Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Having played a few tourneys and having read a lot of battle reports and tournament reports in the last couple months, it seems that slow playing by opponents, deliberate or otherwise, has been a significant issue. It affects not only the enjoyment of the game, but also, in a timed round, risks influencing the outcome of the game in an artificial way. If done deliberately, a stalling tactic is every bit as much against the spirit of the game, if not an outright attempt to cheat by not playing with the intent of deciding the outcome on the table. Some people play slower than others, for sure, and I'm not advocating that we move at the speed of the fastest, most reckless players, but we also can't unduly penalize normal play because it takes someone 20 minutes to deploy one empty Rhino from reserves. There is often little recourse during a game. You can encourage people to go quickly (which will generally be ignored) and try to get the tournament organizer involved (but they often are unable/unwilling to intervene), but generally you are at the mercy of the slow player.

My proposal, then, is that tournaments should require a turn timer that measures out the round in even increments, assuming 6 turns per player. If done quicker, a random mission length game could go 7, but in a tourney situation, this is often not an option even between two quick players, so it seems that 6 would be the logical target point. I could see two basic options: 1, timed rounds with evenly-divided turn lengths; or 2, timed rounds with front-loaded turn lengths, meaning that the early turns would be longer than the later rounds to account for more models being on the table early and less later.

A 2.5 hour even-length round would look something like this:
Roll for sides/deployment zone
10 minutes - Player A deploys
10 minutes - Player B deploys
Player turns: 10 minutes each (6 per player, 12 total)
Remaining 10 minutes: overtime/wrap-up

A 2.5 hour front-loaded round could look something like this:
Roll for sides/deployment zone
10 minutes - Player A deploys
10 minutes - Player B deploys
15 minutes - Player A turn 1
15 minutes - Player B turn 1
15 minutes - Player A turn 2
15 minutes - Player B turn 2
12 minutes - Player A turn 3
12 minutes - Player B turn 3
10 minutes - Player A turn 4
10 minutes - Player B turn 4
8 minutes - Player A turn 5
8 minutes - Player A turn 5
5 minutes - Player A turn 6
5 minutes - Player A turn 6

I realize there are logistics involved in keeping track of and enforcing the rounds, but they do make timers that can be programmed or you could simply keep a "turn log," with each player putting in the start/end time of their turn on an official scorecard. This way, if a player is running long, you can take to the TO and show proof that the turn started, say, at 11:15 and now that it's 11:30, their turn needs to be over. The TO can then enforce accordingly.

I would think you would need some kind of "two-minute warning" at the end of each segment so that you don't get cut off immediately, but at the end of the player's allotted time, their turn is over except for wrapping up any actions (such as assaults) that have been declared but not yet resolved. If there's a discussion/dispute, the player whose turn it is should be allowed to "pause" their turn to clarify and then resume.

What are people's thoughts? In favor? Too complicated? Unnecessary? Better idea for keeping tournament play running smoothly?

No. I've finished games in 3 turns, but it took both players playing quickly for all 2 hours because the amount of carnage was so high.

Some armies get all their stuff done in the first couple of round (shooty armies), others have to wait till turn 5-6 before they come to grips with the enemy.

What about games when both players start everything in reserves? Do they sit around and twiddle their thumbs for the first hour?

Nope, can't be done, nor would I participate in a tournament which used them. And that being said from someone who virtually always finished his games in tournaments.

I don't care how long any individual turn takes, so long as each player gets half of the total time allowed. Chess clocks would work.

Absolutely not. Why should I be penalized for your actions? Allow me to explain. I play primarily IG. My movement and shooting is quickly resolved, usually in 10-15 minutes max. So as long as there are no close combats, I don't have any time issues. But then YOU want to assault my units, and that combat carries over into my turn. Now we're have to use my time to resolve an action you initiated. So peeler, whose time does resolving that hth come out of, yours or mine? I sure as heck didn't want it or initiate it. But you want to take the time used for it out of my half, right?

So no, no timers.

chess clocks are a good idea to identify problem players. Don, while you point out that assaults in your turn may 'run the clock,' the idea of the chess clock is that it will still take more time for your opponent to move his models into assault, and he will have more attacks and more models at the start of the assault on his turn, thus it will still take longer. Also, since you dictate the pace and order things are resolved in your own turn, he cant draw out an assault phase any longer than you allow.

