Oshova - That really doesn't work. If a game is supposed to last six turns, should you have your vehicles parked on the objective and taking fire from turn four onwards just in case your opponent should use a load of time for his turns? The current shared time system leaves too much open to abuse. If an opponent is moving quickly to an objective then you can pick up the pace and get more time to kill his troops. If he's moving cautiously then you can stall and stop him getting there.

If you're playing a game of chess with a time limit would you expect your opponent to play slow so that you don't get to make as many moves as you want?

I am strongly in favour of playing any timed game with chess clocks as it splits the time evenly between players. If you want to play slow and use up all your time for 4 turns that's fine but Timmah can still get six turns in.

Oshova wrote:Yeah but Timmah instead you have to think about whether time is going to allow you to get those turns in, so just keep your eye on the time, and take the objectives when you need to, then you are in the time limit and on the objectives it at the end =]

There is still more too it than that. Just an example of why we need a set amount of turns.

For instance anyone playing a melee army is not going to start winning or doing decent until the later turns.
A horde army isn't going to start losing until the later rounds.
(I know, I have twice been screwed by slow ork players at ard boyz, going to like 3 turns both times. Good luck killing 150 orks in 3 rounds of shooting)


I think we should know what the average tournament time is for a round.
If its 2 hours, then I would say its "more" understandable that some people don't finish 6 turns.
However if its 2.5+ hours for a 2000 or less point tournament, then I honestly don't know how you wouldn't finish outside of intentional slow play, not knowing your army or not knowing the rules.

Frazzled wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:You come across as rather defensive for someone playing devil's advocate.

Golf's not a great comparison because no matter how slow other people are then you still get just as much time for your play.

What if you get told you've got to do the last half of the course twice as fast as usual thanks to someone else playing slow?

I'd say you just changed the rules of the tournament and the PGA is going to hear about it.

But, if that's what the rules where would you be cool with people playing slow?

Messing up other people's chances through laziness or poor preparation is appalling unsporting. If he's incapable then he needs to see about having suitable arrangement made (like starting him first but letting him slip down the shooting order through the day - I've arranged that for people in the past - or having him driven between stages).

You're impugning motive when there is none stated. Your follow on point is supportive of mine though as orgnaizer, you're adjusting the schedules properly.

I'm not suggesting motive at all. Being uprepared is un-sporting if it's going to disrupt someone else.

ETA2 - I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't work like that"? I've been at events where people have not gotten to shoot the last stage as someone has been disruptive and the range is only allowed to shoot during certain hours.

Someone has been disruptive, at a shoot? thats just wrong.

You've never had someone so slow that other people had to rush? Is it fair that they have to rush because someone else is overly slow?

Well see in a strategy game most people plan ahead in their turns. I don't usually try and claim objectives or push people off objectives til the last turn.
***Then respectfully, time is a factor that needs to be managed as well.


I have had plenty of games that I win with a massacre, but with those same games, if we only got 5 turns in I may have got a minor loss. Why? Because I plan ahead, I might not actually be losing turn 5, but that doesn't mean I am on objectives or ready to win.
****Again, time is a factor that needs to mbe managed as well. Or in the words of others on this board, you should play a list that insures your cvictory conditions earlier in the turn sequence.

I personally think thats why GW took out the variable game length in tournaments, so the strategy is there instead of, ok if the game ends now I win, if it goes another turn I lose. Come on dice roll.
***Wait it doesn't still do that? must depend on the tournament.

Timmah wrote:
I think we should know what the average tournament time is for a round.
If its 2 hours, then I would say its "more" understandable that some people don't finish 6 turns.
However if its 2.5+ hours for a 2000 or less point tournament, then I honestly don't know how you wouldn't finish outside of intentional slow play, not knowing your army or not knowing the rules.

The UK GTs are 2:15 for 2000pts.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:You come across as rather defensive for someone playing devil's advocate.

Golf's not a great comparison because no matter how slow other people are then you still get just as much time for your play.

What if you get told you've got to do the last half of the course twice as fast as usual thanks to someone else playing slow?

I'd say you just changed the rules of the tournament and the PGA is going to hear about it.

But, if that's what the rules where would you be cool with people playing slow?
***but its not.

