Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVI: If it Ain't Broke, Nerf It

[Brookshw]

I'm assuming it was to save points, cuz the Saw is better on average for barely more points.

True. I also noted a lot of shooty stuff so might have been to ensure a ranged option a'la kustom sboota (and if you're not taking 2 saws, are you really taking saws?)

[Meatgrinder]

Spoiler: Ynnari Soup

Show

Asuryani, Battalion
(W) The Yncarne; Legendary Fighter
Eldrad Ulthran
Maugan Ra

Guardian Defenders (x20); Shuriken Cannons (x2) <Ulthwé>
Rangers (x8) <Alaitoc>
Rangers (x8) <Alaitoc>

Shining Spears (x7); Exarch; Star Lance <Biel Tan>

Cult of the Cursed Blade, Battalion
Succubus; Shardnet & Impaler
Succubus; Shardnet & Impaler

Wyches (x15); Shardnets & Impalers (x3)
Wyches (x14); Shardnets & Impalers (x3)
Wyches (x5); Shardnets & Impalers (x3)

Harlequins, Vanguard
Yvraine

Solitaire <Midnight Sorrow>
Death Jester <Dreaming Shadow>
Death Jester <Dreaming Shadow>

It may be Ynnari. But I like this list a lot anyway.

I've always kinda wanted to play a wych cult army like this. What are the ideas behind this list? Like, what makes it good?

[9mm]

Anybody have any experience with Spellcrow's conversion bits?

[Cheesegear]

I've always kinda wanted to play a wych cult army like this. What are the ideas behind this list? Like, what makes it good?

That's Nayden's list. I'm pretty sure. He always makes nice lists.

For all intents and purposes, The Yncarne is a Daemon Prince. 'Nuff said. I also believe (?) that The Yncarne's specific rule beats the 'No Reserves on Turn 1' rule. I could be wrong on that one. But I don't think so.
Eldrad is one of the best Psykers in the game. One of the best things about Doom is that you just get it, regardless of Faction. So yeah. Doom.
Maugan Ra is just good. It's weird not seeing Ynnari Dark Reapers, especially if Maugan Ra is in the list. But it's not my list, and results are results. But, point is, Maugan Ra just does Mortal Wounds if he slays a model. Since he can shoot twice, he should be doing 2D3 Mortal Wounds per turn. Or he has 8 shots. Either way, he's good.

Ulthwé Guardians are pretty good. They don't get their Attribute. But Black Guardians is still really good, and it's also a 20-model unit in the ITC with the potential for a 4+ Invulnerable save.
Rangers just do the thing.

Shining Spears used to be <Saim-Hann>, but turns out you can just do Word of the Phoenix for the same thing, and the Biel-Tan Stratagem is exactly the same as the Saim-Hann one, except better. This is important now (not at LVO), because GSCs are about to anti-meta all over the place, which means that units that rely on Advancing on Turn 1 to get the Charge, are about to get hard-shafted out of the meta. What you need to be able to do against GSCs is move again after the Movement phase (e.g; Quicken, Warptime, Soulburst, etc.). Otherwise you can't get within 9" of them during your Movement phase, so those models that auto-advance 6" for a 20" Move on Turn 1 just...Suck it, nerds.
It's one way to drop Gallants out of the meta, I suppose. But that's reliant on everyone making the switch to <Tyranids>, and I don't really think that that will happen.

Cult of the Cursed Blade is important 'cause those huge Wych units will only ever lose one model to Morale. Also...S4 Aeldari. S4, T3 is the 8th Ed. meta, or something. Sisters of Battle do it, too. Most likely these units are Webway Portal bait. It'd be very difficult to get them across the board any other way. The Visarch's not in their Detachment, so they're not Ynnari, so they can't be Phoenix'd. Shardnets are just good 'cause it means you're more likely to get locked in combat, so your opponent can't just Fall Back and shoot your units.
The other explanation is that they're huge units that don't (really) take Morale in his own DZ. Welcome to the ITC.

Yvraine is one of the better Psykers in the game.
The three Characters are there for 'Choose How You Win' Points. Since the Solitaire is Ynnari now (as opposed to having a Shadowseer in the Detachment for Twilight Pathway, also, without a Shadowseer, you can't Heroes' Path, either.), he can be Phoenix'd to **** up nerds so that The Yncarne can come down on Turn 1. Torments of the Fiery Pit time.

Solitaire and/or Shining Spears Charge on Turn 1. In the coming meta, the list might include a Warlock, for Quicken. Because no matter what the meta does, Aeldari armies will find a way around it, because Aeldari are the best and can do anything and everything (honestly, we're all just lucky that Wraithknights aren't ~350 Points like a Gallant is [and don't pretend Craftworld players don't cry about that]).
If a unit dies, The Yncarne comes down...Or doesn't. Maybe he waits 'til the opponents turn 'cause the Solitaire and/or Spears consolidated into another unit to Fight in their opponent's turn. If one of them dies, the other Soulbursts...You know the drill.

