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.

 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?

In other games that use chess clocks, the only time a clock is ever paused is when there's a rules dispute that requires a judge. At that point the judge makes a ruling and they should do so as quickly as possible while still giving the situation the required amount of consideration. This means these stoppages are pretty rare and the extra time they add on should be very small in practice.

 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?

There is normally some sort of break between rounds. It is unlikely a game will have so many disputes that require a judge that this time is not sufficient.
And if it is then the judge probably has bigger issues to deal with then a game going over time.

Warmachine has a maximum stoppage timer but it never comes up from what I’ve seen.

 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 playerbase over several years shrink back down.

Nope. More people will start playing when they figure out they get to play rather than watch billy tryy to sort out if he should attack 2 times with the power sword and 3 with the bolter gantlet, or 3 with the power sword, and 2 with the guantoet for 20 minutes.

Yeah. Coming to play and taking 1 hour to do something that should have taken 20 minutes is dumb.

Sunny Side Up wrote:


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.

And his agenda is revealed.

Chess clocks is simply a way for TO's to shift responsibility for punishing the intentional mismanagement of time for advantage from themselves ( where it SHOULD rest) to the players/clock. TO's don't want to actually penalize offenders because it cost them money from their pocket. If you started banning some of these players I think you would be surprised how quickly this would clean itself up.

Fear of punishment only works on people who aren't going to commit the crime anyway. If it did work than there would be a smaller prison population then we do in this country.

Draconian punishments are really for the enjoyment of the mob.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
Fear of punishment only works on people who aren't going to commit the crime anyway. If it did work than there would be a smaller prison population then we do in this country.

Draconian punishments are really for the enjoyment of the mob.

Waaaaaaaaaay, apples and Cadillacs, but you are entitled to your opinion. I would argue that if the punishment out weighs the benefit, your concept doesn't hold up. If I chop the hand off a thief, bet he won't do it again... Pretty much guaranteed he won't do it more than twice.

Have you never heard of A Pirate's hook?

I don't see the issue people are having with Horde style armies.

If I were to drop 200 models across the table, set up within 4 inches of my table edge covering it from one side to the other, My first two turns would be minimal. Some random shooting.
My opponent is going to waste two to three turns moving his units toward mine.
By my turn three, I might have 60 minutes or more left to make all my assaults and moves while they may have less than half of that.
Then it's on my opponant to sweat the clock, with a dwindling number of models to fight with.

I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

More people play it.
More people means more TFGs.

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

Part of the problem is 8th edition has a ton of re-rolls. Re-rolls are "streamlined" in the sense that they are easy to grasp and understand (I'm within 6" of Model X, so I pick up every '1' on a d6 and re-roll it isn't very difficult) but it is incredibly time consuming. Think about it this way:

1) My Daemonettes in a unit of 20 have 61 attacks in CC. If I am near a Daemon Prince, I re-roll 1s, and if the Masque is near my target, I get +1 to hit. Quick maffs (which still takes X amount of a fraction of a second) tells me that I roll 61 dice, 2+s hit, re-rolling ones.

2) So I count 61 dice, perhaps counting by fives plus one (so 12 groups of 5 plus 1). Setting aside the need for potentially being unable to hold that many dice in a single batch, I roll all 61 dice, scoring about 10 1s. I have to carefully scan 61 dice, whip out the 1s, making sure I get every last one out of 61 potential 1s, then roll those 10 again.

3) Now that I have scored my ~59 hits, I can move on to Wound. But I am near a Herald, so I am +1 strength, adding another bit of maffs for 1/10th of a nanosecond (still time). So I'm looking for 4s, against a tactical squad.

4) I roll 59 dice, and I have to scour all 59 to sort the hits from the wounds. Then, because I am Daemonettes, I have to scan the remaining ~30 wounds to see how many of them are 6's, because those have AP -4 instead of AP -1. You can overlap this step a bit, but it's important to make sure that both you and your opponent understand what is going on.

