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.
2018/07/18 19:42:33
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
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.
Yes exactly what i said, extend the rounds to 3 hours. This way games can reach their natural conclusion even if a judge is called.
You can't bleed into the time between rounds, so the rounds must be longer. And 180 minutes to play 5 turns is fair.
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.
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
Yeah, i stand by the argument that they will destroy good faith gameplay with this implementation. Take a look at what happened with Team Happy. You think these guys aren't going to abuse the clock? Cheating is rampant in these games... But you're quoting something from the first page. What i've advocated in response to this proposal has been clear. And you have no response to it, at this point you're just arguing against me in whatever way you can. Got something to say about my proposal? Or are you just here to piss into the wind?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/18 19:46:01
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/07/18 19:54:20
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
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.
Yes exactly what i said, extend the rounds to 3 hours. This way games can reach their natural conclusion even if a judge is called.
You can't bleed into the time between rounds, so the rounds must be longer. And 180 minutes to play 5 turns is fair.
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.
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
Yeah, i stand by the argument that they will destroy good faith gameplay with this implementation. Take a look at what happened with Team Happy. You think these guys aren't going to abuse the clock? Cheating is rampant in these games... But you're quoting something from the first page. What i've advocated in response to this proposal has been clear. And you have no response to it, at this point you're just arguing against me in whatever way you can. Got something to say about my proposal? Or are you just here to piss into the wind?
[/spoiler]
Im still confused what your proposal even is you have changed it so many times
"Of course this entire post is ridiculous. You can scream chess clocks are great as loud as you can, but it doesn't change that there are fundamental flaws in them, and those will become apparent once they're seeing use.
My personal preference to the solution would be to require that games go to turn 4, max it at turn 5, and implement clocks for deployment."
So this one from page 1
So you want clocks.... but only in deployment. What kind of clock? Is this still what you're arguing you seem to just be saying now that there should be a clock.... like just a physical clock to tell time? do players get a certain amount of time from that clock? do you still only need to play till 4. I have no clue what your proposal is sense sometimes your yelling about how you will abuse a clock then asking for clocks in certain phases of the game.
2018/07/18 21:00:28
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
The clock in its current implementation and time limit is suited for deployment only.
A full on game clock as described would be best with 5 turns max and 3 hour rounds.
The current clock is easily abused.
The current clock coupled with the time limit and game-turn-length make for quite a few problematic scenarios for people playing larger armies.
Anything else I can clarify for you?
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/07/18 21:23:58
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
helgrenze wrote: 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.
Yes, repeating my questions, since they were not answered.
I have seen comparisons with various team sports. The better comparisons would be Tennis, which can have up to 10 umpires/judges per game, and Boxing with a single Referee watching things closely. Boxing Refs have guidelines but enforcement of the rules still involves judgement.
So How many Judges, TOs, Refs, whatever are there usually at these big events? Ideally, you would need one for every table. Realistically, You likely have one for every 25+ tables. Optimally, one for every 10 -15, for quick dispute resolution.
So, What's the actual Numbers here?
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
Marmatag wrote: The clock in its current implementation and time limit is suited for deployment only.
A full on game clock as described would be best with 5 turns max and 3 hour rounds.
The current clock is easily abused.
The current clock coupled with the time limit and game-turn-length make for quite a few problematic scenarios for people playing larger armies.
Anything else I can clarify for you?
Yes, what exactly do you mean by "a full on game clock" As in just a clock that's counting down?
So you want a max turn 5 but what exactly does having a clock have to do with the issues we face at this exact moment? In your system whats to stop someone from monopolizing 90% of the clock? I'm confused about what type of clock you are arguing for.
For example, I want a chess clock
I want players to have 50% of the time allowed for each
I think the ITC rules for passing the clock are good for now and we can always amend them if a problem comes up
I think that each tournament should add 45min onto the length of the day to add 15 minutes extra between rounds that can be used as spillover time for rules stoppage (this will be different with every venue and how long the space is available
If that 15min is ever passed then the player on the wrong side of a rules dispute has the time removed from their clock
All i understand from you now is that
1. you want a clock (what kind I still don't know)
2. You want a cap of 5 rounds
how any of your plan works i have no clue
2018/07/18 22:34:29
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
A true chess clock never has a pause scenario. It is always counting down. You do not want a chess clock. If we're getting into semantics, and we're being precise, what you want is this implementation of a game clock, with no changes. So, I would say a game clock is an important distinction because it can be paused. Anyway.