Turn 2, with Craftworlds, Drukhari and Harlequins all in the same army...You have three different ways for Reinforcements for whatever.

Your Death Jesters and Rangers play to the meta, and pop Guard Commanders for free KPs.

The Wyches don't really do much. Either they hang out with the Spears/Solitaire so that units can't Fall Back from them. Or, they hang out on Objectives. They're part of a whole. Not the army itself.

That's why 'Soup' actually works. If you took anything out of it, it would fall apart. Everything, together, is good...Or none of it is.

[Brookshw]

.
It's one way to drop Gallants out of the meta, I suppose.

Speaking of GSC and Gallants, one poster on the Tyranid Hive board pointed out a fun little psychic combo that made me rethink my position on GSC powers

1. take a Patriarch and give him the the "Mental Onslaught" power (6+, 18" range, caster and target roll 1d6 + Ld, caster wins = 1MW, roll again until target dead or target ties/wins the roll)
2. give him the the WL trait "Inspiring Leader" for +1 Ld
3. position a Clamavus within 6" for another +1 Ld, making your minimum roll on Mental Onslaught a 13
4. take a BB Astropath and give him the "Terrifying Visions" power (7+, 18" range, target gets -2 Ld)
5. congratulations, if both powers got cast successfully, you now deal unlimited damage to Ld8 targets, and insane amounts of damage to Ld9 targets (opponent can only beat you if you roll a 1 and he rolls a 6 on the same roll, so reroll your first 1 to even deny him the opportunity for a 6 and you should be good to go)

Point cost of the "I don't want to see that unit anymore" package is 206 (125 + 55 + 26). FAQ for this is going to be interesting, rofl.

Read more: http://thetyranidhive.proboards.com/...#ixzz5fHEp1iJ7

Another poster pointed out you can stack in The Horror and the Jorum relic for another -1ld each.

Seems like a good way to give a Gallant a bad day.

[Meatgrinder]

That's Nayden's list. I'm pretty sure. He always makes nice lists.

For all intents and purposes, The Yncarne is a Daemon Prince. 'Nuff said. I also believe (?) that The Yncarne's specific rule beats the 'No Reserves on Turn 1' rule. I could be wrong on that one. But I don't think so.
Eldrad is one of the best Psykers in the game. One of the best things about Doom is that you just get it, regardless of Faction. So yeah. Doom.
Maugan Ra is just good. It's weird not seeing Ynnari Dark Reapers, especially if Maugan Ra is in the list. But it's not my list, and results are results. But, point is, Maugan Ra just does Mortal Wounds if he slays a model. Since he can shoot twice, he should be doing 2D3 Mortal Wounds per turn. Or he has 8 shots. Either way, he's good.

Ulthwé Guardians are pretty good. They don't get their Attribute. But Black Guardians is still really good, and it's also a 20-model unit in the ITC with the potential for a 4+ Invulnerable save.
Rangers just do the thing.

Shining Spears used to be <Saim-Hann>, but turns out you can just do Word of the Phoenix for the same thing, and the Biel-Tan Stratagem is exactly the same as the Saim-Hann one, except better. This is important now (not at LVO), because GSCs are about to anti-meta all over the place, which means that units that rely on Advancing on Turn 1 to get the Charge, are about to get hard-shafted out of the meta. What you need to be able to do against GSCs is move again after the Movement phase (e.g; Quicken, Warptime, Soulburst, etc.). Otherwise you can't get within 9" of them during your Movement phase, so those models that auto-advance 6" for a 20" Move on Turn 1 just...Suck it, nerds.
It's one way to drop Gallants out of the meta, I suppose. But that's reliant on everyone making the switch to <Tyranids>, and I don't really think that that will happen.

Cult of the Cursed Blade is important 'cause those huge Wych units will only ever lose one model to Morale. Also...S4 Aeldari. S4, T3 is the 8th Ed. meta, or something. Sisters of Battle do it, too. Most likely these units are Webway Portal bait. It'd be very difficult to get them across the board any other way. The Visarch's not in their Detachment, so they're not Ynnari, so they can't be Phoenix'd. Shardnets are just good 'cause it means you're more likely to get locked in combat, so your opponent can't just Fall Back and shoot your units.
The other explanation is that they're huge units that don't (really) take Morale in his own DZ. Welcome to the ITC.