Messing up other people's chances through laziness or poor preparation is appalling unsporting. If he's incapable then he needs to see about having suitable arrangement made (like starting him first but letting him slip down the shooting order through the day - I've arranged that for people in the past - or having him driven between stages).

You're impugning motive when there is none stated. Your follow on point is supportive of mine though as orgnaizer, you're adjusting the schedules properly.

I'm not suggesting motive at all. Being uprepared is un-sporting if it's going to disrupt someone else.
***Again you're impugning being unprepared. I literally said, what if they just walk slow?

ETA2 - I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't work like that"? I've been at events where people have not gotten to shoot the last stage as someone has been disruptive and the range is only allowed to shoot during certain hours.

Someone has been disruptive, at a shoot? thats just wrong.

You've never had someone so slow that other people had to rush? Is it fair that they have to rush because someone else is overly slow?

***nope, not in that context.
You said someoen was disruptive. that to me is a completely different kettle of fish.

But frazzled would you agree that certain armies benefit/get hurt by less than 6 turns?

What if I brought blood angels and everyone slow played so that we only got 3 turns in so that I only got potentially one round of assault?

What if I brough orcs and slow played and won every round because no one could kill off all my orcs in 3 turns of play?

The game is built around having 6 or 5+ turns (depending on tournament). Most competitive players build their list around knowing that fact.

If you cannot follow the tournament rules (finish a game in 2:15) why are you at the tournament? I don't violate other tournament rules. Why is time an ok one to ignore?

Timmah, currently there is not time rules except the full amount of time alloted.. until there is a 15 mins per turn per player rule, you are one making up a rule.. not the other way around.

Space Hulk had a timer, for the Marine player that is. That's the price you pay for being the good guys.


In days past of course, if an opponent was giving you grief in a game you simply smacked them around the head with one of those red whippy sticks.

But frazzled would you agree that certain armies benefit/get hurt by less than 6 turns?
***That could be the case. To use the logic of this thread then you shouldn’t bring these armies, after all their opponents want a competitive game and not an easy win.

What if I brought blood angels and everyone slow played so that we only got 3 turns in so that I only got potentially one round of assault?
****Then you lost three games and were an easy mark? To use the logic of this thread then you shouldn’t bring these armies, after all their opponents want a competitive game and not an easy win.

What if I brough orcs and slow played and won every round because no one could kill off all my orcs in 3 turns of play?
***Then you would win the tournament?

The game is built around having 6 or 5+ turns (depending on tournament). Most competitive players build their list around knowing that fact.
****Most competitive players build their list around lists that can adapt and win the game.

If you cannot follow the tournament rules (finish a game in 2:15) why are you at the tournament? I don't violate other tournament rules. Why is time an ok one to ignore?
***Again, please show me the tournament rule that says all games must have five turns, or what? Respectfully, they are not the ones ignoring the time, you are.


Since everyone seems to be making the argument that I’m the guy slow playing I should posit this. I can only remember ever making less than 4 turns in a tourney game, and that was against a Nid player who was himself the slow player because he kept asking the TO about his own rules (WTF?). I’ve played mech guard, armored company, Iron Warriors, marines, and eldar in tournaments. As long as both sides were able to complete their turn I didn’t care.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

two_heads_talking wrote:Timmah, currently there is not time rules except the full amount of time alloted.. until there is a 15 mins per turn per player rule, you are one making up a rule.. not the other way around.

What Ironman face said. I for one welcome our new Ironman overlords and look askance at those who oppose the might of Iron man...

The time limit for each game is 2.5 hours
A game consists of 6 turns.
The time limit for 6 turns is 2.5 hours.


I don't see how this is not considered to be a rule by you?
Just because a rule is constantly broken/ignored that does not mean its not a rule. (for example speed limits)


Btw, I don't think your a slow player frazzled. I am not trying to attack you about that. Sorry if you think I have.

Timmah if you read all my posts then you would know that all I've been saying has been about having 4+ turns . . . which is enough to win any game. I can't honestly remember the last time I got less than 4 turns in. Also I don't remember the last time I went to a tournament and there was a round by round time limit . . . but you know, making things up is fun =]

Time limit is set by the OT. Game turns are set by OT.
What really happens is set by Reality (TM).

