the field?
4. What if you lose half your army turn 1, are you still entitled to your full time or do we divide it up now that you have fewer models?
5. So What exactly is the formula? Like I said is it just models what about attack profiles and the number of shots?
6. What happens if someone brings 5 nights against 200 orks? Do we give the person with the orks 40x as much time? in a 3 hour game, this would leave the night player 4.5 minutes... is that fair?
7. Do we allow timing your opponent out to become a valid strategy?
8. How do we ensure that the player with more models is getting the correct amount of time? do we need a clock to ensure knight players aren't slow playing?
9. Do we calculate the time each match based on our formula? do we have to cut down round time to do this, especially if the formula is complicated?

 Primark G wrote:
Some are trying to make a big deal about clocks but truly they are sorely needed. The LVO semifinal proves this.

The LVO semifinal proves that top players are very capable of WAAC behavior. The universal need for chess clocks comes from a large portion of the other 99.9% of games not finishing within time (supposedly). So the answer to “we need people to play our missions at our points value faster” is forcing a harder time limit, according to ITC.

Maybe just play with less points ? 1500 instead of 2000 or 1200 instead of 1500.
I remember when it was 1500 and then when it was 1850. Of course I play almost only 2000 pts, but I have no time constraint with my friends

 godardc wrote:
Maybe just play with less points ? 1500 instead of 2000 or 1200 instead of 1500.
I remember when it was 1500 and then when it was 1850. Of course I play almost only 2000 pts, but I have no time constraint with my friends

The FLG guys have polled players on the option of reducing points before, and have found that it's an extremely unpopular solution. There's merit to the idea, but FLG kinda needs to find solutions that won't cause many of their most frequent players to pack up their toys and game elsewhere because, y'know, they're a business that needs to make money.

 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.

Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.

You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.

Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.

I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.

Git gud

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.

You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.

Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.

I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.

Git gud

"Git gud" isn't a blanket term that allows you to act like an arse.

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.

You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.

Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.

I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.

Git gud

As long as you are being reasonable with your rolling and giving your opponent a chance to see it there isn't any problem.

One thing that I do is pick out the failures and remove them. My opponent typically helps me spot any in a large pool of dice. Once all of the failures are removed I state "That many hits / wounds / etc" as a quick final confirmation with my opponent that there is only successful rolls left, then I pick up the dice and roll the next lot. If the person you are playing against isn't engaging with you then I agree, it isn't your responsibility to ensure that they see the results.

JakeSiren wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 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.

Why? Using my time for your actions? I'm sure you are ok me using your time moving my models.

You do something, use your time. If i let you do your things on my time you can be tfg and burn my time for no reason.

Or you can you know learn to follow my rolls on my speed rather than burn my time so you win by time.

I don't cheat and i do it accurately fast. It's more reasonable for you to either do same or use your time if you can't keep up rather than allow you tm game it to your advantage.

Git gud

As long as you are being reasonable with your rolling and giving your opponent a chance to see it there isn't any problem.

One thing that I do is pick out the failures and remove them. My opponent typically helps me spot any in a large pool of dice. Once all of the failures are removed I state "That many hits / wounds / etc" as a quick final confirmation with my opponent that there is only successful rolls left, then I pick up the dice and roll the next lot. If the person you are playing against isn't engaging with you then I agree, it isn't your responsibility to ensure that they see the results.

Picking failed dices one by one and asking for final confirmation from the opponent before proceeding to the next roll is the only sensible solution.
If you don't do because you want to save time, then i would call you out on that.

Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.

It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.

Except those apps are not nearly as random as you may think.


I use different dice for tracking wounds, ones that don't look like the ones I usually roll. And have one for every multi wound model.
I even have a pair of d3s, 6 sided with 2 ones, 2 twos, and 2 threes. Eliminates the 'round up/round down' dispute, and halving a d6.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.

It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.

I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?

 helgrenze wrote:
Except those apps are not nearly as random as you may think.

This. Probabilities aren't the same as a physical dice. In any case I want my phone as far away from the tabletop as possible. I don't play Warhammer so I can look at a screen.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.

It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.

I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?

I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?