Yvraine is one of the better Psykers in the game.
The three Characters are there for 'Choose How You Win' Points. Since the Solitaire is Ynnari now (as opposed to having a Shadowseer in the Detachment for Twilight Pathway, also, without a Shadowseer, you can't Heroes' Path, either.), he can be Phoenix'd to **** up nerds so that The Yncarne can come down on Turn 1. Torments of the Fiery Pit time.

Solitaire and/or Shining Spears Charge on Turn 1. In the coming meta, the list might include a Warlock, for Quicken. Because no matter what the meta does, Aeldari armies will find a way around it, because Aeldari are the best and can do anything and everything (honestly, we're all just lucky that Wraithknights aren't ~350 Points like a Gallant is [and don't pretend Craftworld players don't cry about that]).
If a unit dies, The Yncarne comes down...Or doesn't. Maybe he waits 'til the opponents turn 'cause the Solitaire and/or Spears consolidated into another unit to Fight in their opponent's turn. If one of them dies, the other Soulbursts...You know the drill.

Turn 2, with Craftworlds, Drukhari and Harlequins all in the same army...You have three different ways for Reinforcements for whatever.

Your Death Jesters and Rangers play to the meta, and pop Guard Commanders for free KPs.

The Wyches don't really do much. Either they hang out with the Spears/Solitaire so that units can't Fall Back from them. Or, they hang out on Objectives. They're part of a whole. Not the army itself.

That's why 'Soup' actually works. If you took anything out of it, it would fall apart. Everything, together, is good...Or none of it is.

...Jeez, that's nasty.
Any idea for now to build that on a budget?

[Cheesegear]

Seems like a good way to give a Gallant a bad day.

Gallants already have a bad day because Ambush Tokens are on the board.
If you're running Gallants against GSC - which will be the new hotness - then you've already thrown 350 Points down the drain because it wont do anything anyway.
Another option is that Blood Angel Detachments get replaced by Assassin Detachments (getting buffed in March) and Culexuses just come back.

Any idea for now to build that on a budget?

Try and find secondary markets? Except that since those are good units, nobody will be selling them.
Find a local seller that does 20% off GW products?

Your best best is Start Collecting! boxes for the Drukhari bit. But, given the number of models in it, I'm pretty sure it's one of the boxes that went up just last week, so it's no longer the value it used to be... But I can't check 'cause the webstore is down.

[LansXero]

Sorry to derail the thread, but how does everyone feel about using Chess clocks?

40k people here all got used to it, and its a soft-counter to hordes and a hard-counter to slowplaying. But we are considering an AoS event and everyone flipped about it,

So, thoughts?

[Cheesegear]

Sorry to derail the thread, but how does everyone feel about using Chess clocks?

I'm 100% for it.
It shuts down slow-playing.
It discourages - but doesn't eliminate - hordes. And even then, it often forces some units to skip actions, like Shooting.

The only people who should feel worried about chess clocks are people who feel 'rushed'.
Except the only reason you'd feel rushed is if you're a bad player who hasn't practiced and doesn't know your order of operations in any given phase or what to do against certain targets.

Chess Clocks were introduced at the professional level because the legitimately good players were being hamstrung by bads and jerks.
Chess Clocks shouldn't be necessary because people shouldn't slow play for any reason - purposefully or by accident. As a player, if my TO introduces Chess Clocks to a tournament, it's the players who are the problem - not the TO.

Good players play their turn in their heads while the opponent is having their turn. That way when their turn actually comes, they already know what they're doing.

[Avaris]

With chess clocks, how much time would you allocate to each player? Some lists will play much quicker than others, but there are limits on what is reasonable. For example, this w/e I played against someone who had at least 100 guard in a 1250 point list. He wasn’t moving, but the number of orders he had to give out, plus firing of mortars and other heavy weapons, meant his turns took maybe 40 minutes, then mine took 10. It was frustrating!

On a seperate note, a thing I’m curious on. Taking into account the current edition’s design intent of being as simple as possible a base game, which one rule would you change or introduce into the system? For my part, it’d probably be either an adjustment or clarification to line of sight rules, which feel quite vague atm.

[Mystic Muse]

On a seperate note, a thing I’m curious on. Taking into account the current edition’s design intent of being as simple as possible a base game, which one rule would you change or introduce into the system? For my part, it’d probably be either an adjustment or clarification to line of sight rules, which feel quite vague atm.

Take away stacking -1s to hit with some vrry specific exceptions, or make it so hit rolls of 6 are always hits regardless of modifiers.

[bluntpencil]

Take away stacking -1s to hit with some vrry specific exceptions, or make it so hit rolls of 6 are always hits regardless of modifiers.

Another option would be that special effects (extra attacks, plasma overheats, mortal wounds, etc) only occur on natural rolls or 1 or 6.

[DaedalusMkV]

Sorry to derail the thread, but how does everyone feel about using Chess clocks?