Each step of that process doesn't take terribly long, but that does mean I have to scan the dice several times, pick them up and roll them, in some cases, 3 times. Each step of the way, I have to wait for and resolve any input from my opponent (because rolling that many dice I recognize my opponent's need to identify them is also paramount, as well as giving him the opportunity to play any stratagems that may reduce my Attacks or force me to re-roll to wound or something), and the whole time I am doing a bit of mental gymnastics in my head (alright, I have +1 to hit, but only +1 Strength rather than +1 to wound, which is different, and I get to re-roll 1s to hit, which in this case is every roll to hit, but I don't get to re-roll to wound at all...).

All of this takes time, and is why I think it's impossible to play horde armies fast. You can skip certain steps (the longest steps, I find, are all the ones that involve the opponent), but that's TFG behavior. Declaring that there are 20 Daemonettes in range to swing, and then your opponent saying "are you sure" can drag another 25-30 seconds off the clock where you meticulously check the position of every single daemonette with a tape-measure. Sure it can be on his clock, but the point is that it takes time from someone to check all 20 Daemonettes. Then? You have to wait for your opponent to look at 61 dice as well, and you have to count them yourself. It's... not really a my skill thing so much as my opponent's skill, and that's why I dislike chess clocks. Because either I have to remember to switch it every time he says "are you sure all 20 daemonettes are within an inch or within an inch of a model that is within an inch?" and I have to bend over the table, possibly walking all the way around the entire length to his side of the board, to check every single model with a tape measure. Do that 3 times for all my squads of 20, and that's 1.5 minutes, already about a tenth of the entire length I am allowed to play for the turn, and I've not even rolled my 183 dice yet. God forbid he challenges me on a measurement of what an "inch" is, because then that could add a whole 'nother 30 seconds of discussion, jostling with tape measures, and possibly knocking models about. The only options are for 1) me to let him browbeat me with time, and my "inch" is gradually shrunk to half an inch or so because I don't have time to teach him how long an inch is, 2) me to swap the clock to his time, inadvertently browbeating him with the same thing (I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong), or 3) just declare, roll, pick up, etc. without giving him time to interrupt. But that's uncouth, at best.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

Part of the problem is 8th edition has a ton of re-rolls. Re-rolls are "streamlined" in the sense that they are easy to grasp and understand (I'm within 6" of Model X, so I pick up every '1' on a d6 and re-roll it isn't very difficult) but it is incredibly time consuming. Think about it this way:

1) My Daemonettes in a unit of 20 have 61 attacks in CC. If I am near a Daemon Prince, I re-roll 1s, and if the Masque is near my target, I get +1 to hit. Quick maffs (which still takes X amount of a fraction of a second) tells me that I roll 61 dice, 2+s hit, re-rolling ones.

2) So I count 61 dice, perhaps counting by fives plus one (so 12 groups of 5 plus 1). Setting aside the need for potentially being unable to hold that many dice in a single batch, I roll all 61 dice, scoring about 10 1s. I have to carefully scan 61 dice, whip out the 1s, making sure I get every last one out of 61 potential 1s, then roll those 10 again.

3) Now that I have scored my ~59 hits, I can move on to Wound. But I am near a Herald, so I am +1 strength, adding another bit of maffs for 1/10th of a nanosecond (still time). So I'm looking for 4s, against a tactical squad.

4) I roll 59 dice, and I have to scour all 59 to sort the hits from the wounds. Then, because I am Daemonettes, I have to scan the remaining ~30 wounds to see how many of them are 6's, because those have AP -4 instead of AP -1. You can overlap this step a bit, but it's important to make sure that both you and your opponent understand what is going on.