Frazzled wrote:Time limit is set by the OT. Game turns are set by OT.
What really happens is set by Reality (TM).

Just because something, besides what the rules state, happens that does not mean you are not breaking a rule.

In reality I speed when I drive, even though the rules tell me not to. Does that mean I am not breaking a rule?

The notion by many is that you just play until time is called and you don't have to worry about finishing all your turns. But the fact is that the rules state you must finish a game in the time limit. So by not doing this both players (sadly) are breaking the rules even if its only one of their faults.

Again getting beat by orks consistantly because they both only got to turn three has obviously warped my opinion on this matter. Its especially funny because the 2nd ork player, I even asked if he was a fast player and if he thought we would finish 6 turns. He laughed at me and said of course. After his first 40 minute turn, I was pretty sure I was screwed.

But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play to game. Whereas speeding is breaking the law, a law that actually states you must not do this. Whereas the rule you're stating says you have this much time in which to try and do this . . . different things.

Oshova wrote:But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play to game. Whereas speeding is breaking the law, a law that actually states you must not do this. Whereas the rule you're stating says you have this much time in which to try and do this . . . different things.

What this guys says.

Oshova wrote:But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play a game.

Either way it can be looked at both ways.

Then by your own admission you would be fine if an ork player stalled in every game so that he won by going to 3 turns every game? Because they don't have to try and finish a game, they just need to play until the time limit.

Heck I could be so indecisive, maybe I would only get 1 turn in and win because my opponent didn't do much/enough on their first turn. Like stupidly positioning himself away from my shooting.

Timmah wrote:

Oshova wrote:But at every tourney I've played in it doesn't say you have to finish the game in that time, that is just the time you have in which to play a game.

Either way it can be looked at both ways.

Then by your own admission you would be fine if an ork player stalled in every game so that he won by going to 3 turns every game? Because they don't have to try and finish a game, they just need to play until the time limit.

Heck I could be so indecisive, maybe I would only get 1 turn in and win because my opponent didn't do much/enough on their first turn. Like stupidly positioning himself away from my shooting.

Only if it works, but I don't think you'll get many objectives in that fashion.

If my opponent takes his 1 turn wrong, I could probably claim 3 of 5.

or 1 of 2 and focus all of my fire power on 1 squad to beat him by 1 in victory points.

I can't imagine a single person in this thread (intuition speaking here) actually trying to slow play all their games with the intent to win on that basis alone.

If someone tries to do that, you are pretty much left with playing faster, scoring them badly, and/or talking to the TO about it in hopes of avoiding losses due to the TFG.

If you are not a TFG this is not directed at you. I avoid large tourneys for a lot of reasons, main point being I may have to deal with really slow players. Timmah has been making a valid point, although there is no rule stating that you must finish your game; the fact remains that the game WAS designed to take 5-6 WHOLE turns, without any regard to who is playing.

I still think that horde/swarm players can and should be able to play at a very reasonable pace, and if they REALLY just have that hard of a time finishing their games, why the heck are they at a tourney in the first place? I just do not understand how someone would be so very defensive about being asked to kick the speed up a notch, most will usually ask for this when there is a real need to.

Yes, with my Dark Eldar flying circus I could play my first turn and then stall to win, but if a player is obviously stalling then a TO can either tell them to speed up, or just give the other player a massacre. As it is against the rules to blatantly stall, which I see as getting less than 4 turns into 2-2.5 hours

But yes I agree the rules (as with all GW rules) are up for debate, and can be read in 1 million different ways.

Scott-S6 wrote:can you rountinely finish a round of golf quickly enough that you weren't caught up by the group following you?

Yeah, because that doesn't depends mostly on how well the starter manages the course...

In nearly all cases, the course clogs because the starter has placed too many players on the course, causing *all* of the holes to back up 2 or 3 deep. That is, when I've been caught, I've also caught the group(s) ahead, and been caught by the group(s) behind.

But there's also no shame in fast-moving group play through if they're rushing through the course.

But, and I think we're on the same page,
there's no requirement that the backed up players play faster unless the starter asks them to.

