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.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

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.

But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 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.

Actually, the probabilities on the GW official dice app are most likely more accurate the physical dice you are rolling (especially if you are using any GW dice with large cut out emblems for some numbers). The dice engine is actually the same type they use in casino digital games in Vegas. Its a full on physics engine that simulates the rolling of actual dice (not the super cool but poorly weighted GW dice). The fact is that this is an official GW product and if you don't want to use it that's fine but anyone that's consistently rolling over 20 dice should definitely pick it up because its a massive time saver

Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?

IronBrand wrote:


But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.

We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?

Well, again, ITC could change that if they wanted to and were serious about their "competitive, clocked 40K", merging saves and such into the hit rolls, etc.. to avoid back-and-forth. It'd probably take a bit more work though.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:


But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.

We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.

So even though you said adding a clock to games stops it being 40k now you're saying ITC games are games of 40k? They already have a clock. The round time is a clock. Also, you just decided that players should have unequal time. Where in the core rules does it say that a player should have more time if they're playing with more models than their opponent?

IronBrand wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:


But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.

We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.

So even though you said adding a clock to games stops it being 40k now you're saying ITC games are games of 40k? They already have a clock. The round time is a clock. Also, you just decided that players should have unequal time. Where in the core rules does it say that a player should have more time if they're playing with more models than their opponent?

No, I am not saying ITC games are games of 40K. But neither is ITC a game built from scratch. They reference the GW rules and use many (though clearly not all) of the 40K rules as a basis. So they are to a degree subject to the limits, strengths and weakenesses of 40K as far as they use those rules.

And where does it say that players should split the time exactly half-half? Again, football has a time limit of 90 minutes, but that doesn't mean each team gets exactly 45 minutes of ball possession or that, if you really wanna force the issue, stalling the game on purpose is an actual violation of the rules (as opposed to just gakky sportsmanship). Same for 40K.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:


But the core rules don't have a time limit. ITC games do so clearly we're talking about a game other than 40k.

We are. Hence why it makes sense to discuss the pros and cons of ITC rules. Of course, ITC (with lots and lots of deviations from the core rules, admittedly), is still based on 40K and some of their houserules might work better than others with the basic core they retained from GW.

So even though you said adding a clock to games stops it being 40k now you're saying ITC games are games of 40k? They already have a clock. The round time is a clock. Also, you just decided that players should have unequal time. Where in the core rules does it say that a player should have more time if they're playing with more models than their opponent?

No, I am not saying ITC games are games of 40K. But neither is ITC a game built from scratch. They reference the GW rules and use many (though clearly not all) of the 40K rules as a basis. So they are to a degree subject to the limits, strengths and weakenesses of 40K as far as they use those rules.

You still haven't said where in the core rules it says a player gets more time if they have more models.

IronBrand wrote:


You still haven't said where in the core rules it says a player gets more time if they have more models.

And where does it say that players should split the time exactly half-half? Again, football has a time limit of 90 minutes, but that doesn't mean each team gets exactly 45 minutes of ball possession or that, if you really wanna force the issue, stalling the game on purpose is an actual violation of the rules (as opposed to just gakky sportsmanship). Same for 40K.

Where does it say you get exactly half the time?

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:


You still haven't said where in the core rules it says a player gets more time if they have more models.

And where does it say that players should split the time exactly half-half? Again, football has a time limit of 90 minutes, but that doesn't mean each team gets exactly 45 minutes of ball possession or that, if you really wanna force the issue, stalling the game on purpose is an actual violation of the rules (as opposed to just gakky sportsmanship). Same for 40K.

Where does it say you get exactly half the time?

You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.

IronBrand wrote:

You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.

That doesn't make sense.


ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.

 Crimson wrote:
Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?

ITC does not have a set game length. That specific ITC event comes up with its own rules. Typically most tournaments run with 2.5-3 hour rounds though

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.

That doesn't make sense.


ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.

No, ITC is clarifying the rule of round time to be that the time is divided evenly between the players in their event. You're then claiming that that isn't what GW intended. You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. ITC never said it's what GW intended. They said it's what they're doing.

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?

ITC does not have a set game length. That specific ITC event comes up with its own rules. Typically most tournaments run with 2.5-3 hour rounds though

Yeah, that's too little time. Make it four hours, two hours for each player, and switch the clock between the player turns. That should be enough time to reasonably finish the game, and the clock would help to catch any obviously intentional slow play.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.

That doesn't make sense.


ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.