Each step of that process doesn't take terribly long, but that does mean I have to scan the dice several times, pick them up and roll them, in some cases, 3 times. Each step of the way, I have to wait for and resolve any input from my opponent (because rolling that many dice I recognize my opponent's need to identify them is also paramount, as well as giving him the opportunity to play any stratagems that may reduce my Attacks or force me to re-roll to wound or something), and the whole time I am doing a bit of mental gymnastics in my head (alright, I have +1 to hit, but only +1 Strength rather than +1 to wound, which is different, and I get to re-roll 1s to hit, which in this case is every roll to hit, but I don't get to re-roll to wound at all...).

All of this takes time, and is why I think it's impossible to play horde armies fast. You can skip certain steps (the longest steps, I find, are all the ones that involve the opponent), but that's TFG behavior. Declaring that there are 20 Daemonettes in range to swing, and then your opponent saying "are you sure" can drag another 25-30 seconds off the clock where you meticulously check the position of every single daemonette with a tape-measure. Sure it can be on his clock, but the point is that it takes time from someone to check all 20 Daemonettes. Then? You have to wait for your opponent to look at 61 dice as well, and you have to count them yourself. It's... not really a my skill thing so much as my opponent's skill, and that's why I dislike chess clocks. Because either I have to remember to switch it every time he says "are you sure all 20 daemonettes are within an inch or within an inch of a model that is within an inch?" and I have to bend over the table, possibly walking all the way around the entire length to his side of the board, to check every single model with a tape measure. Do that 3 times for all my squads of 20, and that's 1.5 minutes, already about a tenth of the entire length I am allowed to play for the turn, and I've not even rolled my 183 dice yet. God forbid he challenges me on a measurement of what an "inch" is, because then that could add a whole 'nother 30 seconds of discussion, jostling with tape measures, and possibly knocking models about. The only options are for 1) me to let him browbeat me with time, and my "inch" is gradually shrunk to half an inch or so because I don't have time to teach him how long an inch is, 2) me to swap the clock to his time, inadvertently browbeating him with the same thing (I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong), or 3) just declare, roll, pick up, etc. without giving him time to interrupt. But that's uncouth, at best.

With regards to whether things are in combat range or not using a combat gauge is the easiest way to speed it up. Use the 1" side and the issue of parallax error from reading a tape measure at different angles is somewhat mitigated. Slide it over above the unit at a reasonable pace, if the gauge meets the base it's in. No worrying about if it's just under or over the 1" mark.

With regards to combat math, that should never be an issue if a player knows their army. Do the math on your opponent's turn when you're deciding what you'll do on yours. You should know what you need to roll before you ever get to combat. With rolling a lot of dice the only way to mitigate that is to find what size batches give you the best efficiency. For example roll in batches of 10, have your opponent verify the 10 you just rolled as you roll your next batch of 10. It's not hard to come up with strategies to optimise your usage of time. Roll 10, roll 10 while your opponent checks the previous 10, set aside the two from the previous batch that need rerolls, roll your next 10, etc. doing the rerolls in batches of 10 after the regular rolls.

So, I think we everyone does accept that a standard game of 40k does not have a time limit, because it doesn’t need one. It is usually played between a couple of mates over a few hours until the end of the game.

Tournaments, ITC or not, unfortunately don’t have the luxury of an open-ended time limit. Take the event I’m going to in a couple of weeks as an example.
Schedule below.


As you can see, each game as a 3-hour time limit, and a day 1 total expected day length of 11.5 hours. As much as a 4-hour game time would help certain armies play more to their potential, finishing day 1 at 23:00 really just isn’t that practical. Not for the event, the players, the staff or the venue. In Jan, this event ran 6 games, with 4 on day one. Needless to say the opinion of everyone involved was that the 4th game just wasn’t worth it, or fun for the vast majority of the people involved. Other people and events might have a different opinion, but it certainly started to feel more like a chore. (and I was one of the people most happy about the addition of the 6th game)
In events, I think it is important to give everyone as much of a level playing field BEFORE the event as possible. Understanding you have 1.5 hours of time per game does this (along with all the other limits – like point limit, detachment limits etc). As much as a “moving” time split is potentially more “fair”, what do you do when you only have 3 hours but 1 army requires 2 hours to play and the other requires 1.5 hours to play? At this point you are penalising both players as you don’t physically have enough time for each army to be played to its “potential”. What happens if I kill 1/3 of a horde players’ models turn 1 before they get a turn? Do I then get an increase in the time I’m allowed to use, while they get a decrease because they clearly no longer need all the additional time awarded to them before the game began? There are so many issues surrounding how to split time it is not even worth trying to create an initial guideline for it.