40k people here all got used to it, and its a soft-counter to hordes and a hard-counter to slowplaying. But we are considering an AoS event and everyone flipped about it,

So, thoughts?

The first, biggest and most important problem with any clock system in a tournament: When do you stop the clock? If it's the middle of your turn and the opponent asks you to show them the page in your codex for a rule, do you stop the clock? If it's your shooting phase and your opponent spends ten or fifteen seconds every time you cause some Wounds to sort his dice into neat little piles before rolling saves, do you stop the clock? If you're fighting out a big messy combat and your opponent takes five minutes deciding how to allocate his melee attacks, do you stop the clock? If you're up against someone who gets to move or attack during your turn (oh, hello there Ynnari and Custodes), does the clock keep ticking while they're taking their moves? In chess, there is a tacit understanding that both players have an absolute grasp of all the rules (not hard, it's only six types of piece and less than twenty ancillary rules to keep track of) and during your turn the opponent has absolutely nothing to do. Chess can easily be played in complete silence, without either player ever seeing or interacting with each other in any way. Something like 40k does not work that way. Your opponent can't leave the room and then come back at the end of your turn, he has decisions to make and dice to roll and probably you'll both do a bit of back-and-forth about some rule or another a couple of times throughout a game, because expecting everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every rule for all 20-odd books in the game is simply not realistic.

The problem with a clock system is that it's at least as easy for an unsportsmanlike player to game as a traditional time limit, especially if the bad egg is up against someone who already has a complicated or high-model-count list to run that is likely to use most of their available time innately. Ask questions you already know the answer to, roll your saves a bit slower, say 'wait, hold up, do you mind measuring that again? I think that Advance might have been a bit far'. Before you know it, they no longer have time on the clock and miss moves or get rushed into making bad decisions.

As a soft-counter to hordes, it works fine in a sort of sledgehammer fashion, at least as long as all parties stay honest. As a response to slow-playing for advantage it's near useless. It just shifts when the unsportsmanlike player slows the game down. And the worst part is, any system you introduce to make intentional slow-play on the opponent's turn more difficult actively reduces the ability of players to deal with cheating. The best response to shady play is confrontation, checking their rules and double-checking movement. If that takes up your time instead of theirs? Congratulations, they're right back to being able to slow-play to their heart's content.

Honest players will only fail to finish a game on time if they are legitimately unable to. A chess clock will not help them do so. The only kind of dishonest player who will be hindered in the slightest are the ones so stupid you should have caught them a long time ago.

[bluntpencil]

The first, biggest and most important problem with any clock system in a tournament: When do you stop the clock? If it's the middle of your turn and the opponent asks you to show them the page in your codex for a rule, do you stop the clock? If it's your shooting phase and your opponent spends ten or fifteen seconds every time you cause some Wounds to sort his dice into neat little piles before rolling saves, do you stop the clock? If you're fighting out a big messy combat and your opponent takes five minutes deciding how to allocate his melee attacks, do you stop the clock? If you're up against someone who gets to move or attack during your turn (oh, hello there Ynnari and Custodes), does the clock keep ticking while they're taking their moves? In chess, there is a tacit understanding that both players have an absolute grasp of all the rules (not hard, it's only six types of piece and less than twenty ancillary rules to keep track of) and during your turn the opponent has absolutely nothing to do. Chess can easily be played in complete silence, without either player ever seeing or interacting with each other in any way. Something like 40k does not work that way. Your opponent can't leave the room and then come back at the end of your turn, he has decisions to make and dice to roll and probably you'll both do a bit of back-and-forth about some rule or another a couple of times throughout a game, because expecting everyone to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every rule for all 20-odd books in the game is simply not realistic.

The problem with a clock system is that it's at least as easy for an unsportsmanlike player to game as a traditional time limit, especially if the bad egg is up against someone who already has a complicated or high-model-count list to run that is likely to use most of their available time innately. Ask questions you already know the answer to, roll your saves a bit slower, say 'wait, hold up, do you mind measuring that again? I think that Advance might have been a bit far'. Before you know it, they no longer have time on the clock and miss moves or get rushed into making bad decisions.

As a soft-counter to hordes, it works fine in a sort of sledgehammer fashion, at least as long as all parties stay honest. As a response to slow-playing for advantage it's near useless. It just shifts when the unsportsmanlike player slows the game down. And the worst part is, any system you introduce to make intentional slow-play on the opponent's turn more difficult actively reduces the ability of players to deal with cheating. The best response to shady play is confrontation, checking their rules and double-checking movement. If that takes up your time instead of theirs? Congratulations, they're right back to being able to slow-play to their heart's content.

Honest players will only fail to finish a game on time if they are legitimately unable to. A chess clock will not help them do so. The only kind of dishonest player who will be hindered in the slightest are the ones so stupid you should have caught them a long time ago.