Oshova wrote:Yes, with my Dark Eldar flying circus I could play my first turn and then stall to win, but if a player is obviously stalling then a TO can either tell them to speed up, or just give the other player a massacre. As it is against the rules to blatantly stall, which I see as getting less than 4 turns into 2-2.5 hours

But yes I agree the rules (as with all GW rules) are up for debate, and can be read in 1 million different ways.

See and I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in. The TO expects you to play a full game in the time alloted. If they didn't they would add time or reduce the turns in a game.

My main pet peeve is inconsistency. If a round is over at 2:30, it should be over at 2:30. Let the other guy finish his turn so they've had an even number, but that's it. Any Yu-Gi-Oh! events I went to were run extremely well in terms of game time and would enforce a strict cut off, whereas every 40k event I've been to is a lot fuzzier on it. It seems some people at some tables just kinda keep going or the judge doesn't call it at time (waiting sometimes 15 to 20 minutes). Maybe that's just what I've seen or isn't everywhere, but I've yet to see one where it was enforced "properly."

Timmah wrote:

Oshova wrote:Yes, with my Dark Eldar flying circus I could play my first turn and then stall to win, but if a player is obviously stalling then a TO can either tell them to speed up, or just give the other player a massacre. As it is against the rules to blatantly stall, which I see as getting less than 4 turns into 2-2.5 hours

But yes I agree the rules (as with all GW rules) are up for debate, and can be read in 1 million different ways.

See and I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in. The TO expects you to play a full game in the time alloted. If they didn't they would add time or reduce the turns in a game.

How do you know? You're making an RAI argument, when the I part could be just no game over 6 turns.

Timmah wrote: I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in.

Nope, "stalling" would be playing at a slower pace than reasonable for an experienced player with the same the army in the same tactical position.

Timmah wrote: The TO expects you to play a full game in the time alloted. If they didn't they would add time or reduce the turns in a game.

Nope, because otherwise, the TO would remove time limits entirely and simply use a turn limit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nope, because otherwise, the TO would remove time limits entirely and simply use a turn limit.

I don't think you have any way of knowing that. Penalty Box: 2 minutes for blurting

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Timmah wrote: I would say stalling is getting less than 6 turns in.

Nope, "stalling" would be playing at a slower pace than reasonable for an experienced player with the same the army in the same tactical position.

Whats a reasonable pace?

Frazzle: of course this is all RAI, there is no hard fast ruling on the subject. The games need to be at least 4 turns to not be stalling is just the writers reasoning.

There is no hard and fast rules for what is stalling. All we know is that a game is 6 turns. A experienced player (in my opinion) should be able to take all 6 turns in a tournaments time limit.

I would hate to see the use of timed clocks to dictate the pace of the game. I am in favor of variable game length as it adds another dimension to tactics and strategy.

This thread started off in regards to players who intentionally play slow to increase their odds of winning. I think the best way to counter that is as follows:

First the best way to slow play that I have seen is when a player constantly argues about the rules and another person (for example, a TO) must be brought into the game to help move the game along. I know for a fact this is a common strategy for slow playing because I have seen certain players question the same rules repeatedly even after being told by the ultimate authority (for example, a TO) how to resolve the issue. Yes the person asking the same questions time and time again could be hoping to get over on their next opponent and unfortunately they don't seem to realize that everyone else will eventually pickup on this. If you find yourself in this situation I think you should keep the ultimate authority close by and hurriedly resolve such disputes. To me people that repeatedly ask the same questions game after game suffer from TFG syndrome. TOs should take it upon themselves to keep a close watch and help quickly settle these types of situations.

Another method is to penalize slow play by designing missions in a tournament setting such that the culprit cannot win by a large margin. Multiple objectives helps in this regard. If the slow playing player is trying to ensure that the game only makes it to the third turn and win by a margin of 1-2 killpoints then having to acheive multiple objectives will inherently hurt them.

The next tournament I'm going to attend does not have a rule that indicates that you must finish five turns, however, it does allocate three of ten possible sportsmanship points each round to the topic:

Did your opponent put forward a good faith effort to play at a timely pace and complete the game in the allotted time? Yes/No (3 points)

Just some extra info - tournament organizers are paying attention.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:This thread started off in regards to players who intentionally play slow to increase their odds of winning. I think the best way to counter that is as follows:

Actually NO. Go back and reread the OP. There are 4 categories that I divided "slow" players into, and while the intentional variety is the worst of the worst. The intentional slow player is only 1 of the 4.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:The next tournament I'm going to attend does not have a rule that indicates that you must finish five turns, however, it does allocate three of ten possible sportsmanship points each round to the topic:

Did your opponent put forward a good faith effort to play at a timely pace and complete the game in the allotted time? Yes/No (3 points)

Just some extra info - tournament organizers are paying attention.

