Chess Clocks in my Local Meta

[tychobi]

For me in tournaments chess clocks solve the easiest cheat in the game. Slow play even if unintentional is cheating if you are playing under a time limit. I have had people tell me to my face they were running out the clock to cost me my final turn to secure a win in a GT. Was not against the rules at the time. Feels bad. It will take some getting used to but it makes the game better. If all we played against were our buddies and no one cheated they would not be needed and are not appropriate for casual friendly gaming. But competition can get to people and sportsmanship is not the norm in my experience of tournament games in the USA. Canada does not seem to suffer the same attitudes. One day I may get across the pond to enjoy the gentle hospitality of the UK tournament scene

[Frater Cornelius]

Well, in Canada they'll apologize profusely, instead :D

 

I noticed the same in Germany, actually. Winning is the only goal and wasting time can and will be used to achieve a win. Very toxic and it caused me to slow down. Hungary is comparable to the UK. Very friendly and sportsmanlike even on the top tables. Last tournament was very fun and refreshing. Funnily enough, they don't have chess clocks at the club where I went in Berlin, where they would be sorely needed, but here we have plenty of those, but noone needs them :D

[Xisor]

In some respects, a chess clock is a sensible thing for tournaments. It I think for a specific breed of tournaments. In such cases, where it's a 'fierce test of skill', I even think that list-choice should be curtailed.

 

Not in the Matched Play, sense, but in terms of only bringing pre-defined lists.

 

Chess lists, if you will. You build your own army to the tournament's pre-set List(s), an you play as damn hard as you can.

 

I suppose, I'd be keen for a variety of styles of tournament, rather than homogeneity.

[tychobi]

In some respects, a chess clock is a sensible thing for tournaments. It I think for a specific breed of tournaments. In such cases, where it's a 'fierce test of skill', I even think that list-choice should be curtailed.

 

Not in the Matched Play, sense, but in terms of only bringing pre-defined lists.

 

Chess lists, if you will. You build your own army to the tournament's pre-set List(s), an you play as damn hard as you can.

 

I suppose, I'd be keen for a variety of styles of tournament, rather than homogeneity.

This is really interesting. Possibly set terrain maps might be in order as well? I feel that list building is one of my favorite parts of my warhammer habit but I really like the idea of upping the skill factor by smoothing out some of outside factors that can swing games. Its no fun to be rock or scissors if an army meets a true counter.

[Xisor]

 

In some respects, a chess clock is a sensible thing for tournaments. It I think for a specific breed of tournaments. In such cases, where it's a 'fierce test of skill', I even think that list-choice should be curtailed.

 

Not in the Matched Play, sense, but in terms of only bringing pre-defined lists.

 

Chess lists, if you will. You build your own army to the tournament's pre-set List(s), an you play as damn hard as you can.

 

I suppose, I'd be keen for a variety of styles of tournament, rather than homogeneity.

This is really interesting. Possibly set terrain maps might be in order as well? I feel that list building is one of my favorite parts of my warhammer habit but I really like the idea of upping the skill factor by smoothing out some of outside factors that can swing games. Its no fun to be rock or scissors if an army meets a true counter.

Absolutely. I love list building too - but it takes second guessing, the meta game, out of the game. And makes it more about the game, so to speak.

 

The old Epic Argameddon "Grand Tournament Scenario" is, for measuring skill, the style I usually favour. It's fairly close to some of the Eternal War missions (front line assault springs to mind), as it allows for a lot of ways to lose.

 

Having the high-intensity tournament be a loosely symmetrical test of skill may well work.

 

More, it would allow the tournament organisers (Games Workshop, pay attention!) to use "sub optimal" lists, or supposedly "duff" units.

 

It places things more into the realm of the player understanding the tools available, rather than net-listing for the best combos and sticking to that.

 

(Obviously that's not how all tournament players behave - there's plenty of very enlightened folk out there! - but it'd be a fool's move to not even have a look at the reiceved wisdom that's available!)

 

Wouldn't need to be perfectly symmetrical, but a range of forces with a range of units would make a lovely degree of sense; not purely optimising from the list's inception to a small (but unreliable due to evolving meta/new releases) set of winning combos.

 

Could be a lot of fun.

[MeatGrinder]

Part of playing the game is building a list. Building it to your playstyle and picking units that synergise well with each other. Picking units that counteract the meta. Yes, netlisting is bad, but netlisting is also dumb, and people who netlist dont tend to win tournaments, or even do well. They dont know the list well because they dont know the why of it.

 

Honestly the idea of a set-list tournament is interesting, but only for the novelty. There cant be a meta, and for it to work either every list must be exactly balanced, or everyone uses the exact same list, with identical terrain on both sides of the board. Then its just down to who plays better, makes least mistakes, and importantly, who rolls better.

[Xisor]

 

Honestly the idea of a set-list tournament is interesting, but only for the novelty. There cant be a meta, and for it to work either every list must be exactly balanced, or everyone uses the exact same list, with identical terrain on both sides of the board. Then its just down to who plays better, makes least mistakes, and importantly, who rolls better.

I'm not convinced on your first point, but having identical lists would resolve it.

 

That is: exact balance isn't required for it to work. To eliminate all possible factors, sure, but to eliminate the major concerns of lost building? I'm not convinced.

 

Some care (especially on GW's part) to balance specific lists against one another would perhaps do the trick. (E.g. each major faction or soup has a very specific tournament list, which are intended to be balanced.)

 

But the idea of a a symmetrical 'Chess list & table' is attractive too. And, of course, it would definitely have primarily novelty value.

 

But I still kinda like it. :D

[tychobi]

Chess has a meta. Not around list building but in plays. It would really be interesting to see how something like this would go. I have seen a few tournaments come down to OP list of the day mirror (or close to) matches. Same difference except in this scenario we all started with the OP list instead of the damn elves breaking the meta . . . Again.