This is important. Because I used mixed save units (Deathwatch), it's very easy for me, even unintentionally, to slow play a horde player.

For example - a guard squad FRFSRF my squad, which has a single Terminator in it.

Lets say the squad takes 12 wounds, on account of getting unlucky. I roll 2 saves at a time, because a Terminator has two wounds, until he takes a wound. Then I roll one at a time, until he dies. Then I'm on 3+ instead of 2+. This slow plays immensely, on the other guy's turn.

I could, very possibly, make ten dice rolls, instead of just one big one.

[Cheesegear]

With chess clocks, how much time would you allocate to each player?

Exactly half the allocated time for the game. If your opponent has a large army with lots of rules, they will be forced to skip actions or lose time.

For my part, it’d probably be either an adjustment or clarification to line of sight rules, which feel quite vague atm.

What's vague? If your model can see any part of your opponent's model; Good to go.
It's literally the easiest Line of Sight rule that 40K has ever had.

If it's part of the model, it's the model.

Got 'em.

When do you stop the clock? If it's the middle of your turn and the opponent asks you to show them the page in your codex for a rule, do you stop the clock?

Yes.

If it's your shooting phase and your opponent spends ten or fifteen seconds every time you cause some Wounds to sort his dice into neat little piles before rolling saves, do you stop the clock?

Switch it to your opponent's time if it's becoming a problem.

If you're fighting out a big messy combat and your opponent takes five minutes deciding how to allocate his melee attacks, do you stop the clock?

Five minutes? Switch it to your opponent's time.

If you're up against someone who gets to move or attack during your turn (oh, hello there Ynnari and Custodes), does the clock keep ticking while they're taking their moves?

Switch it to your opponent's time.

Everything your opponent does is their time. Especially in your turn.
Most people don't bother punching the clock because good players don't slow-play for any reason. Not even when counting dice.

However, if my opponent is using my time belligerently you'd best believe I'm punching that clock every time they interrupt my turn. Which is Rule #1.

Ask questions you already know the answer to, roll your saves a bit slower, say 'wait, hold up, do you mind measuring that again? I think that Advance might have been a bit far'. Before you know it, they no longer have time on the clock and miss moves or get rushed into making bad decisions.

I'm not going to put up with that. I'm calling a TO, and a TO will watch our game for all I care. If there is a chess clock, I'm not going to be penalised for their bulls*. Again, this is a major problem that cheaters will always do. They can pretend for honest mistakes. A chess clock refuses to even let them pretend.

ITC Tournament Rules
1. Each player is responsible for their own time. It is a player’s right but not their obligation to make sure that their time is
being handled properly.

2. In the FIGHT PHASE, starting with the player whose turn it is and following the order of unit selection rules described in the
"Choose Unit to Fight With" section of the BRB, a player may always choose to decline rolling to determine the results of their
selected unit’s attacks. If the controlling player chooses to save their time in this way, their OPPONENT may decide to damage
the unit that declined their attacks so long as they have time remaining on their clock. The amount of damage can range from
leaving the unit that declined its attacks unharmed, up to removing all wounds remaining from the declining unit. The decision to
decline taking the attacks must be made before any attack rolls are made by the declining unit.

3. Any major rule dispute results in a paused time scenario. The time is to remain paused until a formal judge is called to the table
and resolves the dispute.

Their emphasis.

ITC Examples
1. You put 20 wounds on a unit containing models with different saving throws. Pass the clock to your opponent so he can make his saving throws in the order that he chooses.
2. Your opponent must make 3 leadership tests. Pass the clock to your opponent while he makes these tests and adjusts the units which fail.
3. You destroy a vehicle and your opponent has a large squad inside that he wants positioned just right. Pass the clock to him while he arranges his models.
4. You do 5 power fist wounds and 5 regular wounds to a unit. Pass the clock to your opponent while he decides what saves to take on which models.
These examples are limited but show the basic concept. You manage your own time and it is up to you to pass the clock. If you burn your own time, it is not your opponent's fault.

It's not that hard.
The emphasis is theirs, not mine.

Any question that starts with "What if my opponent wants to..." is almost always answered by "Punch the clock. It's your time, not theirs. Make it their time."

[Brookshw]

Sorry to derail the thread, but how does everyone feel about using Chess clocks?

40k people here all got used to it, and its a soft-counter to hordes and a hard-counter to slowplaying. But we are considering an AoS event and everyone flipped about it,

So, thoughts?

Mildly annoyed but begrudgingly accepting of it as an inelegant solution to a potential problem, while inadvertently, or intentionally, preventing certain armies from playing to their strengths. I believe a preferable solution would be (1) writing to GW regarding your opinions on horde style armies as is the primary recourse for any rules issue or suggestion with the game; (2) evaluating your game times to see if they're sufficient; and (3) TOs/judges being on hand to evaluate slow play*.

