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.

That's fine and well but the game still scores to 6. If we're content with turn 4 then the game should logically conclude there. Or, we should create a ruleset that adequately supports 6 turns.

And we both know what will happen when games end on turn 4, which is what already happens. Both players talk through the last 2 turns, and what ends up happening is a 20-25 points game magically turns into a 35-40 point game.

I'm a fan of calling the judge on the smallest disagreement, but stat based arguments should certainly be resolvable by showing the model rules.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm a fan of calling the judge on the smallest disagreement, but stat based arguments should certainly be resolvable by showing the model rules.

Agree, but who pays the time cost for it? A stopped time scenario favors a slowplayer, remember.

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm a fan of calling the judge on the smallest disagreement, but stat based arguments should certainly be resolvable by showing the model rules.

He said it was a dumb example, its fine :p
If my opponent argues with the values in my codex I will call a judge for him and expect him to be warned not to do it again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I'm a fan of calling the judge on the smallest disagreement, but stat based arguments should certainly be resolvable by showing the model rules.

Agree, but who pays the time cost for it? A stopped time scenario favors a slowplayer, remember.

And the 4th time a Judge has to come to the same player for a dumb rules dispute he will see a pattern emerge.
Its just another one of those "yes you can still game the system but it will be a hell of a lot more obvious".

I said it was a silly example but there are a lot of good examples out there. The core point is what we are discussing.

Judges are not enforcing slow play penalties now. I have no reason to believe they'll do so in the future especially if it's much more subtle.

But again you're trying to turn this into something that it's not. You don't need a big delay to freeze out turns 5 and 6. And not all rules disputes are intentional. For instance, if someone says they can gate of infinity out of combat and shoot. You might dispute this. You'd be wrong, but this is a judge scenario. What's the judge going to say? "You're a slow player this is obvious?"

You guys are filling in a lot of blanks here on your own because you really, really really really really really really really really really believe in this implementation. I get that. You super support it, it's your baby. Are you not aware of any of the potential problems here, and why on gods green earth should they not be talked through prior to go live? This thread is insane.

 Marmatag wrote:
I said it was a silly example but there are a lot of good examples out there. The core point is what we are discussing.

Judges are not enforcing slow play penalties now. I have no reason to believe they'll do so in the future especially if it's much more subtle.

But again you're trying to turn this into something that it's not. You don't need a big delay to freeze out turns 5 and 6. And not all rules disputes are intentional. For instance, if someone says they can gate of infinity out of combat and shoot. You might dispute this. You'd be wrong, but this is a judge scenario. What's the judge going to say? "You're a slow player this is obvious?"

You guys are filling in a lot of blanks here on your own because you really, really really really really really really really really really believe in this implementation. I get that. You super support it, it's your baby. Are you not aware of any of the potential problems here, and why on gods green earth should they not be talked through prior to go live? This thread is insane.

1) its not more subtle.
2). I said a higher number then one before a judge gets curious precisely because rule disputes happen. There are a lot of rules and they are spread out in a lot of places. But when it happens over and over I expect a judge to take notice and to pay attention to it.
It might be an attempt to stall games, it might be someone that simply doesn't know nearly enough about the rules. And if its the latter you might want to tell him to simply assume his opponents are correct for now because its taking up to much time and to be more knowledgeable when he next comes to an event.

Questions, since I haven't been to a large tourney in a while (5th ed):
How many judges are typically present at a 300-500 player event?
How are they distributed around the room?
These kind of things will factor into how long it takes for a dispute to be settled.

Also, while I have seen many Horde style players complaining about not having enough time, I have seen "Elite" armies being 'slow played' by measuring each model's movement, measuring range, remeasuring the move to adjust for range, rolling each individual shot separately, etc.
Any army can be 'slow played', and if two slow players are facing off, it can become hilariously ridiculous with both players claiming they got cheated because of the other's slow play.

Wit any system there’s a way of gaming it. Plug one gap and another leak will spring. The cheating meta will just evolve into new forms. Sad thing is if one player is determined to cheat there’s no point in anyone playing.

 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.