Just out of curiosity (because nobody responded to my post with the issues of nonequal time) what should we use to determine how much time a player does get in a round? If we have conceded the point that tournaments have to have a time limit (lets be real no tournament would last more then a year without time limits to keep the tournament organized) then what exact metric should we use to determine how much time a player should get? Is it reasonable for someone with 250 models to have a 2 hour turn in a 2.5 hour game? This is what i think is the biggest divider in understanding between the two groups. Equal time is a simple metric to understand just take the time and divide it in half, but unequal time is more abstract and nobody has shown exactly what is fair and what is not.

IronBrand wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.

That doesn't make sense.


ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.

No, ITC is clarifying the rule of round time to be that the time is divided evenly between the players in their event. You're then claiming that that isn't what GW intended. You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. ITC never said it's what GW intended. They said it's what they're doing.

There is no intent for 40K to be played with equal time, or they would've designed a game that meets that. Since the laws of physics dictate that moving 100 things takes more time than 10 things and GW made a game that allows people to field 100 things against 10 things (as opposed to chess, say), that's not a consideration. Also, GW tournaments use neither chess clocks nor equal time. If that would be GW's intent, why doesn't Warhammer World 10 feet from the Game Designers' office play that way?

There is no clarification in ITC's house rules on chess clocks and equal time. That's just their own thing. Of course, they can do whatever they want with their own events, but that doesn't mean people can discuss the pros and cons of whatever they cook up. That's what discussion boards are for.

If ITC decides that all games of 40K must be played in bunny costumes, that's their right, just like their chess clock rules. But it's not a clarification of GW intent and I am free to discuss whether it's a good or bad decision.

What a lot of people think will happen to kinda-slow-billy with clocks introduced:
“Man, I guess even though I just came to the event for fun because I never have time to play otherwise, I’ll have to schedule some practice games before the next one and like flash-card-study my codex so I can play fast enough to finish the round.”

What I think will happen:
“Man, it’s super stressful trying to play so fast that I can barely think, can’t possibly double check my book, and also deal with a clock. I’m really not having fun like this. I guess I’ll just stop attending until they work out a better point limit/time limit combination.”

I don’t really have a problem with clocks, in fact I like some of their advantages, but I think the common 2k/2.5 hour combo is too tight to begin with. I’d prefer not to see several events that have worked up their playerbase over several years shrink back down.

 Crimson wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Clock would not be a problem, if there was a reasonable amount of time to begin with. Though flipping it back and fort for every action is an utter pain regardless, the system should be designed so that flipping between the turns suffices. How long there is for a 2000 point game in ITC?

ITC does not have a set game length. That specific ITC event comes up with its own rules. Typically most tournaments run with 2.5-3 hour rounds though

Yeah, that's too little time. Make it four hours, two hours for each player, and switch the clock between the player turns. That should be enough time to reasonably finish the game, and the clock would help to catch any obviously intentional slow play.

I think the rounds being longer is a fair point. The issue is people are voting with there wallets and people would rather go to events that get 3 round in instead of 2. If people really feel this way they need to start hosting tournaments with 4-hour rounds and begin supporting those tournaments.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
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 it doesn't exist now. So long as you can finish your OWN army within the time frame provided, it doesn't matter how long your opponent takes. He might be finished 5 times faster than you if he's rushing as well, doesn't matter if he has spare time on his clock, you are Not penalized for that, and you've been given enough time to play a game of 40k. If you cant move your Orks in that time than tough gak, you're literally replicating the exact situation that this rule was designed to stop.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
What a lot of people think will happen to kinda-slow-billy with clocks introduced:
“Man, I guess even though I just came to the event for fun because I never have time to play otherwise, I’ll have to schedule some practice games before the next one and like flash-card-study my codex so I can play fast enough to finish the round.”

What I think will happen:
“Man, it’s super stressful trying to play so fast that I can barely think, can’t possibly double check my book, and also deal with a clock. I’m really not having fun like this. I guess I’ll just stop attending until they work out a better point limit/time limit combination.”

I don’t really have a problem with clocks, in fact I like some of their advantages, but I think the common 2k/2.5 hour combo is too tight to begin with. I’d prefer not to see several events that have worked up their player base over several years shrink back down.

right now chess clocks are only being introduced for top tables day 2. I highly doubt billy is going to be able to make it that far if he only plays events for fun and doesn't really play outside of the tournament. honestly, though I'm a casual player and I have no issue playing 2.5 hour games (my group made this rule a long time ago so we could get in 2 games on our gaming night). I don't "practice" for speed or anything like that but i do know my army and my units and when you dont have to look up rules you can get through a game in 2.5 hours while drinking easily. In case your wondering I often have over 150 infantry to move around.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:

You're the one arguing against ITC using chess clocks to enforce that players have equal time as they intended. You're the one saying GW intended for players to have unequal time, the burden of proof is on you.