*If you don't have a reasonable number of bodies to moderate slow play issues then that's another matter.

[LansXero]

1. I have no personal issues with hordes. But they cause games to go longer, which ties into:
2. The store opens and closes at a certain time; cant make events go past that, and
3. We do try, but people tend to let themselves go and play slowly without intention of cheating. Hell, they even slowplay themselves into losing xD

[Requizen]

So different games, but along the same idea, some AoS events have started requiring movement trays for units of 20 models or greater. You will have to take them off the trays eventually for things like moving around terrain and piling in, but it definitely speeds up deployment and the first two movement phases or so. While the 3" Coherency in 40k is a different beast altogether from the 1" in AoS, it still might be worth considering, as there's a big difference between placing 60-man Ork units on the table one by one, and putting the whole thing down in a few trays. By the time you lose a couple to shooting and what not, even piling in isn't that big of an issue.

[Cheesegear]

Mildly annoyed but begrudgingly accepting of it as an inelegant solution to a potential problem, while inadvertently, or intentionally, preventing certain armies from playing to their strengths.

Honestly, this is the only problem with timed games in general. Chess clocks have nothing to do with it. There's a growing...Problem...In the tournament community - not just ITC - that your army has to only survive or perform for 4 turns...Anything after that is a bonus. Because fact is, games take a while to play. Especially with large blocks of Infantry ruling the meta. This has nothing to do with Chess Clocks, and everything to do with 'You literally only have 2 hours 20 to play a game.'

The final game of Cancon 2019, which was #8 vs. #1 which was ~150 Infantry vs. ~200 Infantry, went to the bottom of Turn 4 with neither player slow-playing (I don't recall, or, at least negligibly). Just 'cause neither player slow-played, doesn't mean that the game still didn't end early.

If you've got 3 hours to spare and don't mind swearing and Australian accents, here's the game. (For...Reasons, it's not hosted on Twitch )
Around the 2 hours 40 mark, time becomes a huge factor in their decisions. But you could also watch the opening to see how they deploy so fast.

However, if you're given 180 minutes (3 hours, which is being generous) to play a game, one player's turn takes 15 minutes per turn, and the other player takes 30 minutes per turn...The game will end at the bottom of Turn 4, with one player having twice as long to play their army. The problem is that the player who takes shorter turns, ultimately has less turns. Can we please play to Turn 5? Maybe Turn 6? Turn 7 if the TO is a masochist? Nope. The other player, whether intentionally or by accident or simply by virtue of playing a large and/or complicated army, stole his opponent's time - even if Chess Clocks aren't even involved. The game is over at 180 minutes. You're done.

It's simply not fair.

Without Chess Clocks in the format, the game vastly favours large and/or complicated armies, because they get to do more things (i.e; Take more time), effectively stealing it from their opponent. "You don't get to play your last turns because I ate all your time in the opening turns." It's a thing.
However, for practical reasons, tournament games must almost always be timed. Which will in fact, have an impact on the meta.

[Requizen]

Honestly, this is the only problem with timed games in general. Chess clocks have nothing to do with it. There's a growing...Problem...In the tournament community - not just ITC - that your army has to only survive or perform for 4 turns...Anything after that is a bonus. Because fact is, games take a while to play. Especially with large blocks of Infantry ruling the meta. This has nothing to do with Chess Clocks, and everything to do with 'You literally only have 2 hours 20 to play a game.'

The final game of Cancon 2019, which was #8 vs. #1 which was ~150 Infantry vs. ~200 Infantry, went to the bottom of Turn 4 with neither player slow-playing (I don't recall, or, at least negligibly). Just 'cause neither player slow-played, doesn't mean that the game still didn't end early.

Whether you slow-play or not, tournament games almost always must have time-limits otherwise an event simply wont work. It just wont.
However, if you're given 180 minutes (3 hours, which is being generous) to play a game, one player's turn takes 15 minutes per turn, and the other player takes 30 minutes per turn...The game will end at the bottom of Turn 4, with one player having twice as long to play their army. The problem is that the player who takes shorter turns, ultimately has less turns. Can we please play to Turn 5? Maybe Turn 6? Turn 7 if the TO is a masochist? Nope. The other player, whether intentionally or by accident or simply by virtue of playing a large and/or complicated army, stole his opponent's time - even if Chess Clocks aren't even involved. The game is over at 180 minutes. You're done.

It's simply not fair.

Without Chess Clocks in the format, the game vastly favours large and/or complicated armies, because they get to do more things (i.e; Take more time), effectively stealing it from their opponent. "You don't get to play your last turns because I ate all your time in the opening turns." It's a thing.
However, for practical reasons, tournament games must almost always be timed. Which will in fact, have an impact on the meta.