While I like that the tourney organizers are paying attention, I'm kind of leary of player judged sportsmanship. Too many people sandbag their oponents with "revenge" low sports and low comp scores. The TO's need to followup and ask a player why they gave so and so payer low sportsmanship to make sportsmanship scoring valid. But's that's actually a whole other topic....

GG

Slow Playing is so annoying; I know a guy who literally at the end of the other players to go to the bathroom for 20 minutes. What the hell.

It almost cost me a game ; his watch and the Judges Watch were not synced so he came back we had 10 minutes and he had 5 models on the board contesting the one objective.

Killed his models and game over.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I would hate to see the use of timed clocks to dictate the pace of the game. I am in favor of variable game length as it adds another dimension to tactics and strategy.

Clocks wouldn't need to change the pace of the game.

I'd propose the same system as chess where each player gets an allotment of time for all of his turns.

e.g. you get one hour each for deployment and turns. If you can play a turn in two minutes because everyone's still in their transports then you've saved time for later. If you need lots of time the turn that your assault troops hit his lines then you can take extra time.

What you can't do is take more than your fair share of the time and cut into your opponent's time.

I don't see it happening anytime soon to be honest.

Afrikan Blonde wrote:I don't see it happening anytime soon to be honest.

Well it would need to be playtested at a tourney or a simulated tourney, if you had enough people to try it out. I think it's a nice idea, but I have to admit, I'm a bit sceptical of chess timers. The sceptical part coming from thinking it could, possibly ruin the tourney experiance for some. Could & Possibly, being the operative words there.

I have priced chess timer's...they are not cheap. The cheapest I have seen are $19.95, and I'm not sure if you would want to use something cheap that could malfunction on you. Then you have the issue of whether or not players will be willing to shell out the money needed to buy a decent chess timer, or if TO's would be willing to shell out the money to provide chess timers. It's not exactly an easy option.


GG

generalgrog wrote:
I have priced chess timer's...they are not cheap. The cheapest I have seen are $19.95...

So, in other words, less than the cost of a single unit.

and I'm not sure if you would want to use something cheap that could malfunction on you.

A number of my co-workers play chess at tournaments. Cheap timers work just fine. It's like a cheap watch - it might not look great, but the mechanics behind these things are so cheap to produce that they will work just fine.

Then you have the issue of whether or not players will be willing to shell out the money needed to buy a decent chess timer

Tell ya what, if the major tournaments all made it a requirement, people would do it. If it was a required item at Adepticon, people would adjust and bring them. It's really just a matter of somewhere stepping up and making it a requirement.

Redbeard wrote: Tell ya what, if the major tournaments all made it a requirement, people would do it. If it was a required item at Adepticon, people would adjust and bring them.

No argument from me there.

Redbeard wrote: It's really just a matter of somewhere stepping up and making it a requirement.

I think there is a little more to it than that. It needs to be tested to see how it plays out, and how much it affects the enjoyment for the tourney attendees. I personally doubt that it would affect it negatively...afterall chess players do it all the time, and speed chess is even a way of playing chess that people enjoy.

But we have to remember that this isn't chess, and there may be some unforseen ramifications to instituting chess timers.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
But we have to remember that this isn't chess, and there may be some unforseen ramifications to instituting chess timers.

Thank god for that. Those slackers don't even paint their armies.

How many people have their tournament experience damaged by a slow player that kills their chances?

Scott-S6 wrote:How many people have their tournament experience damaged by a slow player that kills their chances?

Inversely how many people have their tournament experience damaged by a fast player that rushes them?

Redbeard wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
But we have to remember that this isn't chess, and there may be some unforseen ramifications to instituting chess timers.

Thank god for that. Those slackers don't even paint their armies.

I see what you did there...

Frazzled wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:How many people have their tournament experience damaged by a slow player that kills their chances?