You wanna do this competitive thing right or not? Than you'll inevitably will have trade-offs with the hobby aspects.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.

It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.

I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?

I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?

You wanna do this competitive thing right or not? Than you'll inevitably will have trade-offs with the hobby aspects.

Complaining that the rules aren't being adjusted to suit your list is much more "doing this competitive thing wrong" than wanting to use fancy dice.

Shouldn’t people take as long as they need? Like seriously where is this idea that horde armies can be played as fast as hyper elite armies coming from? Be as efficient as you like, 150 guard models take longer to move and shoot with than, say 20 custodes. Let’s assume no one is trying to screw the other over, and we’re just trying to make sure both players have a good game, shouldn’t the Guard player get as long as he needs to move his models? I think something as strict as a chess clock doesn’t account well for the asymmetrical system of 40k.

I play Warhammer fantasy, currently a mononurgle list with 4 blocks of daemonic tar and a Greater Daemon. My turns are very fast, because I have hardly any chaff, low unit count as no shooting. I certainly wouldn’t get annoyed at a wood elf player taking longer turns than me, because between more intricate movement and shooting phase he realistically needs to take longer. I don’t think the chess clock is good for the game, since the amount of slow players it would speed up probably doesn’t equate to the amount of stress and bad blood this would cause in other games.

Top tables? Money on the line? Sure. Stress is part of the bargain. But keep it away from my chill middle tables please.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?

With movement trays, depending on the variety used, moving 100 models on them should be roughly equivalent or potentially faster than moving 10 individual models. Playing aids can help circumvent the "basic natural laws of physics" quite handily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Shouldn’t people take as long as they need? Like seriously where is this idea that horde armies can be played as fast as hyper elite armies coming from? Be as efficient as you like, 150 guard models take longer to move and shoot with than, say 20 custodes. Let’s assume no one is trying to screw the other over, and we’re just trying to make sure both players have a good game, shouldn’t the Guard player get as long as he needs to move his models?

I can play a 130 model army faster than most people can play small, elite armies so yes it is quite possible and comes down to player skill, focus on constantly advancing the game state, using basic play aids and other such factors that are totally within the purview of the individual players. So no a Guard or any other player should not have unlimited time in an event format with a time restriction. If the individual player cannot play the army at that speed they very much have the option to bring something that they can play at an appropriate speed or if they cannot play at an appropriate pace in a timed environment they can always decline to participate until they are able to do so.

The main problem seems to be the horde players who simply can't grasp the fact that when there's a timed event any extra time they get is stolen from their opponent. The logistics of moving more models should never be a factor in splitting time. They chose to bring a list that wasn't appropriate for them at that event. Anything that points that out to them, like a clock saying they're running out of time is seen as a personal attack whether they realise it or not. They're invested in their army and want to play it so they refuse to realise what they're doing is the same as a child throwing a tantrum because their parents are saying that they have to give their little brother the same amount of time they've had on the xbox. "But I'm playing skyrim and he's only playing street fighter, so I should get an hour to his half an hour" no, you knew you had half an hour yet chose to play skyrim. Doesn't matter what army you're playing or what army your opponent plays. You both knew the same rules, had access to the same units, you both get the same time. You practice and adapt to be able to play horde armies under the conditions you knew you were playing or you play something else. They need to realise they're acting like children throwing a tantrum because their favourite toy soldiers take too long for them to play with so they should get to steal their opponent's time. You're not losing time that was yours to begin with. They're just saying no you can't steal your opponent's time anymore. The time allotted per game is finite, any extra time one player gets is stolen from the other player.

I wonder... if I were to come to an event with an army that I'm not familiar with and had to keep looking up my rules to know what I'm doing, would I then be entitled to more time than my opponent who knows their rules and can therefore make their decisions more quickly? I clearly need the extra time more than my opponent.

IronBrand wrote:
The main problem seems to be the horde players who simply can't grasp the fact that when there's a timed event any extra time they get is stolen from their opponent. The logistics of moving more models should never be a factor in splitting time. .

A.

That is circular logic/reasoning. You cannot judge what is "fair" or not for a possible houserule regarding time to play on the assumption that this houserule already exists.