That doesn't make sense.


ITC is adding rules on timing and clocks that dont exist in the book. Not the other way around. The burden of proof is on the additional thing. There's no burden of proof for simply not adding any new rules.

No, ITC is clarifying the rule of round time to be that the time is divided evenly between the players in their event. You're then claiming that that isn't what GW intended. You're making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. ITC never said it's what GW intended. They said it's what they're doing.

There is no intent for 40K to be played with equal time, or they would've designed a game that meets that. Since the laws of physics dictate that moving 100 things takes more time than 10 things and GW made a game that allows people to field 100 things against 10 things (as opposed to chess, say), that's not a consideration. Also, GW tournaments use neither chess clocks nor equal time. If that would be GW's intent, why doesn't Warhammer World 10 feet from the Game Designers' office play that way?

There is no clarification in ITC's house rules on chess clocks and equal time. That's just their own thing. Of course, they can do whatever they want with their own events, but that doesn't mean people can discuss the pros and cons of whatever they cook up. That's what discussion boards are for.

If ITC decides that all games of 40K must be played on bunny costumes, that's their right, just like their chess clock rules. But it's not a clarification of GW intent and I am free to discuss whether it's a good or bad decision.

A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need. The purpose of a standard game is to have fun.

A tournament game is intended to determine who is best suited at winning that tournament. On that day under the chosen conditions. If the army a player brings is not suitable for the tournament they're entering that is entirely on them. The conditions of a tournament should never be changed to please a player who decided they could just ignore the conditions of a tournament when building a list. It's the same as not giving a player who comes with an army consisting purely of tactical marines some special rule because they're at a disadvantage. If a player handicaps themself with their list then it is 100% on them and if they complain about it to a judge or TO they should politely tell them they chose their list, if they don't like the rules they agreed to they're free to leave.

The intentions of GW have literally nothing to do with what ITC chooses to do with their events. I never said the ITC chess clock rules are a clarification of GW's intent. They are a clarification of the intent of round time being split evenly between players. That is ITC's intent. Adding a chess clock is effectively errata to say "Hey, some of you guys have been abusing the time given for you games. Stop that, both players have an equal right to the time in the round."

It's a amazing how many silly argument are being tossed around on the thread. It's like people can's see a few simple truths :

1. Tournament games have to have time limits: In a perfect world, we could have a week long 5 round tournament with 1 game a day, but this isn't professional tennis. This is people coming together in leisure time to have some fun and compete. You just can't have all the time you want to play a game. Just the other weekend, 3 friends and I got together and paired off for games. My game was done from deployment to concession in 2 hours. The other game dragged on for 7 hours. We literally could have played another game waiting for that game to end. That is just not an option in a one day, three round tournament. As for longer time per round, that's a matter of what the players and venues will support. Do you want to be a a tournament from 7 AM to 10:30 PM to allow for 1 hour registration, three 4-hour rounds, a 1 hour lunch & dinner breaks, and 30 minute awards ceremony?

2. The Fairest Way to divide Available Game Time is evenly: It's not perfect. Some armies take longer to play than others and I'm not even talking about the extreme of 4 Knights versus 200 Orcs. Even with a relatively even number of models in the army, some armies move faster than others. Some armies have faster Psychic Phases than others (some don't even have Psychic Phases at all). Some shoot faster than others, even within the same faction. Some take longer in Close Combat while others avoid it. Some just scoop models off the table, while others have layers of damage resistance. There is just no way to simply say, "I have more models so I deserve more time". Besides, if you need more than half the time to play your army, what happens when you run up against another player who also needs more than half the time to play their army?

3. Adding Limitations or Special Scenerios Means Your not playing 40K: This BS. If you have not substantially changed the rules provided by GW, you are playing Warhammer 40,000. Custom Scenarios, Detachment Limits, and Time Constraints don't magically make the game a different game. You are still pulling out the same rulebook, Codexes, and Indexes as when you are playing in your garage using Open Play rules and the Open War deck.

I'll come off my soapbox now.

IronBrand wrote:


A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need.

Again, not true.

You have literally hundreds of GW games of 40K to search on their Twitch. Streamed live without edit. You can measure the game time per player for each and everyone of them if you like.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer


There are games involving the rules writers themselves, GW marketing and outreach people who support events, games with Golden Demon winners and with UK youtubers and tournament players. Games from GW events, GTs, Throne of Skulls of various formats, games introducing new armies and codex books, games just for no reason at all, etc.., etc.., et..