Inversely how many people have their tournament experience damaged by a fast player that rushes them?

Which would also no longer be an issue with clocks - both players would have a time allotment to spread over their turns as they see fit.

No need to rush someone if them taking a long turn isn't going to affect your time.

As noted, if the entire tourney used them, I'd be fine with it.

What Frazzled said. If the whole tourney is using them, I'll be happy to as well.

Let's suppose you have two hours to play so each player has one hour of time to deploy and play. I am assuming if someone has to use the bathroom or dispute a rule that would count against their clock. Correct? If so this could be very helpful.

G

I am quite sure time limits could help with this problem, but the chess timer does seem a bit like overkill.

A standard stopwatch would do just fine, no need to require some standard piece of equipment. Both players can bring a clock of some kind, even an portable alarm clock would do just fine. For instance, a standard 5-10$ kitchen timer would do just fine. Getting something that can be muted would be nice, all you have to do is point at the clock.

No need for harsh words, just standard fair game play.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Let's suppose you have two hours to play so each player has one hour of time to deploy and play. I am assuming if someone has to use the bathroom or dispute a rule that would count against their clock. Correct? If so this could be very helpful.

That could be an issue, although if you are asking the question it should be your time that is used most definitely. If your opponent intentionally wastes time disputing the final TO decision, they will obviously be doing so, and it will be their time that is used.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Let's suppose you have two hours to play so each player has one hour of time to deploy and play. I am assuming if someone has to use the bathroom or dispute a rule that would count against their clock. Correct? If so this could be very helpful.

G

Thank you GBF for bringing up an unknown ramification. If I wanted to use up some of my opponents time, I could start a rules dispute on HIS turn. Therefore eating up some of his time. There would have to be some kind of system in place to handle this.

This is why any kind of chess timer rule would need to be playtested to find out all of the unseen/unthought about ramifications.

GG

What if my opponent does lots of "questionable" items? Do I get penalized for that if I have to go to the judge? If so, isn't that a double penalty?

Yea, the one problem with chess timers would be if your opponent challenged a bunch of stuff during your turn. Or your opponent could not know the rules very well and constantly try and do shady stuff or call a judge on you on normal plays.

They would need to institute a couple rules, like, stop both clocks during a rules dispute and maybe a few other times.

Then the clocks starts contravening the timer clocks. What happens if Real Life clock runs out on the game when the timing clocks still show time?

Chess clocks are able to handle this - if your opponent interrupts your turn for some reason, you'd press your 'done button' and it would go on their time. When they were done interrupting, they'd press their done button, and it would go back to your time. If they went to the bathroom, you'd press your done button, and it would eat their time until they got back to respond.

Using Redbeard's input. I can envision a rules dispute with chessclocks going something like this......

It's Player A's Turn. Player A decides to charge a unit that had to emergency disembark from a transport he blew up.

Player B erroneously says.. hey you can't charge my unit since you didn't shoot at it. Now player A or B has to stop what he's doing and look the rule up.

The question is who would be the one to be penalized? player A or player B. Player B is obviously wrong but he doesn't know that(or at least is real good at pretending ignorance)

It seems to me whatever time was spent searching for a rules answer should be charged to whoever was wrong. I think that would be the easy solution.

Is it easy to deduct time from chessclocks in this scenario RedBeard? For example lets say they spent 10 minutes looking for the rule/judge and they find out Player B was wrong, how do you deduct 10 minutes from his time?

GG

Redbeard wrote:Chess clocks are able to handle this - if your opponent interrupts your turn for some reason, you'd press your 'done button' and it would go on their time. When they were done interrupting, they'd press their done button, and it would go back to your time. If they went to the bathroom, you'd press your done button, and it would eat their time until they got back to respond.

That doesn't address the issue however, of a rules dispute because of your move. You're penalizing the other player for objecting to your potentially incorrect maneuver.

If I am facing TFG and he's playing stretchy ruler or rules BS, and I'm playing a list that uses a lot of time to begin with, then I would be screwed. To the argument that that wouldn't happen I believe thats apartial focus of this thread of people already playing TFG.

Iron this issue out then I am a convert.