This is why I really wish events would consider lowering point costs.

Yes, it's a different meta. Yes, 1000-1500 point games shifts the power of certain armies and units. But man, 1000 point games go much faster and honestly you can get 4 full, complete, not to time games done a lot easier than you can 3 2000 point games.

I know people like their big armies and lists, and that 1000 points is a lot more limiting (and also has it's share of problems like having less points to bring Superheavy counters etc), but it really should at least be taken into consideration.

I like to play armies that can survive the first few turns and then push for points in Turn 4/5 to take the game back, in both Warhammer games. But too often I'll be planning for the sweep on Turn 5 and my opponent goes "Oh hey it's the top of 3, I don't think we'll get through 2 more rounds. Let's call it after this Battle Round". What? No! I didn't even get to play the game I wanted to, the game I planned for and played towards!

It's my biggest point of frustration in this hobby, to be honest. And I'm sure not everyone does it intentionally (and I'm Fing sure a good portion of them don't do it accidentally), but it ruins enjoyment. I'm ok losing because I got outplayed. I'm relatively fine losing because of dice. I'm not ok when you suddenly change the parameters of the game to benefit yourself and don't tell me until it's already over.

[LansXero]

Friendly 1-in-the-whole-afternoon games can go however long they wish, it doesnt matter. Tournaments however need to start and finish at a set time, and as Cheesegear mentions playing less of each match than your oponent because he happens to have analysis paralisis or just a ton of models is not conducive to fair play.

As for the reduced point sizes, thats one of the factors I think for the popularity of doubles format. Sure, its more overall, but handled by 2 people and the point limit makes certain factions more viable (like Necrons)

[Brookshw]

1. I have no personal issues with hordes. But they cause games to go longer, which ties into:
2. The store opens and closes at a certain time; cant make events go past that, and
3. We do try, but people tend to let themselves go and play slowly without intention of cheating. Hell, they even slowplay themselves into losing xD

1) Oh, I'm not suggesting you personally do, but that the format does. It's simply a matter of how certain armies/faction function and a matter of game design and balance.
2) Sure, but factors such as the number of rounds in a tournament are within control and a change in that area could free up time to allow for longer games if necessary. Requizen's suggestion below regarding lowering point values holds some merit*
3) So why do you think they do that ? Player knowledge and experience? How many players are showing up to your store anyway? Is an open invitation tourney an issue because it lumps different style/ability players into the same game? In regards to Cheese' later point about players receive unequal numbers of turns, makes me wonder if maybe a default point award for a player who doesn't get to complete their turn for the round, or to erase all players points for a round in which both players were unable to complete a turn (I dislike the latter idea because it incentivizes slow play if your opponent did really well in the last round and you can wipe that out).

Seems like the issue really boils down to "how do we enable equal scoring opportunity for varied factions/armies (or even players of different skill levels)". What solutions aside from restricted time could there be for that?

*game balance at different point level notwithstanding, that's a whole other thing.

It's simply not fair.

Well, neither is preventing someone a reasonable format to bring their "A"-game for whatever faction they play. Hell, in many sports both teams aren't guaranteed the same amount of ball time and that's considered fair. 40K doesn't have some default rule that specifies each player gets the same amount of time, just an estimated game length overall.

[Gauntlet]

Well, neither is preventing someone a reasonable format to bring their "A"-game for whatever faction they play. Hell, in many sports both teams aren't guaranteed the same amount of ball time and that's considered fair. 40K doesn't have some default rule that specifies each player gets the same amount of time, just an estimated game length overall.

Getting more ball time than the opponent in sports generally involves being good at the game in some manner, by keeping the ball yourself / tackling it from the opponent / intercepting it / etc. Getting to spend more clock time than the opponent in a game of 40k instead requires you to.. bring a bigger army and play slowly? That doesn't seem very skilful.

[Requizen]

Well, neither is preventing someone a reasonable format to bring their "A"-game for whatever faction they play. Hell, in many sports both teams aren't guaranteed the same amount of ball time and that's considered fair. 40K doesn't have some default rule that specifies each player gets the same amount of time, just an estimated game length overall.

That's not even close to a good argument. When it's the other person's ball time in any physical game with a time limit (Football, American Football, Basketball, etc), the other team is still interacting and trying to get the ball back into their possession.

When it's the other player's turn in Warhammer, you just watch and occasionally make a save or deny roll. Maybe a disruption Stratagem here or there, in certain cases. But there's little to no interaction, no way to take the "initiative" back by outplaying or enacting some cunning. If they decide that their turn 1 needs to be an hour long for the sake of it, they can do that and there's nothing you can do to stop it other than complain to them and/or the TO.