Not a single one of them goes to equal time. There're plenty of games with one player using 3x, 4x and more of the time than his opponent does and nobody even comments or remarks upon it.

Equal time is simply not an issue for normal 40K and never has been. If anything, being flexible enough to allow armies (and players) with different speeds is a feature of 40K, not a problem, as is having missions like the EW missions from the book that can be scored at the end of turn 3 just as easily as at the end of turn 7.


Again, if ITC wants to change it, they can do whatever they please. But a) it's not a standard feature of 40K or "GW's intent" (if anything, GW reducing points for their Grand Tournament is arguably the only hint we have at GW's own "intent" of how to approach this, assuming the change was to address time issues) and b) can be considered a "bad idea" for many of the reasons mentioned above. You can disagree with them, but claiming ITC is just doing "GW intent" and "the game is meant to always get to turn 5/6 with equal time for both players" is clearly wrong..

If anything, regular ITC players with an interest in a good game should be the most critical of ITC piling on bureaucratic rules nilly willy for feeble reasons, rather than going full scientology on everything the ITC puts out and everyone who dares not praise their decisions without questions.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:


A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need.

Again, not true.

You have literally hundreds of GW games of 40K to search on their Twitch. Streamed live without edit. You can measure the game time per player for each and everyone of them if you like.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer


There are games involving the rules writers themselves, GW marketing and outreach people who support events, games with Golden Demon winners and with UK youtubers and tournament players. Games from GW events, GTs, Throne of Skulls of various formats, games introducing new armies and codex books, games just for no reason at all, etc.., etc.., et..

Not a single one of them goes to equal time. There're plenty of games with one player using 3x, 4x and more of the time than his opponent does and nobody even comments or remarks upon it.

Equal time is simply not an issue for normal 40K and never has been. If anything, being flexible enough to allow armies (and players) with different speeds is a feature of 40K, not a problem, as is having missions like the EW missions from the book that can be scored at the end of turn 3 just as easily as at the end of turn 7.


Again, if ITC wants to change it, they can do whatever they please. But a) it's not a standard feature of 40K or "GW's intent" (if anything, GW reducing points for their Grand Tournament is arguably the only hint we have at GW's own "intent" of how to approach this, assuming the change was to address time issues) and b) can be considered a "bad idea" for many of the reasons mentioned above. You can disagree with them, but claiming ITC is just doing "GW intent" and "the game is meant to always get to turn 5/6 with equal time for both players" is clearly wrong..

If anything, regular ITC players with an interest in a good game should be the most critical of ITC piling on bureaucratic rules nilly willy for feeble reasons, rather than going full scientology on everything the ITC puts out and everyone who dares not praise their decisions without questions.

How many times do I have to reiterate I never said ITC introducing clocks has anything to do with GW's intent. You refuse to listen and just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if it somehow changes the words I've said. ITC introducing chess clocks is to do with ITC's intent of the limited time being split evenly between players. The only fair way to ever do it.

I personally do not care what rules or time limits ITC chooses to implement. As long as anyone entering has access to those rules and equal time it is fair. If they make a rule that bringing an imperial guard army gets you an instant DQ, that is fair. The only thing that matters is the rules are available and any resources, such as time are split evenly.

Like I said earlier if they ever implement a rule that more models gives you more time competitive people will only play the maximum number of models. There are way too many factors for anything other than an equal split to ever be fair.

IronBrand wrote:


How many times do I have to reiterate I never said ITC introducing clocks has anything to do with GW's intent. You refuse to listen and just keep repeating the same thing over and over as if it somehow changes the words I've said. .

I clearly quoted the factually wrong statements in your previous posts to which I responded in each of my responses. That's what the quote-function on dakka is there for. I did not quote or respond to the parts of your posts relating to your personal preferences.

For the last one, you made a partially incorrect statement about "standard games of 40K", not ITC, and this is what I responded to.

I think the ITC rules as a whole dictate a vastly different style of playing, list building and general feel of the game from what's written in the game's rules. Some weird things, like these socondary things I've been seeing, can really mess up new people who are just looking for advice on the game, and have never heard of ITC.

ITC is a specific style of play, not the standand, or what should be expected.

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the ITC rules as a whole dictate a vastly different style of playing, list building and general feel of the game from what's written in the game's rules. Some weird things, like these socondary things I've been seeing, can really mess up new people who are just looking for advice on the game, and have never heard of ITC.