If you routinely spend 30 minutes on rules disputes either you are doing something wrong. If you're trying to game the system in some way the presence of chess clocks actually helps stop this. The clock procedures make it very clear that in the event of a dispute the clock is paused and, once that's done, a judge must be called. If this happens a lot with the same player the judges will be able to track that. If we assume these are good-faith disagreements then the chess clock doesn't cause any additional disadvantage. Worst case scenario you still would have had 30 minutes of rules disputes regardless. In reality, what happens is judges get called earlier than they would have and disputes are cleared up more quickly.

All these issues are things that other games that already use clocks would have to deal with if they really were an issue. They aren't. Stop bringing them up.

 Marmatag wrote:
I said it was a silly example but there are a lot of good examples out there. The core point is what we are discussing.

Judges are not enforcing slow play penalties now. I have no reason to believe they'll do so in the future especially if it's much more subtle.

But again you're trying to turn this into something that it's not. You don't need a big delay to freeze out turns 5 and 6. And not all rules disputes are intentional. For instance, if someone says they can gate of infinity out of combat and shoot. You might dispute this. You'd be wrong, but this is a judge scenario. What's the judge going to say? "You're a slow player this is obvious?"

You guys are filling in a lot of blanks here on your own because you really, really really really really really really really really really believe in this implementation. I get that. You super support it, it's your baby. Are you not aware of any of the potential problems here, and why on gods green earth should they not be talked through prior to go live? This thread is insane.

This thread has been going in circles because people keep pointing out that
1. Yes you can still be TFG and engage in slow play tactics with a chess clock
2. That the chess clock makes it more apparent that you are doing it so a judge can get involved quicker and actually take action
In the past, this is how it goes
>Player A is TFG and slow plays to with
>Player B after turn 2 now realizes this and calls over a judge
>Player B tells judge hey this guys slow playing
>Player A says nope he's just perceiving i used most the time but we have had about equal
>The Judge now has to take a guess if player A slow played or not but most likely just sits at the table. This does nothing to lengthen the game because most of the times already used and a judge has now been locked down to a single table

Now let's use your example with a chess clock
>player A is TFG and slow plays the game
>he cannot employ usual tactics (slow moving models/ thinking about moves ect) because the clock is ticking
>He decides to do a dumb rules dispute
>Clock is paused T.O comes over and resolves it
>Clock starts again and player A is nowhere near the amount of time to be wasted to steal time from his opponent's clock
>Another dumb rules dispute
>At this point any TO that's half decent is going to realize whats happening and either start deducting time from player As clock, DQ him or at the very least know to boot him if he tries it again at any point in the tournament
>This solves the problem in this game and all games that are going to take place with this player

Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked

The point is that it didn't work anyways.

If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked

The point is that it didn't work anyways.

If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.

It didn't work because of the term "slow play" currently being ambiguous. You have people in this thread arguing that more models= more time but they will never answer how much more? whats the ratio? how does it change each turn? ect..... Currently, a judge has to make a gut call on slow play. Is it slow play if he's constantly doing something? He's always moving models just not particularly fast, is that slow play? Do I tell him he cant take time to think of his next move? What if this turns long but his others are quicker?

A chess clock gives the TO firm footing. You have exactly x amount of time to get your turns in and then the game ends for you. The only way to slow play is to stop the clock for some reason and the reasons allowed are x,y,z. It will be very apparent that he keeps stopping the clock and if this happens more then 1-2 times that our rules have built in time for we are going to DQ the person.

I mean here you are pointing out a GT that recognized that slow playing is taking place so they are instituting chess clocks to try to deal with it and your saying "its theoretically possible that chess clocks won't stop slow play 100% of the time if we have a bad judge..... so lets keep the old system where the judges were handy capped and there really wasn't anything you could do about slow play until it was too late"

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Actually, the way it seems to happen is:

Player A slowplays on stream.
Player B calls a judge over.
The judge hems and haws.
The first hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The stream announcers say he was slowplaying.
Player B says he was slowplaying, again.
The second hundred people on stream chat say he was slowplaying.
The judge hems and haws.
The rest of stream chat says he was slowplaying.
The judge says "HE WASN'T SLOWPLAYING" and wanders off.

Im assuming you are talking about the incident at the LVO...... before chess clocks...... where if we had chess clocks time would have been ticking down and his slowplay wouldn't have worked

The point is that it didn't work anyways.