A game clock with even time split with each person getting 1.5 hours, from deployment to final, fifth turn. The clock can be paused to call a judge, but the round does not exceed 3 hours no matter what. There is no bonus time awarded even if someone asks an "obvious" rule question. Ultimately the game is a dialogue with your opponent and a clock shouldn't affect that.
My plan is essentially the same as the current one with those small changes. It's pretty easy to dig your heels in and refuse to understand something. We're going in circles. I've said what i have to say to you, and i'm done with you now.
helgrenze wrote: 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.
Yes, repeating my questions, since they were not answered.
I have seen comparisons with various team sports. The better comparisons would be Tennis, which can have up to 10 umpires/judges per game, and Boxing with a single Referee watching things closely. Boxing Refs have guidelines but enforcement of the rules still involves judgement.
So How many Judges, TOs, Refs, whatever are there usually at these big events? Ideally, you would need one for every table. Realistically, You likely have one for every 25+ tables. Optimally, one for every 10 -15, for quick dispute resolution.
So, What's the actual Numbers here?
Judging is generally very understaffed. I don't think anyone has exact numbers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/18 22:36:42
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/07/18 23:08:37
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Marmatag wrote: A true chess clock never has a pause scenario. It is always counting down. You do not want a chess clock. If we're getting into semantics, and we're being precise, what you want is this implementation of a game clock, with no changes. So, I would say a game clock is an important distinction because it can be paused. Anyway.
A game clock with even time split with each person getting 1.5 hours, from deployment to final, fifth turn. The clock can be paused to call a judge, but the round does not exceed 3 hours no matter what. There is no bonus time awarded even if someone asks an "obvious" rule question. Ultimately the game is a dialogue with your opponent and a clock shouldn't affect that.
My plan is essentially the same as the current one with those small changes. It's pretty easy to dig your heels in and refuse to understand something. We're going in circles. I've said what i have to say to you, and i'm done with you now.
helgrenze wrote: 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.
Yes, repeating my questions, since they were not answered.
I have seen comparisons with various team sports. The better comparisons would be Tennis, which can have up to 10 umpires/judges per game, and Boxing with a single Referee watching things closely. Boxing Refs have guidelines but enforcement of the rules still involves judgement.
So How many Judges, TOs, Refs, whatever are there usually at these big events? Ideally, you would need one for every table. Realistically, You likely have one for every 25+ tables. Optimally, one for every 10 -15, for quick dispute resolution.
So, What's the actual Numbers here?
Judging is generally very understaffed. I don't think anyone has exact numbers.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
2018/07/18 23:12:03
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
I understand what i propose is that you have 10-15min added between rounds do 30-45min total a day. This extra time can be used for rules if need be as most of the time 5-10min should be more then enough to call a judge and have it resolved. Other than that I think the only other option is to have the person that is ruled against lose that amount of time from their clock. I kinda do like that as it really hurts people who show up that seem to have not read a rule book
2018/07/19 15:47:19
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Can this happen without clocks?
2018/07/19 16:49:52
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Reemule wrote: I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Can this happen without clocks?
Sure, just bear in mind that you'll get some players using 25 minute rules discussions (as seen in ATC) and slow play to keep their games unfinished. That's what clocks are addressing.
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
Reemule wrote: I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Can this happen without clocks?
If you lower the points to 1000 and the board size to 4x4 then you could easily accommodate this without clocks.
The biggest gate to something like this - in my opinion - is army construction. Clocks would just force people to bring a ridiculously small model count at 2000 points. With these kinds of time restrictions, you'd see Custodes + Guard, Knights, Tau, and DE/Eldar soup as the only lists in your tournament.
I guess the question becomes: What kind of variety do you want to see in an event?
Implement clocks, and give each player 30 minutes to play all their turns. Why not? It's the same core idea. People will just bring very few models, and invest heavily in large strong things. A full 5 turn game can be played in 30 minutes each. Just don't be surprised when every list has Knights, Primarchs, Fire Raptors, etc.