ITC is a specific style of play, not the standand, or what should be expected.

This is true for many tournaments, no major tournaments uses GW rules to the fullest, they all alter them in some way.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I think the ITC rules as a whole dictate a vastly different style of playing, list building and general feel of the game from what's written in the game's rules. Some weird things, like these socondary things I've been seeing, can really mess up new people who are just looking for advice on the game, and have never heard of ITC.

ITC is a specific style of play, not the standand, or what should be expected.

This is true for many tournaments, no major tournaments uses GW rules to the fullest, they all alter them in some way.

True, but it's the degree of alteration I have an issue with, esp ially if GW is looking at tournaments for balance and rules issues. You can't balance your rules around a heavily modded system and expect the base game to run just fine.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

IronBrand wrote:


A standard game of 40k is not intended for players to have unequal time. It's intended for players to have exactly the amount of time they need.

Again, not true.

You have literally hundreds of GW games of 40K to search on their Twitch. Streamed live without edit. You can measure the game time per player for each and everyone of them if you like.

https://www.twitch.tv/warhammer


There are games involving the rules writers themselves, GW marketing and outreach people who support events, games with Golden Demon winners and with UK youtubers and tournament players. Games from GW events, GTs, Throne of Skulls of various formats, games introducing new armies and codex books, games just for no reason at all, etc.., etc.., et..

Not a single one of them goes to equal time. There're plenty of games with one player using 3x, 4x and more of the time than his opponent does and nobody even comments or remarks upon it.

Equal time is simply not an issue for normal 40K and never has been. If anything, being flexible enough to allow armies (and players) with different speeds is a feature of 40K, not a problem, as is having missions like the EW missions from the book that can be scored at the end of turn 3 just as easily as at the end of turn 7.

I can't tell if you're just being obtuse here, simply haven't understood what IronBrand said or are just determined to try to prove yourself right by automatically disagreeing with anyone who's ever argued against you. His whole point was that standard 40k doesn't have a time limit and doesn't say anything about how long a game should last. It takes as long as it takes. This doesn't mean players get equal time - he literally stated that in the text you quoted so I don't know how you missed it. This is not in dispute, by anyone. What you seem to be failing to grasp is that tournament 40k (whether that's ITC, ETC, a GW GT or a local tournament in your FLGS) needs to set a time limit to function. That's the context this discussion is taking place in, so if your only response is "40k shouldn't have a time limit attached" you need to find another thread because the basis of this topic is tournament 40k, which by its very nature requires a time limit.

Tournaments require time limits. This isn't in dispute. Slow play is a tactic that most people equate with TFG behaviour and that disadvantages one player over another. Dividing the time equally between players does not necessarily make things completely fair but nobody ever said it does. What it does is make sure a player isn't disadvantaged by factors outside of his control (in this case a slow-playing opponent). This is, by definition, a fairer approach than we previously had. Note, that doesn't mean it's 100% fair.

A issue that I haven't seen brought up as yet....

How do they deal with "Stoppage Time"?
That is, how do they handle the extra time on the game clock if it is stopped for a ruling, since that would involve stopping the clock, finding an official, explaining the situation, making arguments, consulting the rules, reaching a decision, making the ruling and restarting the clock.
This could take 5 minutes or more, depending on the situation.
And, since this would occur on only one player's turn, they would have that "extra time" on their side of the clock, which the other player might view as an unfair advantage.

So, what happens if the round ends, but one game is still hasn't finished due to the "Stoppage Time" and still has significant time on the game clock?

 helgrenze wrote:
A issue that I haven't seen brought up as yet....

How do they deal with "Stoppage Time"?
That is, how do they handle the extra time on the game clock if it is stopped for a ruling, since that would involve stopping the clock, finding an official, explaining the situation, making arguments, consulting the rules, reaching a decision, making the ruling and restarting the clock.
This could take 5 minutes or more, depending on the situation.
And, since this would occur on only one player's turn, they would have that "extra time" on their side of the clock, which the other player might view as an unfair advantage.

So, what happens if the round ends, but one game is still hasn't finished due to the "Stoppage Time" and still has significant time on the game clock?

"Any major rule dispute results in a paused time scenario. The time is to remain paused until a formal judge is called to the table and resolves the dispute."
So my immediate guess is that in most cases that game will just spill over 5 min or so into the break. If that's not an option the TO will decide whos time it comes out of and my guess is the person who was on the wrong end of the rules dispute gets their time eaten into.