Games of 40k are rarely truly balanced affairs, even without the restriction of a time limit. This is especially noticeable at events. Armies taken at events usually fall into the whole rock-paper-scissors theory. The moment a Knight list comes up against a list built purely to kill multiple T8 targets then it is going to struggle. The moment 200 boyz comes up against a high rate of fire, screened, gunline, it’s going to struggle etc etc. This is probably one of the biggest aspects of ETC.

People need to take a step back and accept that chess clocks are a trial approach to cut down on the large potential of getting slow played – deliberate or undeliberate. If it turns out it isn’t working as expected I’m sure it’ll get changed.

At the London Grand Tournament, there was a game on the table next to me on game 1 that was the epitome of slow play. Orkz vs SoB, Custodes and Assassins. My game (Thousand Sons vs Ultramarines) finished naturally with time to spare on turn 5, before the Ork player managed to complete his 2nd turn. Chess clocks will completely stop that from happening ever again.

Tournaments will always be about having to adapt to the given situations and rules pack. It might be harsh, but, if a player can’t or won’t, adapt to that given situation, then they are going to have a hard time competing at that event. If the player doesn’t want to play to said rules pack, then they are free to not attend and contact the TO to discuss why they aren’t going and provide any suggestions they might have.

But, as we all know, most people complaining about the situation will do nothing but complain about it, rather than step forward and say “I’m not attending your event because of… and here are some of the ideas I have about making your event fairer.” Arguing here on Dakka about it isn’t going to change anything. The onus is 100% on the players of the events to;
A.) Go to the events (multiple) and test the methods, and,
B.) Provide feedback on the methods to the TO and/or ITC.

Without doing the above, no one is qualified to provide reasoned arguments for either side of the debate. One event with a single list is not enough either. You have to prove you are trying different things and getting the same result first. Until this is done ITC can’t turn around and say chess clocks are a success or failure. If 100 people say they played multiple events with horde armies and never had enough time due to the clock, then it’d be taken notice of. But, if another 100 say they’ve had no problems running their horde list, then that’ll also be taken account of and the question then becomes “why can some do it, but others can’t?”

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

1) No real hordes
2) Overrun and wipeout from losing combat
3) Armies are on a basic level the same so everyone understands what everything does.

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...

...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.

I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.

There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.

 niv-mizzet wrote:

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...

...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.

I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.

There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.

if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.

Asmodios wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...

...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.

I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.

There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.

if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.

No your not the only one. Weapon stats on one side, unit stats on the other. I know most of them by heart but its nice to be able to quickly reference when your not 100% sure.

Asmodios wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...

...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.

I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.

There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.

if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.

As you know, in competitive play you need to know your opponents rules as well.

And people don't always have a clear knowledge of rules, even the top-tier players get stuff wrong. And it creates rules disputes. I played a game with a well known player recently and we had a rules dispute (obviously a very friendly game, not a bad dispute, just a disagreement). For speed of play i deferred to him, because he's the pro player, but i was actually right.

Ultimately where chess clocks will fall apart in 40k is when you call a judge. The time lost there can be significant. Especially if you're expecting 5-6 turns. 15 minutes waiting for a judge to resolve an issue means you're stopping after turn 4.