Bring forth the Holy Egg Timer and recite the blessed Enchanting of the Timer Turn! Wait, there's no holy unguents. Where are the holy unguents? The machine spirit will be displeased without the holy unguents! I've never heard of such blasphemy...

Rules disputes is a thorny one. There's no question that it wastes time however timing is being done.

All effective ways of resolving this require more TOs and for them to be more active.

Personally I would say, rules disputes take no time. 1 hour to each player, 2.5 hours a round. If your game needs more than 30 mins of rules disputes then I am pretty sure a judge would stand over your table to resolve issues.

Both players timers would stop for disputes.

Timmah wrote:Personally I would say, rules disputes take no time. 1 hour to each player, 2.5 hours a round. If your game needs more than 30 mins of rules disputes then I am pretty sure a judge would stand over your table to resolve issues.

Both players timers would stop for disputes.

So TFG could still slow play you to an extent. However, I like this compromise.

Me likey.

Well for one thing if you penalize people for being wrong in there rules disputes, you essentially encourage people to know the rules better and think twice before arguing over every little thing.


Although rules lawyers may be able to convince Judges to rule the wrong way. I know I have had that happen to me before. So it would put more pressure on judges as well.

GG

You shouldn't penalize people for being wrong on rules. It would encourage people not to question them in the first place. Then people could use other peoples lack of knowledge (hello rules for each army in a seperate book) to try and cheat easier.

Also I can't think of any other game where someone is penalized for being wrong in a rules dispute.

It would be very hard to slow play. Because in order to, you would need to have a judge at your table, who could easily keep the stupid questions from becoming issues.

It wouldn't be that hard. Its the same tactic as now. TFG just starts pecking with issues or disputes your movement etc. etc.

Having said that, no system is perfect.

Frazzled wrote:It wouldn't be that hard. Its the same tactic as now. TFG just starts pecking with issues or disputes your movement etc. etc.

Having said that, no system is perfect.

True, but again, a judge would be standing right over top of your table. So most would be less likely to try it.

I agree it could be done. But it would definately be harder to do.

I've never had a judge standing right over the top of my table. Having run tournaments, we're using pretty damn busy.

If I was a TO running a major event I would let players buy extra time.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:If I was a TO running a major event I would let players buy extra time.

G

Good idea. In fact i would require it. further, your score would be depending on the amount of tangible gratitutde you provided.

I love the smell of capitalism in the morning.

G

I'd fall into the "inexperienced" slow player. I'm still getting used to 5th edition (having not played since 3rd) and usually can only go quickly by taking my opponent's word for it on rules.

I recently found out that my opponent was wrong on several points for my army, so I'm trying to double check things myself (and read up beforehand) but it's hard to think of all the possible situations while not playing.

I'm in a tournament this Saturday, so I'll let you know how it goes . Hopefully I won't be "that guy"... even if it is unintentional!

I'd also just like to say that I Really appreciate a more experienced player who takes the time to help me speed up my play... again since it is unintentional and just due to a lack of experience under the current rules.

Timmah wrote:You shouldn't penalize people for being wrong on rules. It would encourage people not to question them in the first place. Then people could use other peoples lack of knowledge (hello rules for each army in a seperate book) to try and cheat easier.

Also I can't think of any other game where someone is penalized for being wrong in a rules dispute.

It would be very hard to slow play. Because in order to, you would need to have a judge at your table, who could easily keep the stupid questions from becoming issues.

Ever heard of College football or NFL? They lose timeouts all the time.


GG

generalgrog wrote:

Timmah wrote:You shouldn't penalize people for being wrong on rules. It would encourage people not to question them in the first place. Then people could use other peoples lack of knowledge (hello rules for each army in a seperate book) to try and cheat easier.

Also I can't think of any other game where someone is penalized for being wrong in a rules dispute.

It would be very hard to slow play. Because in order to, you would need to have a judge at your table, who could easily keep the stupid questions from becoming issues.

Ever heard of College football or NFL? They lose timeouts all the time.


GG

No basically you take a timeout in order to challenge. So you just burn a timeout to challenge and then you do get the time for your timeout during the challenge.

Its not like they get a 15 yard penalty if they lose the challenge.
They are still getting their timeout, just possibly at a time when they didn't want it. (so a slight loss but nothing major.