Obviously some armies just require more time - they have more interactions/decisions, or more models to move, or more dice to roll. But that doesn't mean the other player should be forced to sit and watch and get less time than normal just to accommodate someone.

[Brookshw]

Getting more ball time than the opponent in sports generally involves being good at the game in some manner, by keeping the ball yourself / tackling it from the opponent / intercepting it / etc. Getting to spend more clock time than the opponent in a game of 40k instead requires you to.. bring a bigger army and play slowly? That doesn't seem very skilful.

Exactly, that was my point to LansXero, the question is of equal opportunity to score. Time isn't an essential factor in that. Put the notion of time aside and look at what else might do.

Heck, just be honest with tournament goers and say you only want armies under a certain size or to just not bring certain armies that are horde dependent. Don't bother fiddling around with nerfs disguised as clocks. Cheater's still gonna cheat though.

But time? Time isn't actually the problem.

Obviously some armies just require more time - they have more interactions/decisions, or more models to move, or more dice to roll. But that doesn't mean the other player should be forced to sit and watch and get less time than normal just to accommodate someone.

Cant' have the cake and eat it too, either don't let them in or reasonably accommodate them. People having to skip actions they should have been able to take just because the game is scheduled short is still silly.

[LansXero]

Players of different skill levels should, by definition, have the same chance of winning, otherwise what even is the point of skill? Is quick decision-taking and planning ahead not something to be encouraged? Should people be allowed to eat into their oponent time by just being indecisive or not remembering their rules? There is more than just cheating to be affected by the implementation of personal time. Its important to announce it beforehand of course, but I think its the safest way to play it,

[Forum Explorer]

I support the smaller armies idea. I remember when tournament size was 1850, but people typically only played 1500 or even 1250 games outside of tournaments. Now it's 2000 points, all the time.

So let's dial it back to 1850. That's not a lot. It's a single tank, or unit for a lot of armies. Or about 30 cultists or equivalent for a horde.

[Brookshw]

but I think its the safest way to play it,

Well then there you go. You have your course of action.

[LansXero]

Well then there you go. You have your course of action.

But discussion helps because it lets me see what arguments people may bring against it and have an answer to it. Also IIRC there are other TOs in the thread, so that experience is also valuable.

[Requizen]

Exactly, that was my point to LansXero, the question is of equal opportunity to score. Time isn't an essential factor in that. Put the notion of time aside and look at what else might do.

Heck, just be honest with tournament goers and say you only want armies under a certain size or to just not bring certain armies that are horde dependent. Don't bother fiddling around with nerfs disguised as clocks. Cheater's still gonna cheat though.

But time? Time isn't actually the problem.



Cant' have the cake and eat it too, either don't let them in or reasonably accommodate them. People having to skip actions they should have been able to take just because the game is scheduled short is still silly.

Yes, time is very much the factor here. Events need to be run on time and in that time. People need to be able to schedule, to play games when they say they will and get back to family or just bed at a reasonable hour. If there was no time constraints, then it would be basically chaos. And since people are either maliciously or ignorantly taking advantage of that time constraint to deny their opponent not only the ability to have a similar amount of playtime, but also potentially the ability to win, time is very much of the essence.

I'm not advocating against complicated or horde armies, don't take it that way. I'm simply acknowledging that they take more time from a baseline perspective - which is why part of the skill of playing that army will necessarily be knowing how to play it quickly and within time limits.

You want to bring an Ork army that chucks 200 dice per turn? You better be able to do it quickly and efficiently. Have a system, groups of dice of specific colors that you know counts of, allowing you to quickly grab batches of dice in the correct amounts. I'm not watching you count dice for 30 minutes in one shooting phase.

If I have to sit there and watch my opponent decide which models belong to which units because they have 3 giant blobs of equal looking models, that's a failing on their part. Mark the bases, mark the shoulders or helmets or weapons. Use movement trays, or get used to shoving models quickly. I'm not watching my opponent measure out an exact space for 80 Termagants, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're bubble wrapping the way the player intends them to, even if they don't get the models in the perfect millimeter position.

One can bring a big, complex army to play at a timed tournament. But they have to be able to play it within the time limits of the event, without taking time away from the opponent in an unsportsmanlike way. Hence people constantly advocating for chess clocks: Here's your time, you know how much it is and it's equal for both players. I'll happily lose to you in that time frame, but managing that time and making your decisions and movements quickly is on you. If someone doesn't think they can play in those constraints with that army, they should not bring it to a tournament. Time and place for everything.

Should the time limits be longer? 3 hour rounds might not be that big of a difference, but the more you ask the harder it'll be for stores to accommodate, for players to schedule, and for people to not just get plain tired.