If judges don't enforce the rules, you could have Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, Athena, and Yahweh come down from on high, each carrying a chess-clock of their very own, and say that "Player A was slowplaying" and the judge won't enforce the rules.

It didn't work because of the term "slow play" currently being ambiguous. You have people in this thread arguing that more models= more time but they will never answer how much more? whats the ratio? how does it change each turn? ect..... Currently, a judge has to make a gut call on slow play. Is it slow play if he's constantly doing something? He's always moving models just not particularly fast, is that slow play? Do I tell him he cant take time to think of his next move? What if this turns long but his others are quicker?

A chess clock gives the TO firm footing. You have exactly x amount of time to get your turns in and then the game ends for you. The only way to slow play is to stop the clock for some reason and the reasons allowed are x,y,z. It will be very apparent that he keeps stopping the clock and if this happens more then 1-2 times that our rules have built in time for we are going to DQ the person.

I mean here you are pointing out a GT that recognized that slow playing is taking place so they are instituting chess clocks to try to deal with it and your saying "its theoretically possible that chess clocks won't stop slow play 100% of the time if we have a bad judge..... so lets keep the old system where the judges were handy capped and there really wasn't anything you could do about slow play until it was too late"

Actually, what I'm arguing for is to actually have the judges enforce the rules. Slow play may be nebulous, but if literally everyone except you and the person doing it agree that it's slow play, then adding a clock to the "everyone" isn't going to make you enforce the rules any better.

Clocks are fine, generally, but will not be useful if a judge doesn't actually care.

The problem with that is that spectators often have no clue what they are talking about. I played pro hockey and do you know how many idiots scream from the stands that x,y or z was a penalty when it's not even close. You then have things like home field advantage that add to this where people want to believe that something was a penalty because they want their team to win. So let's say you have a very popular player from the US playing against some little-known player from the UK at the LVO. You now have a bunch of twitch viewers that are friends with the US player spamming chat the EU player is slow playing...... you just take random internet person and go ok there's 50 people spamming chat about slowplay its time to DQ the EU player.... nope what you need is a clock that cannot lie. Also just wait until internet trolls figure out that they are actually the ones making the calls..... what could ever go wrong

Rules disputes aren't slowplaying.

The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.

Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:

(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved

Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.

I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.

 Marmatag wrote:
Rules disputes aren't slowplaying.

The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.

Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:

(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved

Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.

They are planning for people to call judges...... that's why the rules there and they have time built in to allow for it. What they don't have time for is ridiculous amounts of times calling judges which would be incredibly obvious

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Rules disputes aren't slowplaying.

The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.

Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:

(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved

Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.

They are planning for people to call judges...... that's why the rules there and they have time built in to allow for it. What they don't have time for is ridiculous amounts of times calling judges which would be incredibly obvious

I don't think its fair to hand-wave through the judge question, which is what you're doing. You are taking what i'm saying to an extreme (ridiculous amounts of times calling judges) and then attacking that argument, saying that it would be "incredibly obvious."

(a) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls from one person.
(b) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls overall.
(c) I am making the case that they will increase, since neither person will want to pay time to dispute a rule.
(d) Whether its obvious or not, people will call for judges. The framework has to take this into account, which it doesn't.
(e) Legitimate rules discussions will cause games to miss turns.

For example, if your model is on the other side of a large, line of sight blocking wall, and I charge it with a Carnifex, and move up to the side of the wall and attack you through this unpassable barrier, would you call a judge? Most people do, but the rules state that you just need to end within an inch, and you don't need line of sight to fight. You might not. But people will. And i'm not paying my time for it, and the only way to resolve this is to call a judge. Let's assume it takes 5 minutes to get a judge there, and another couple minutes to resolve this amicably with the guy across the table. We are not seeing turn 6.

 Marmatag wrote:
That's fine and well but the game still scores to 6. If we're content with turn 4 then the game should logically conclude there. Or, we should create a ruleset that adequately supports 6 turns.

And we both know what will happen when games end on turn 4, which is what already happens. Both players talk through the last 2 turns, and what ends up happening is a 20-25 points game magically turns into a 35-40 point game.

This happened a lot at LVO and it keeps feeding the problem. There's not enough time to play a game, so then players agree to theorize the last 2-3 turns so they don't lose points. The end result is a lot of 3 turn games that get reported as 6 turn games. Then post tournament when the community complains about game length, the TOs go look at their reported scores and say that most of the games went to 6 and the argument dies.

