Chess clocks in tournaments

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • For me that's part of the point though, I don't like when players make a mistake or forget to do something and ask "oh can I do this, I forgot". I rarely do it if at all just out of sheer pride I guess. Part of the game should be that when you make a decision it's final, with no "undo" buttons. And I think a chess clock is one way of forcing that through
  • I play a lot with clock and only had one game not finish on time since I have started. With my VC I had more practice and easily played my 6 turns and deployment below 45 minutes. With my newly started OK I'm somewhat slower and need around hour to hour and 15 min to finish.

    In general with clock you actually learn to distinguish important decisions from not important ones - sure you can take 15 minutes to place your 5 fast cav to chaff enemy with perfect overrun angle and all 5 of them shooting their views without cover on something or you can spend 30 seconds on that to have them chaff and have decent overrun angle. In the latter case however you have the time for those important decisions because you haven't wasted it before. Same goes for rolling dice or calculating probabilities - in limited time you have to know what is worth spending time on and what is not.

    Also if you come to the tournament and routinely are using more than half of the allotted time you are cheating - whether intentionally or not but you are. Playing 1 hour per side battle is completely different from playing 3 hours per side just like blitz chess are different from 60 min per side. If you are playing too slow both you and your opponent are playing different games despite being at the same table.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HE, VC, OK and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • Casp wrote:

    Well for sure, some army take more time to play.
    If you want to play well with EoS and make no mistake of interaction range, you need to take more time than many other army for example.
    To note, I’m coming to this conversation from an EoS perspective. I’m willing to have a harder time playing the game than an Ogres or Warriors player to ensure that I am fairly distributing gameplay and respecting my opponents’ time.

    I agree that a hard stop/loss condition isn’t ideal, but a scaling penalty (e.g. 1 tournament point per 5 minute overrun of a players 90 minute clock) would allow someone to close out a game if it’s efficient (spend a few more minutes to finish a combat to break a 2k point Death Star) to do so. It’d also eliminate any incentive to stall out hours of gameplay if someone gets ahead on turn 3, because any point advantage will vanish the slower you play.
  • Adam wrote:

    Also if you come to the tournament and routinely are using more than half of the allotted time you are cheating - whether intentionally or not but you are. Playing 1 hour per side battle is completely different from playing 3 hours per side just like blitz chess are different from 60 min per side. If you are playing too slow both you and your opponent are playing different games despite being at the same table.
    It's always good to discover that i was a cheather all along :D
    Seriously though with that attitude how do you attract new players ? Train them in a basement for years because they are not allowed on tourneys ?
  • (not commenting in staff role)

    Haha, 2021 really is going for 100% re-boots of old discussions :)


    If one wants chess clocks in tournaments, the solution is simple: speak to your local TOs, or run your own events with chess clocks.
    Your local scene will either like the idea or not, and which one it is will quickly be obvious, and may well be different from area to area.

    The project does not legislate to TOs how to run their events, whether that is round times, painting scores, prizes, game sizes, number of attendees or anything else. That is for TOs to decide.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Time is a resource. If one player gets 2 hours and 58 minutes of a 3 hour round to precisely execute every component of their game plan and another player gets two minutes to roll their rallies, random movers, and draw their flux card (and perform no other game actions), the two players are not being given equal opportunity to win the game.

    This is an extreme and absurd example, but a 2 hour to 1 hour split, or worse, is also unfair. One player is hogging the allotted time and reducing their opponents ability to execute their game plan.

    The lack of guardrails against this, plus the statements actively promoting slow play as a competitive strategy, strongly suggest that the current system is not sufficient.

    New players already have to accept a bunch of absurd things when adopting the game (“No, no you can’t move your monster in a straight line to contact my unit here. There’s an obstacle blocking alignment with the facing you’re in. The power of geometry compels you!”) Adoption of chess clocks is just another expectation to set.
  • Chack wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    Also if you come to the tournament and routinely are using more than half of the allotted time you are cheating - whether intentionally or not but you are. Playing 1 hour per side battle is completely different from playing 3 hours per side just like blitz chess are different from 60 min per side. If you are playing too slow both you and your opponent are playing different games despite being at the same table.
    It's always good to discover that i was a cheather all along :D Seriously though with that attitude how do you attract new players ? Train them in a basement for years because they are not allowed on tourneys ?
    well I believe it is better for new players than to go for a game which lasts 8 hours because their opponent measures everything, computes every probability and re-does every move couple of times to find perfect optimal move.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HE, VC, OK and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • I’m glad to see people throwing their opinions out there!

    I wanted to elaborate on a couple of things I’ve read so far:

    Slow play (stalling) is part of the game - by definition it is considered foul play and is disallowed at tournaments. It is not a valid argument against clocks.

    How do clocks work when I wait for my opponent to roll dice or react to a charge for instance? - It’s up to you to press your time on the clock while waiting for an opponent to make a decision. Once he has rolled his dice and moved models as required, he presses the clock again. The whole thing takes just milliseconds. Search for speed chess over the table and see how the players do it, but mind you they often have only seconds on the clock!