The game of Warhammer 40K from all the way back in the 80s wasn't developed with the idea or notion that people should use exactly the same time to play the game. That is why there are lists with different model counts. If the game had been developed with the rule/requirement of "both players need to use the same time" in mind, it almost certainly wouldn't have as widely divergent model counts or possibly it would use other mechanics, such as equal amounts of activations, independent of models or it would have a requirement for movement trays.

But the idea that "you get the exact same time as your opponent doesn't exist in any rulebook from Rogue Trader to 8th. the game simply wasn't written with that design goal or concept in mind.

If you chose to CHANGE the game to an equal-time requirement, you need to also account for all the knock-on effects and changes this will cause in a game whose basic mechanics aren't designed for it. Thus if a tournament introduces the house rule of fixed and equal time, it would probably be well-advised to also make changes to make the now fundamentally changed game work better with that requirement ... eg. setting a limit on model counts or a limit on how many phases of the game you can play to limit the asymmetries that exist in the game but inevitably also cause asymmetries in game-time used because that's how 40K was designed.

B.

If you consider moving more models (at equal time per model) "stealing time", the same would also apply to dice and a technical check, be it a clock or a dice app, appears to be an acceptable change to make the game work better competitively.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, if one player can force a chess clock on the game, it should probably be complemented with one players being able to force the use of a dice app (the GW one?) on the game to make the rolls less of an issue and thus create a back-log of all rolls that can be checked.

It would also immediately solve the "wrongly picking up wound-counter dice" problem, which actually IS in a bunch of the videos from finals and has been acknowledged as a problem (arguably more frequently than slow-play), but is one of the many, many issues far more prevalent than slow-play, which the confirmation bias guys looking to get the clocks in always gloss over.

I paid all that for custom dice just to style on people and now I gotta leave em on the shelf?

I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?

You wanna do this competitive thing right or not? Than you'll inevitably will have trade-offs with the hobby aspects.

I mean, the rules stay static no matter what you painted, as does the time available for you. Seems like when preparing for the event, the only person who didn't grasp the basic natural laws of physics of moving 100 things... was yourself.

Alpharius Walks wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
I paid and painted all those orcs to style and now I get a disadvantage because people cannot grasp the basic natural laws of physics that moving 100 things takes more time than moving 10 things?

With movement trays, depending on the variety used, moving 100 models on them should be roughly equivalent or potentially faster than moving 10 individual models. Playing aids can help circumvent the "basic natural laws of physics" quite handily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Shouldn’t people take as long as they need? Like seriously where is this idea that horde armies can be played as fast as hyper elite armies coming from? Be as efficient as you like, 150 guard models take longer to move and shoot with than, say 20 custodes. Let’s assume no one is trying to screw the other over, and we’re just trying to make sure both players have a good game, shouldn’t the Guard player get as long as he needs to move his models?

I can play a 130 model army faster than most people can play small, elite armies so yes it is quite possible and comes down to player skill, focus on constantly advancing the game state, using basic play aids and other such factors that are totally within the purview of the individual players. So no a Guard or any other player should not have unlimited time in an event format with a time restriction. If the individual player cannot play the army at that speed they very much have the option to bring something that they can play at an appropriate speed or if they cannot play at an appropriate pace in a timed environment they can always decline to participate until they are able to do so.

Any argument that contains the words "practice" "get experience" "Get better" does not really reflect what 40K is.

95% of the players do not "practice" 40K, they "play" 40K. They do not "Get better" they are happy just playing at the same level once per month.

40K events, ITC or not, are NOT competitive events for 95% of the partecipants, they are events where you spend a full day playing with loads of players from near and far.

Now, i'm not saying that you should be alloted more time because you play more models, they are not even directly related.

If you say that you have to "practice" if you want to bring your list to a tournament though, or you skip that event, means being completely out of contact with the reality of what are 40K events.

 SHUPPET wrote:


I mean, the rules stay static no matter what you painted, as does the time available for you. Seems the only person who didn't grasp the basic natural laws of physics in moving 100 things when preparing for the event... was yourself.