Consider:
Games are 2.5 hours, or 150 minutes.
5 minutes each for deployment, warlord traits, pre-game powers, going over lists, setting up objectives, etc. Total 10 minutes.
Turn1 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn2 for both players, 35 minutes total. (17.5 minutes each)
Turn3 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn4 for both players, 25 minutes total. (12.5 minutes each)

This leaves us with 20 minutes to spare. Normally that might be enough to get through turns 5 and 6. But, if you spend 15 minutes waiting on a judge, you cannot start round 5.

I think my time estimates are very, very fast. For instance it takes me about 20 minutes for turns 1 and 2 until my swarm starts getting thinned.

The point is you have a situation where there is no time inequity, and the game will end with both players having time left on their clocks. If you've played in enough tournaments you've definitely had to call a judge. And doing so is not immediate, and the ruling is not instantaneous. Also, leading up to calling a judge burns some time as you try to amicably resolve the conflict first with your opponent.

The idea that clocks will help you get to turns 5 and 6 assumes that there are no paused clock scenarios.

It's been my experience that games are ending around turn 4-5 because of rules disputes. Now, clocks might solve the aspect of not knowing rules. Currently if my opponent doesn't know my rules (and, why would they know all of them) i'm stopping to explain. I always start every game with kind of a canned friendly greeting, which includes offering to stop and explain anything they don't understand, and also, provide my codex to support it. Naturally this will still be there but it will be eating into their time. But the second you call a judge or there is a dispute of any kind, someone is going to pause the clock.

Think about it, if someone says something that is obviously wrong to you, for example, Poxwalkers can spawn within 1" of a model that they aren't already in combat with, locking it into combat. Finding this information in the FAQs is going to take time, and they're hitting pause, so you can call a judge. This specific FAQ is not found in the death guard FAQ, it's a general FAQ that references setting up newly created units. It's not easy to find. Suddenly your game is ending on turn 4.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 niv-mizzet wrote:

agurus1 wrote:
I don’t get this issue LVO 30k players use 2500 point armies and are fitting 3 games a day in @ 2.5 hours a game no problem. Most go to 5-6 rounds as well. Many have fairly sizably armies model-wise, mine had just short of 100. Why is it so much harder for “streamlined” 8th edition?

While they tried to tag 8e as streamlined and faster, it doesn’t mean they actually succeeded at making it that way.
It’s true that you no longer have to check which vehicle arc you’re in or compare initiative in cc, among other things...

...but things like combat positioning during higher level play is exceptionally important. Additionally every weapon ever gained an additional statistic to memorize, AP now does stuff all the time, and some units have changing stats based on remaining wounds.

I’ve found that it’s not actually the amount of models that matters, (although malicious slow players could certainly use that to their advantage,) but rather having a big mix of units with all different stats and all different guns that have their own all different stats etc. in timed play we just don’t have time to doublecheck if a weapon is AP 2 or 3, does d3 damage or 2 damage, or if a vehicle blows up on a 5+ or just a 6, and if it deals 1 wound at 3” or d3 at 6” or d6 at 2d6” etc.

There’s certainly a lot more streamlining they could have done.

if people don't have their weapon stats memorized before a tournament that's on them. If someone really finds it that hard just make yourself a flashcard with all the weapon stats on it before the tournament. I must be the only person who makes a cheat sheet for referencing before a play in a tournament and then just tabs my codex in case my opponent wants to look.

As you know, in competitive play you need to know your opponents rules as well.

And people don't always have a clear knowledge of rules, even the top-tier players get stuff wrong. And it creates rules disputes. I played a game with a well known player recently and we had a rules dispute (obviously a very friendly game, not a bad dispute, just a disagreement). For speed of play i deferred to him, because he's the pro player, but i was actually right.

Ultimately where chess clocks will fall apart in 40k is when you call a judge. The time lost there can be significant. Especially if you're expecting 5-6 turns. 15 minutes waiting for a judge to resolve an issue means you're stopping after turn 4.