Now, I will agree that it would be neat to see different varieties of 40k. For instance, Speed 40k. This is kind of along the lines of what you're advocating. You've got speed 40k which is 1000 points, 4x4 board, and you could comfortably fit in 5-6 games in a day. Then you've got relaxed 40k, which is 2000 points, 6x4 board, 3 hour rounds 5 turn max with clocks, fitting 3 games in a day. No reason why we can't have both.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed. >You are playing against someone in a GT they go first >Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5 >Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours >All you need to do is move onto an objective to win >luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn >Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge >He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0 >Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
I understand what i propose is that you have 10-15min added between rounds do 30-45min total a day. This extra time can be used for rules if need be as most of the time 5-10min should be more then enough to call a judge and have it resolved. Other than that I think the only other option is to have the person that is ruled against lose that amount of time from their clock. I kinda do like that as it really hurts people who show up that seem to have not read a rule book
This is our primary disagreement, I don't see the need to split out time for rules questions. A 5 turn game, even with calling judges, can be comfortably played in 3 hours, if clocks are there to stop slowplaying. People who haven't read rulebooks will happen, and ultimately this is why my comment was to hit the clock and silently hand them your codex. Currently, when i encounter people who haven't read my rules, i stop what i'm doing and explain everything, answering their questions. Because there are no clocks i don't give a care if my game ends on turn 4, because my opponent having a good time is more important. But in a clock based scenario i can't afford that luxury because it's going to be eating my time, or his, i'm forced to make a non-passive choice and burn his time answering these questions. To me that makes the game less fun, but I digress.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/07/19 17:36:40
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/07/19 18:29:42
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Reemule wrote: I want my local tourney to be 4 games long, start at 8:30, roll dice at 9, 4 games with 15 minutes between rounds, be done at 5:45, prizes handed out and be driving home at 6:00, with all games finishing to turn 5+.
Sounds easily doable, and provides a good chance to get more players that know the precise start and end times of the games.
Can this happen without clocks?
If you lower the points to 1000 and the board size to 4x4 then you could easily accommodate this without clocks.
The biggest gate to something like this - in my opinion - is army construction. Clocks would just force people to bring a ridiculously small model count at 2000 points. With these kinds of time restrictions, you'd see Custodes + Guard, Knights, Tau, and DE/Eldar soup as the only lists in your tournament.
I guess the question becomes: What kind of variety do you want to see in an event?
Implement clocks, and give each player 30 minutes to play all their turns. Why not? It's the same core idea. People will just bring very few models, and invest heavily in large strong things. A full 5 turn game can be played in 30 minutes each. Just don't be surprised when every list has Knights, Primarchs, Fire Raptors, etc.
Now, I will agree that it would be neat to see different varieties of 40k. For instance, Speed 40k. This is kind of along the lines of what you're advocating.
You've got speed 40k which is 1000 points, 4x4 board, and you could comfortably fit in 5-6 games in a day.
Then you've got relaxed 40k, which is 2000 points, 6x4 board, 3 hour rounds 5 turn max with clocks, fitting 3 games in a day.
No reason why we can't have both.
Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Essentially you want the same clock I do (the only difference is a "game clock" can be paused) and you want the game to never exceed the allotted amount of time.
Well, that's basically what I want and definitely better then what we have now. My only disagreement is not having a run over time for rules questions. The issue being is that we are trying to create a system that is less easily gamed.
>You are playing against someone in a GT they go first
>Your opponent and you have had a wonderful game and he is leading going into round 5
>Hes finished his last turn and used his 1.5 hours
>All you need to do is move onto an objective to win
>luckily this will be easy you still have 5 minutes of your clock left and one turn
>Hold on your opponent has a rules question and now signals for a judge
>He argues back and forth for a minute while the round time ticks down to 0
>Your opponent got to use 1.5 hours you did not and you lost because of it
But at least you recognize the need for a clock
That's kind of the problem we have pre-chess clocks. Rules arguments can cause a single game to run into the starting time for the next game. Either everyone gets to go home an hour later or the TO has to put their foot down and say 'dice down'. The clock doesn't change that at all.
I understand what i propose is that you have 10-15min added between rounds do 30-45min total a day. This extra time can be used for rules if need be as most of the time 5-10min should be more then enough to call a judge and have it resolved. Other than that I think the only other option is to have the person that is ruled against lose that amount of time from their clock. I kinda do like that as it really hurts people who show up that seem to have not read a rule book
This is our primary disagreement, I don't see the need to split out time for rules questions. A 5 turn game, even with calling judges, can be comfortably played in 3 hours, if clocks are there to stop slowplaying. People who haven't read rulebooks will happen, and ultimately this is why my comment was to hit the clock and silently hand them your codex. Currently, when i encounter people who haven't read my rules, i stop what i'm doing and explain everything, answering their questions. Because there are no clocks i don't give a care if my game ends on turn 4, because my opponent having a good time is more important. But in a clock based scenario i can't afford that luxury because it's going to be eating my time, or his, i'm forced to make a non-passive choice and burn his time answering these questions. To me that makes the game less fun, but I digress.