Again, you're conflating preparation for a tournament and discussion whether a new house rule makes sense in the first place.

If a football tournament requires all players to play on stilts, it probably makes sense to prepare walking, running and kicking on stilts if I wanna participate.

However, when discussing whether or not it actually makes sense that football tournaments should require players to use stilts, the justification for "football tournaments should require stilts, because if you disagree, you should've simply prepared" doesn't fly. That's a tautology.

The pros and cons of introducing stilts must be discussed independent of the assumption that it is already implemented.


Football is a game not designed to be played on stilts. 40K is a game not designed to be played on equal time. Both can obviously be changed to meet that requirement, and if that is the case, players will need to prepare accordingly, obviously. But that is not the discussion here.



The discussion is a) whether the proposed house rule can be implemented for the game and b) if knock-on changes are required to make that house rule work for a game not designed for it.

If football is to be played on stilts, it'll probably make sense to also increase the size of the ball, possibly change the pitch, change the size of the goal and possibly the number of players.

If 40K is to be played on equal and fixed time, it probably makes sense to set fixed upper limits for the model counts, simplify time-intensive aspects of the game like the close combat phase or speed things up with dice apps to track dice rolls and avoid disputes over dice that were (re-)rolled to fast in order to meet the time requirements.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


I mean, the rules stay static no matter what you painted, as does the time available for you. Seems the only person who didn't grasp the basic natural laws of physics in moving 100 things when preparing for the event... was yourself.

Again, you're conflating preparation for a tournament and discussion whether a new house rule makes sense in the first place.

If a football tournament requires all players to play on stilts, it probably makes sense to prepare walking, running and kicking on stilts if I wanna participate.

However, when discussing whether or not it actually makes sense that football tournaments should require players to use stilts, the justification for "football tournaments should require stilts, because if you disagree, you should've simply prepared" doesn't fly. That's a tautology.

The pros and cons of introducing stilts must be discussed independent of the assumption that it is already implemented.


Football is a game not designed to be played on stilts. 40K is a game not designed to be played on equal time. Both can obviously be changed to meet that requirement, and if that is the case, players will need to prepare accordingly, obviously. But that is not the discussion here.



The discussion is a) whether the proposed house rule can be implemented for the game and b) if knock-on changes are required to make that house rule work for a game not designed for it.

If football is to be played on stilts, it'll probably make sense to also increase the size of the ball, possibly change the pitch, change the size of the goal and possibly the number of players.

If 40K is to be played on equal and fixed time, it probably makes sense to set fixed upper limits for the model counts, simplify time-intensive aspects of the game like the close combat phase or speed things up with dice apps to track dice rolls and avoid disputes over dice that were (re-)rolled to fast in order to meet the time requirements.

This pseudo-intellectual gak lol.




Your example doesn't even work, considering this game is played with stilts (dice) to begin with, and thats what you are asking for removed.

There isn't even any need for a badly translated metaphor here, because we know exactly what we are talking about without needing to compare it to something less relevant like a sports game, but if you were going to do this, a more accurate representation would be some game that has been played on stilts to begin with, being given a time limit because some people took too long to actually put on and remove their stilts thus causing their opponents to be at a disadvantage somehow in this game, and then you demanding that everyone stop playing with stilts because your chosen style of play requires more removing and equipping the stilts than others and the time limit has made it unfair. Even then it's a different situation because you are asking to digitize the dice. Exactly why are you trying to make this dumb gak example again? It doesn't make you look intelligent lol it just makes it look like you have no real argument and need to rely on this nonsense


Anyway I don't really give a damn about the dice being real or not, I was mostly just joking, I don't even have custom dice, it does seem like a silly answer and more as though you are reaching to find some hopeless technical situation where this rule will fail. I'm betting it doesn't happen. Peace

 SHUPPET wrote:

This pseudo-intellectual gak lol.




Your example doesn't even work, considering this game is played with stilts (dice) to begin with, and thats what you are asking for removed.