If the scoring wasn't based on rounds completed we'd have a more accurate reflection of games getting completed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My opinion: Chess clocks and 3 hours rounds.
Time is equitably distributed and there's enough time to quickly get through 5-6 turns without stressfully watching the clock.

However, I'm still a firm believer when it gets down to the final 4, or at least the last game there shouldn't be a time limit. Players won't waste their own time trying to slow play when it doesn't change the outcome. I think more people would rather watch a 3-4 hour streamed finals game than what we had last year.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Rules disputes aren't slowplaying.

The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.

Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:

(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved

Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.

They are planning for people to call judges...... that's why the rules there and they have time built in to allow for it. What they don't have time for is ridiculous amounts of times calling judges which would be incredibly obvious

I don't think its fair to hand-wave through the judge question, which is what you're doing. You are taking what i'm saying to an extreme (ridiculous amounts of times calling judges) and then attacking that argument, saying that it would be "incredibly obvious."

(a) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls from one person.
(b) I am not making the case that there will be ridiculous number of judge calls overall.
(c) I am making the case that they will increase, since neither person will want to pay time to dispute a rule.
(d) Whether its obvious or not, people will call for judges. The framework has to take this into account, which it doesn't.
(e) Legitimate rules discussions will cause games to miss turns.

For example, if your model is on the other side of a large, line of sight blocking wall, and I charge it with a Carnifex, and move up to the side of the wall and attack you through this unpassable barrier, would you call a judge? Most people do, but the rules state that you just need to end within an inch, and you don't need line of sight to fight. You might not. But people will. And i'm not paying my time for it, and the only way to resolve this is to call a judge. Let's assume it takes 5 minutes to get a judge there, and another couple minutes to resolve this amicably with the guy across the table. We are not seeing turn 6.

Even in your example, the clock would work perfectly
1. Rules dispute happens
2. Clock stops
3. Judge rules
4. The game commences within let's say 5min like your example
no issue has taken place as they are implementing the rules with time built in for these. Lets just assume they have set aside 10. Same players have a rules dispute
1. Rules dispute happens
2. Clock Stops
3. Judge rules
now I've never had single rules dispute in a tournament game much less 2. My guess is if your calling over the judge multiple times there's one of you that clearly doesn't understand the rules. Most likely at this point the judge will rule and most likely on the same side as the original dispute at this point as a TO i would simply let the other player know that if there's another rules dispute and he's wrong its coming out of his time
4. game goes on and now any further stoppage will come out of the players time that doesn't know the rules
Even in the case where both players are constantly messing up the rules you are now simply at the same point as you would have been without clocks where they didnt finish their game. The only difference is instead of them just not finishing you are well aware its because they don't know the rules and you keep not of this for the rest of the tournament and make them take rules disputes on their time.

No matter what ever really happens having the clock never hurts the game. What its doing is giving TOs more information to work with and to make ruleings on. There are a tremendous amount of benifits and the only negatives are for people that bring 250 models and expect to use 80% of the game time, but both players paid the same entry fee as everone else so they both get the exact same amount of time to play WH that weekend.

I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.

I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.

And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?

 Marmatag wrote:
I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.

I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.

And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?

What am I making up? You just said you have people calling over judges to try to deny you point (so calling over for obvious bull) or because they are just not familiar with the rules. In both cases, the ITC chess clock rules have time allotted for this very instance and if the time began to run out because of excessive calls it gives the TO an opportunity to dock the person that's constantly wrong their time. Like i said pre-clock you could slow play all day long without a judge ever getting involved until it was too late to ever make that time up. Now with a clock, if they are attempting to slow play by stopping the clock they are going to get noticed right away and for the rest of the event.

Also, im confused with what you are even arguing at this point.... now you want a clock you just think their particular rules are bad? I'm just confused because you have jumped around in this thread so many times. You have gone from saying how you would cheat the clock if it is implemented to now you want it implemented just differently.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.

I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.

And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?