I can respect that and now I more clearly understand what you were addressing. I personally would just state "x is played this way" as I continued on. If they insisted that I stop and show them I agree 100% that you swap to their time as they are the ones needing clarification. If they refuse that's when you get a judge involved. The more I think about it I believe you are correct that time shouldn't be spilling over, why increase the time between rounds and not the round itself? Instead, I really think they should just take away any amount of stopped time due to a rules dispute from the person who was wrong. If it takes a judge 10min then your down 10min off whats remaining on your clock. If you do this at the end of the game on your opponents turn and they are unable to complete it and you are wrong its an instant 20-0 round loss. It would effectively stop any attempt to slow play through a rules dispute and also speed up rounds because people would only dispute what they know their opponent is doing wrong.
2323/07/19 18:42:58
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
I could see that making sense if clocks are only applied to the undefeated players on day 2, because presumably they already know their rules. The biggest barrier here is that GW is not that great at writing rules, and disputes can happen where neither player is wrong, really, and it requires a judgment call. These are edge cases but somehow always seem to come up.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/07/19 18:57:02
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Marmatag wrote: I could see that making sense if clocks are only applied to the undefeated players on day 2, because presumably they already know their rules. The biggest barrier here is that GW is not that great at writing rules, and disputes can happen where neither player is wrong, really, and it requires a judgment call. These are edge cases but somehow always seem to come up.
Those edge cases are few and far between and if you lose the coin flip on a rare occasion I think its better then what we have been seeing with slow play lately. From my understanding, ITC is using chess clocks day 2 for top tables when released, but it will obviously vary per tournament. No meta is the same and no tournament is run the same way so it's definitely up to each TO to let people know if and when they will be using clocks. IMO if I were to run an event I would just use it for all games. I know as a customer I go to tournaments to play the game and not to try to learn it. The absolute worst tournament experience I ever had was playing a wood elf opponent that had never played before that tournament and getting halfway through turn 2. I won the game but it was the most boring and frustrating gaming experience I had ever had gaming and if a clock discourages that type of player I'm all for it.
2018/07/19 19:12:12
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Marmatag, believe or not I play games to have a sense of fun and competition.
When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Playing 1K for 3 hours would make me want to throat slap a baby.
2018/07/19 19:55:29
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/07/19 19:56:47
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2018/07/19 20:38:47
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Why do you assume that its not for me? I don't assume your long social games, with slow play and lots of kitbising is the only way to play... Why do causal types feel they should be the only way to play?
2018/07/19 20:43:34
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
2018/07/19 21:26:27
Subject: ITC clock rules. (Not for the faint hearted)
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
2k in 2 hours, depending on army, is quite speedy. Some builds matching up together might do it easily, but more interactive matchups need more than that.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
2k in 2 hours, depending on army, is quite speedy. Some builds matching up together might do it easily, but more interactive matchups need more than that.
God, exactly this.
Saying someone takes 2 hours for 6 turns is playing slow is insane. 5 turns in 2 hours is very, very fast. And, relative to 7th edition, this game is FAST. I just don't know how you can have credibility saying that the tournament scene must be able to complete games faster than 2 hours and there is no middle ground, else you are a slow player and ruin the gaming experience. I mean seriously, this is crazy talk.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Now your suggesting he move onto another game because he doesn't enjoy playing with people that take forever to play?
We have all had games that go way longer than needed because our opponent plays like a sloth.
At least now in a tournament, we can hold those slow players much more accountable.
Two hours for 6 turns isn't slow. That is the definition of fast gameplay.
Reemule wrote: When I play a 2K game, and it takes more than 2 hours, I don't feel Fun, and Competition, I feel like i'm bored and angry that the other guy is dithering.
Yikes, this is probably not the game for you man. A game with true alternating activation would be more up your alley perhaps. You must have absolutely hated 7th edition and prior with a passion. They played much, much slower. The game is light speed compared to what it was.
Why do you assume that its not for me? I don't assume your long social games, with slow play and lots of kitbising is the only way to play... Why do causal types feel they should be the only way to play?
I assume it's not for you because I play ITC tournaments and am capable of understanding that in a take-all-comers scenario with the game in its current state that expecting 6 turns in 2 hours is ludicrous unless you play a very small elite army and also face very small elite armies. And it's not just the expectation of fast play, it's the fact that you admitted you get angry when your games take 2+ hours. If you find yourself getting angry playing this game it probably isn't for you. I hope that would be self evident but maybe it's not. I personally choose to avoid things that upset me.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/07/19 23:03:28
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
20000+ points