There isn't even any need for a badly translated metaphor here, because we know exactly what we are talking about without needing to compare it to something less relevant like a sports game, but if you were going to do this, a more accurate representation would be some game that has been played on stilts to begin with, being given a time limit because some people took too long to actually put on and remove their stilts thus causing their opponents to be at a disadvantage somehow in this game, and then you demanding that everyone stop playing with stilts because your chosen style of play requires more removing and equipping the stilts than others and the time limit has made it unfair. Even then it's a different situation because you are asking to digitize the dice. Exactly why are you trying to make this dumb gak example again? It doesn't make you look intelligent lol it just makes it look like you have no real argument and need to rely on this nonsense


Anyway I don't really give a damn about the dice being real or not, I was mostly just joking, I don't even have custom dice, it does seem like a silly answer and more as though you are reaching to find some hopeless technical situation where this rule will fail. I'm betting it doesn't happen. Peace

I am not a fan of dice apps. Just an idea I posted of something that could work against the influx of chess-clock-cheaters that use the time pressure to fast-roll dice.

And to stick with your comparison, the game has not been played with a chess clock nor was there ever a fixed or equal time requirement, to my knowledge (but, if you can show me a rule to that end in some current or prev. ed. rulebook, I'd love to see it). If you introduce these requirements, they'll change the game (which is why people want to introduce them, right?), but there are bad changes along with the good. I am confident the good will outweigh the bad, but what's the problem with anticipating and hopefully preventing some of the less-than-good knock-on-effects of adding chess clocks to the game?

Adding a chess clock to the game is not changing the game. You keep trying to say that adding time limits is changing the game and it's no longer 40k. Tournaments have always ran on time limits. Congratulations you've invalidated the argument that it's no longer 40k if you add chess clocks because by your logic tournaments were never playing 40k to begin with.

Adding a chess clock isn't the same as creating a new game or new edition. It's releasing errata to enforce the rules the way they were intended. Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other. Chess clocks are just to enforce the rules as they were intended by the organisers of the tournament.

IronBrand wrote:
Adding a chess clock to the game is not changing the game. You keep trying to say that adding time limits is changing the game and it's no longer 40k. Tournaments have always ran on time limits. Congratulations you've invalidated the argument that it's no longer 40k if you add chess clocks because by your logic tournaments were never playing 40k to begin with.

Adding a chess clock isn't the same as creating a new game or new edition. It's releasing errata to enforce the rules the way they were intended. Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other. Chess clocks are just to enforce the rules as they were intended by the organisers of the tournament.

Exactly this.

This post basically counters almost every argument made in this thread so far, as well as all the arguments that are going to be made afterwards completely ignoring this.

I think I'm done with this joke of a thread. ITC ain't gonna slow down for the snowflakes, let's keep it moving.

I'm fine with clocks, but i think 5 hr rounds would be much better.

IronBrand wrote:
Adding a chess clock to the game is not changing the game. You keep trying to say that adding time limits is changing the game and it's no longer 40k. Tournaments have always ran on time limits. Congratulations you've invalidated the argument that it's no longer 40k if you add chess clocks because by your logic tournaments were never playing 40k to begin with.

Adding a chess clock isn't the same as creating a new game or new edition. It's releasing errata to enforce the rules the way they were intended. Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other. Chess clocks are just to enforce the rules as they were intended by the organisers of the tournament.

Sure it is. 40K has armies of vastly different sizes and model counts, and they've always used different amounts of time to play. If Games Workshop had designed the game to be played with equal time-allotments for both players, the core rules would be different (and would state the fact that you have equal time).

The requirement that 200 Orks should take exactly the same time to play as 4 Imperial Knights is a NEW houserule to the game that didn't exist before, and like all rules-changes, it changes the game. The argument that an individual Ork players "should know" and "prepare accordingly" makes sense at the individual level, but not at the general level of whether or not the game as it was designed can accommodate that change.

IronBrand wrote:
Tournament games were never intended to have 30 minutes for one player and 2 and a half hours for the other.

If the differences in armies was correspondingly extreme (e.g. 1 shooty FW Titan against a huge model-count nid-army playing extensively across all phases of the game), of course games of 40K were meant to be loopsided in this way. There certainly was no requirement or even the idea that the time should be split half-half.