Consider:
Games are 2.5 hours, or 150 minutes.
5 minutes each for deployment, warlord traits, pre-game powers, going over lists, setting up objectives, etc. Total 10 minutes.
Turn1 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn2 for both players, 35 minutes total. (17.5 minutes each)
Turn3 for both players, 30 minutes total. (15 minutes each)
Turn4 for both players, 25 minutes total. (12.5 minutes each)

This leaves us with 20 minutes to spare. Normally that might be enough to get through turns 5 and 6. But, if you spend 15 minutes waiting on a judge, you cannot start round 5.

I think my time estimates are very, very fast. For instance it takes me about 20 minutes for turns 1 and 2 until my swarm starts getting thinned.

The point is you have a situation where there is no time inequity, and the game will end with both players having time left on their clocks. If you've played in enough tournaments you've definitely had to call a judge. And doing so is not immediate, and the ruling is not instantaneous. Also, leading up to calling a judge burns some time as you try to amicably resolve the conflict first with your opponent.

The idea that clocks will help you get to turns 5 and 6 assumes that there are no paused clock scenarios.

It's been my experience that games are ending around turn 4-5 because of rules disputes. Now, clocks might solve the aspect of not knowing rules. Currently if my opponent doesn't know my rules (and, why would they know all of them) i'm stopping to explain. I always start every game with kind of a canned friendly greeting, which includes offering to stop and explain anything they don't understand, and also, provide my codex to support it. Naturally this will still be there but it will be eating into their time. But the second you call a judge or there is a dispute of any kind, someone is going to pause the clock.

Think about it, if someone says something that is obviously wrong to you, for example, Poxwalkers can spawn within 1" of a model that they aren't already in combat with, locking it into combat. Finding this information in the FAQs is going to take time, and they're hitting pause, so you can call a judge. This specific FAQ is not found in the death guard FAQ, it's a general FAQ that references setting up newly created units. It's not easy to find. Suddenly your game is ending on turn 4.

The rule says that the clock is stopped while waiting for a judge. They have time allotted for rules disputes but the player will receive the same amount of time to do their turns. It's the same way they handle it in other tabletop games that have clocks and it doesn't cause any issues. Also, the time usage should be dropping significantly after each turn as units die/reach their objective. The most beautiful thing about clocks is it allows you to load your time on the front end and take quicker later turns without being screwed over.

If you spend 30 minutes total on rules disputes or paused clock scenarios you cannot simply make that time up. These events have a schedule.

And if you're willing to extend the round by 30 minutes for clock stoppages, just make the rounds 3 hours long.

Marmatag's personal preference: 3 hour rounds capped at 5 turns. Paused clocks do not extend rounds.

Asmodios wrote:
The most beautiful thing about clocks is it allows you to load your time on the front end and take quicker later turns without being screwed over.

This is probably slightly less beautiful, but I appreciate it more. It's super nice that there's essentially no ill will over time usage. I've seen players flip the clock to themselves and go number 2. Using your time as you see fit is very relaxing; you just have to realize how to budget your time to get the game done.

 Marmatag wrote:
If you spend 30 minutes total on rules disputes or paused clock scenarios you cannot simply make that time up. These events have a schedule.

And if you're willing to extend the round by 30 minutes for clock stoppages, just make the rounds 3 hours long.

Marmatag's personal preference: 3 hour rounds capped at 5 turns. Paused clocks do not extend rounds.

Tournaments have break times between rounds. This should cover most rule issues. And if it doesn't then there is probably something wrong with one of the players involved.

That time is used to visit the restroom and find your next table. The only time you get free time is if your game ended early.

 Marmatag wrote:
If you spend 30 minutes total on rules disputes or paused clock scenarios you cannot simply make that time up. These events have a schedule.

And if you're willing to extend the round by 30 minutes for clock stoppages, just make the rounds 3 hours long.

Marmatag's personal preference: 3 hour rounds capped at 5 turns. Paused clocks do not extend rounds.