    What happens when we are looking up rules or waiting for a ruling? - this is when you pause the clock for both players. The same could be applied if someone needs to use a bathroom, lunch break or similar.



    On a more personal note: I believe there are different cultures when it comes to the pacing of the games, but the real problem is that when the game doesn’t incentivize the players to not spend all the time they can, it’s actually a big problem.





    'Ammertime member :thumbup: - Podcast like a MoFo!
  • StoffenDK wrote:

    If you run out of time, you lose the game?
    Id say that’s a solid incentive.
    I think this isn't oke, because if you play a 3h round and both get 1,5h games are going to be way to often decided by tbe clock. I think penalty points should be awarded instead, else someome can just bring a list that forces my opponent to make every turn many difficult choices to draw time and lure them that their times runs out and claim 20-0 rather than outplaying them. You don't want that, players shouldn't win by beating the system, but by winning the game.

    My suggestion would be that per match that runs oit of time, you get X penalty points or X penalty points for every 5 minutes you go over. (0-5 minutes=X penalty points, 5-10= 2X penalty points, etc)
    :SA:
  • marcema wrote:

    StoffenDK wrote:

    If you run out of time, you lose the game?
    Id say that’s a solid incentive.
    I think this isn't oke, because if you play a 3h round and both get 1,5h games are going to be way to often decided by tbe clock. I think penalty points should be awarded instead, else someome can just bring a list that forces my opponent to make every turn many difficult choices to draw time and lure them that their times runs out and claim 20-0 rather than outplaying them. You don't want that, players shouldn't win by beating the system, but by winning the game.
    My suggestion would be that per match that runs oit of time, you get X penalty points or X penalty points for every 5 minutes you go over. (0-5 minutes=X penalty points, 5-10= 2X penalty points, etc)
    I understood his comment as you lose as a result of not being decisive and therefore wasting time but I think penalties are also a good idea.

    However a big issue for me is really is how long a game could take, I'm fairly turned off by games lasting too long, and often I decide whether or not I want to get a game in based on how long I'll be away. Right now I've been favoring skirmish games because an hour feels just right, and leaves me excited enough to get another game. I'm far more excited at the thought of playing 2-3 games in 4 hours than 1 game in 3 hours.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    I understood his comment as you lose as a result of not being decisive and therefore wasting time but I think penalties are also a good idea.
    However a big issue for me is really is how long a game could take, I'm fairly turned off by games lasting too long, and often I decide whether or not I want to get a game in based on how long I'll be away. Right now I've been favoring skirmish games because an hour feels just right, and leaves me excited enough to get another game. I'm far more excited at the thought of playing 2-3 games in 4 hours than 1 game in 3 hours.
    The reason why i think penalty points is the best way to go, is because it prevents situations where someone runs a few minute short but would win the game 20-0. So instead of winning 20 points, he would gain 20-X points, though the opponent isn't benefiting of the opponent slowplaying when the result isn't in favor of that person. It would be unfair if a person would get assigned 20-0 based on a technicality of a few minutes where the player else would have lost 0-20.

    Thesr are extremes, but you get the point :)
    :SA:
  • I literally mean that you lose 20-0 if you run out.
    the solution is very simple: play fast. Don’t overthink anything that isn’t decisive.

    In the one tournament we ran, everyone finished with around 10-20min on the clock. Sure people made mistakes during the game, but so did their opponents. Out of 60 games played, not one game ended with a time-out.

    Now mind you, your combined time is still that of a full round. You don’t have to switch off your brain while your opponent plays.
    'Ammertime member :thumbup: - Podcast like a MoFo!
  • I also had a realization regarding the argument of Clocks are unfair vs horde armies.

    How do we classify Horde armies in T9A? MSU? 60+ models in a block?

    At the end of the day i think we should start thinking about the average number of blocks a person moves in T9A which from what i see based on battle reports is around 6-10+ blocks not counting single models like giants/monsters and warmachines. I can see the side of the argument if you talk about individual models like orks in 40k but T9A is mostly using movement trays, right now i cant really see how clocks are disadvantageous for horde armies because the way i look at it, yes your horde army may have 200 models but you're really only moving 10-15 individual blocks/units.

    Community Engagement

    Check out my youtube channel for battle reports youtube.com/channel/UCz_nwnrTM72OoSzha6XcGqA
  • The argument that some armies require more time to play is something that I don’t subscribe to, I mean, should a player have more time because he didn’t bring movement trays for his army?

    What I do subscribe to, is that if the available time is too strict, then it will favor more death-star like play - which IMO isn’t a positive. So there’s a balance there.
    'Ammertime member :thumbup: - Podcast like a MoFo!
  • Im unsure

    A big part of the game for me is the bantering, and chess clocks suck some of the social stuff out of the game. Also I'm unsure whose time is used in case of Rules Queries and such.

    But on the other hand if games gets played to the finish thats great. And it might also encourage players to design armies that play a bit more smoothly. Certain armies such as gunlines (ages to deploy and and ages in movement phase adjusting angles) or single-model spam (The sheer decomposition factor of playing against say.. a Snoozeheart list where the 360' movement options of multiple models needs going over....)