What am I making up? You just said you have people calling over judges to try to deny you point (so calling over for obvious bull) or because they are just not familiar with the rules. In both cases, the ITC chess clock rules have time allotted for this very instance and if the time began to run out because of excessive calls it gives the TO an opportunity to dock the person that's constantly wrong their time. Like i said pre-clock you could slow play all day long without a judge ever getting involved until it was too late to ever make that time up. Now with a clock, if they are attempting to slow play by stopping the clock they are going to get noticed right away and for the rest of the event.

Also, im confused with what you are even arguing at this point.... now you want a clock you just think their particular rules are bad? I'm just confused because you have jumped around in this thread so many times. You have gone from saying how you would cheat the clock if it is implemented to now you want it implemented just differently.

Today he wants stoppage time. Yesterday he didn't. I think he just wants to argue for arguing's sake.

 Ordana wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I've played in a few tournaments this year and have had rules disputes in every single one. I'm not wrong in them, either, but time is lost. Some of it is pretty basic stuff, too, but people still dispute it. Usually its driven from lack of FAQ knowledge or really needing to deny me a point. Getting a judge takes time, there is no magical judge fairy that flies over when you snap your fingers.

I'm not making the case that the clock hurts the game. I'm making a case that this implementation is bad.

And you keep making stuff up that is not in the guidelines. Do you have the authority to alter this ruleset or are you talking out of your ass?

What am I making up? You just said you have people calling over judges to try to deny you point (so calling over for obvious bull) or because they are just not familiar with the rules. In both cases, the ITC chess clock rules have time allotted for this very instance and if the time began to run out because of excessive calls it gives the TO an opportunity to dock the person that's constantly wrong their time. Like i said pre-clock you could slow play all day long without a judge ever getting involved until it was too late to ever make that time up. Now with a clock, if they are attempting to slow play by stopping the clock they are going to get noticed right away and for the rest of the event.

Also, im confused with what you are even arguing at this point.... now you want a clock you just think their particular rules are bad? I'm just confused because you have jumped around in this thread so many times. You have gone from saying how you would cheat the clock if it is implemented to now you want it implemented just differently.

Today he wants stoppage time. Yesterday he didn't. I think he just wants to argue for arguing's sake.

Thats what im starting to think... The goal post has been moved so many times i cant keep up at this point. I think its about time for me to just stop replying to him its obvious now hes arguing for the sake of argument

Are you guys being intentionally obtuse?

I have stated numerous times what I want. And it is 3 hour rounds, with no extra time, and 5 turn cap, with clocks.

I personally feel a game should only be scored for the turns played. Talking out and scoring the unplayed turns should be a DQ for false reporting.

The thing about slow play is everybody does it. But few own it, because of time dilation. Clocks remove doubt and give a Judge evidence to act on.

 Marmatag wrote:
Are you guys being intentionally obtuse?

I have stated numerous times what I want. And it is 3 hour rounds, with no extra time, and 5 turn cap, with clocks.

 Marmatag wrote:
Rules disputes aren't slowplaying.

The POINT is that regardless of why there is a question being asked, it consumes time, and once you've consumed even a little bit of time discussing a rule with a paused clock you aren't seeing turn 6, and if it goes on long enough you are not seeing turn 5.

Chess clocks won't solve this problem. So, my point is:

(a) implement the clock
(b) cap the rounds at 5 turns
(c) extend the rounds to allow for paused scenarios with judges getting involved

Not planning for people to call judges and just screaming "the clock fixes slowplaying" over and over doesn't make an argument.

I could care less about slowplaying. And people will always cheat in 40k. The biggest cheating that no one is talking about is in the reporting of scores. Is it really likely that two guys from team "MEH 1337 FORTY K LOL" got a max-points tie when they had to play each other? I mean seriously.

Point c sure looks like extra time.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

The thing about slow play is everybody does it. But few own it, because of time dilation. Clocks remove doubt and give a Judge evidence to act on.

I don't think you should conflate slow playing, intentional slowplay, and time inequity. A game can have equal time for both players and end on turn 4.

On the whole I don't mind clocks. But applying them to a 2.5 hour, 6 turn game, is ridiculous.

Yup we are being obtuse
"I can't wait for chess clocks to destroy good faith gameplay.

When someone asks me the range of my weapons or any specific rule to my army, i'm just going to silently hand them my codex. Burn your time.

Want a friendly game? Don't put me behind the 8-ball as i play a "horde" army."
Really sounds like he was arguing for clocks