Rounds have breaks in between that they can spill into for a bit if needed. If it takes 30min for a TO to settle a rules dispute thats more of the venues issue then anything and I'm assuming the TO would have to handle it if it happened. The problem with the "just make the round 3 hours long" is that it does nothing to counter slow play at all. If a tournament has 3 hours that's great... 3 hours with a clock is even better.

You can't consume the break time with more play. That time is absolutely required to pack your stuff move to the next table, use the bathroom, get a drink, etc.

Logistics come into play at some point.

Show me where the rule set specifically states that rounds can go longer than their allotted time if a judge is called. You're just making stuff up at this point...

And what I meant was "3 hours with a clock, no stoppage time, capped at 5 turns." That would be perfectly fine with me for any event.

 Marmatag wrote:
You can't consume the break time with more play. That time is absolutely required to pack your stuff move to the next table, use the bathroom, get a drink, etc.

Logistics come into play at some point.

Show me where the rule set specifically states that rounds can go longer than their allotted time if a judge is called. You're just making stuff up at this point...

And what I meant was "3 hours with a clock, no stoppage time, capped at 5 turns." That would be perfectly fine with me for any event.

So why that long post about how it all breaks when you call a judge because of lost time only for you to now say that your fine with the game ending when round time ends despite time left on the clock.

I'm confused here. What point are you trying to make.

The point i'm trying to make is that the argument that games weren't making it to time because of slow play is not accurate. Any rules dispute/discussions contribute to shorter games because 2.5 hours for 6 turns is bonkers. A 15 minute delay, despite both players playing VERY fast, will result in a 4 turn game. I know this, because i play with clocks already in practice games with the ITC ruleset.

If a big plus for the clocks is that they allow you to get to turn 5+ reliably, I don't see that, because you're going to see more judges getting involved because both players will want a stopped-time scenario in a rules dispute, and since you physically cannot get that time back (because time is linear and even if the game stops it marches forward, and rounds DO end on time, despite people saying that it's "fuzzy" and you can extend rounds for stoppage time which is absolutely false).

Conclusion: 2.5 hours for 6 turns is already inadequate, and clocks will actually exacerbate this issue because people will be forced to call a judge for rules disputes out of self preservation as it stops the clock.

The sweet spot for a clock based game is 5 turns. I would also extend the rounds to 3 hours and that way you have time to deal with judges getting involved, and believe me, they absolutely will be.

"This unit hits on a 4+."
"No it's a 5+"
"No, it's 4+"
Time stops, judge is called.

A silly example but why waste your time arguing over something? And your opponent certainly won't let you waste his...

 Marmatag wrote:
The point i'm trying to make is that the argument that games weren't making it to time because of slow play is not accurate. Any rules dispute/discussions contribute to shorter games because 2.5 hours for 6 turns is bonkers. A 15 minute delay, despite both players playing VERY fast, will result in a 4 turn game. I know this, because i play with clocks already in practice games with the ITC ruleset.

If a big plus for the clocks is that they allow you to get to turn 5+ reliably, I don't see that, because you're going to see more judges getting involved because both players will want a stopped-time scenario in a rules dispute, and since you physically cannot get that time back (because time is linear and even if the game stops it marches forward, and rounds DO end on time, despite people saying that it's "fuzzy" and you can extend rounds for stoppage time which is absolutely false).

Conclusion: 2.5 hours for 6 turns is already inadequate, and clocks will actually exacerbate this issue because people will be forced to call a judge for rules disputes out of self preservation as it stops the clock.

The sweet spot for a clock based game is 5 turns. I would also extend the rounds to 3 hours and that way you have time to deal with judges getting involved, and believe me, they absolutely will be.

"This unit hits on a 4+."
"No it's a 5+"
"No, it's 4+"
Time stops, judge is called.

A silly example but why waste your time arguing over something? And your opponent certainly won't let you waste his...

Turn 4 is a nice improvement over turn 2/3. I'll take it.