So yeah, your opponents actions might cause your turns to take a bit longer than normal, but you will still always be faster than him if he is a slow player. So the chess clock is a valid and VERY useful tool to identify slow players. As the chess clock is not an option in the poll, however, I feel the poll needs to be updated.

I'm not sure timers would work, and really aren't necessary. If a simple warning from the TO doesn't help, then maybe if a person gets enough complaints (and you can tell whose games don't finish), they should be asked not to come back until they play faster.

DevianID wrote:chess clocks are a good idea to identify problem players. Don, while you point out that assaults in your turn may 'run the clock,' the idea of the chess clock is that it will still take more time for your opponent to move his models into assault, and he will have more attacks and more models at the start of the assault on his turn, thus it will still take longer. Also, since you dictate the pace and order things are resolved in your own turn, he cant draw out an assault phase any longer than you allow.

So yeah, your opponents actions might cause your turns to take a bit longer than normal, but you will still always be faster than him if he is a slow player. So the chess clock is a valid and VERY useful tool to identify slow players. As the chess clock is not an option in the poll, however, I feel the poll needs to be updated.

Yep, the whole point of a chess clock is that you can tap it over to your opponent when it's his responsibility to move things, make decisions, or roll dice.

My main concern would be the pettiness of hitting the clock back and forth when someone is rolling dice, but perhaps that's the motivation needed to speed up things like allocating wounds to Nob squads.

I'm really not sure buying clocks, and making the game less pleasant most of the time is the solution here. Most big tournaments have mechanisms to deal with it, the only problems I've had with slow play were generally in smaller events where the TO is too nice a guy to really crack the whip.

Actually allocating wounds on Nob squads is easier than any unit except completely homogeneous units. You pick up a die (or dice), point to a model, roll, and then repeat until finished. No need to count generally. It's units that have 3-4 different equipment that I find take the most time.

Devian, by it's very nature, hth combats take longer to resolve. It'sa n additional movement phase in his turn, then a single hth can have 2, 3, or more initiative phases quite easily, each one having to be resolved separately. I don't get to dictate any "pace" on that. All I can do is say which order the combats are resolved in. The actual mechanics for resolving the combat are laid out and I can't change them. Time my moving and shooting if you want, but not the hth. That's something I can't control.

And the 'front end' timed rounds idea goes out the window should you be playing all-reserve riposte armies. Deployment, all in reserves, these units in these vehicles with these ICs attached. Takes what, 3 minutes? Turn 1, OK, I'm done, 5 seconds. Turn 2, now it starts taking longer, and if I'm unlucky on my reserves rolls, I start getting units in on turn 3 or 4, but now I have less time?

Point being, there are too many variables, too many army types, for any one 'timer' idea to cover them all fairly. Is it really fair to tell a player with over 100 models that he gets the same amount of time per turn as a player with 28 models? (Loganwing army I saw at the tourney this weekend, so yes that's a real 2K army number of models) Think someone is dawdling? Have the judge keep an eye on him, and penalize him if you decide he is stalling. But don't punish everyone else for the actions of a few.

barontuman wrote:No. I've finished games in 3 turns, but it took both players playing quickly for all 2 hours because the amount of carnage was so high.

Some armies get all their stuff done in the first couple of round (shooty armies), others have to wait till turn 5-6 before they come to grips with the enemy.

What about games when both players start everything in reserves? Do they sit around and twiddle their thumbs for the first hour?

Nope, can't be done, nor would I participate in a tournament which used them. And that being said from someone who virtually always finished his games in tournaments.

Understandable. The concept of a chess timer has been raised and is a valid one. The point is not to "sit around twiddling your thumbs," but rather to have some enforceable means to accelerate the play of deliberate/unnecessarily slow players, which is a problem. Deliberate slow play, IMO, is damn near as much cheating as loaded dice or fudged movement measurements.

CatPeeler wrote:I don't care how long any individual turn takes, so long as each player gets half of the total time allowed. Chess clocks would work.

I agree, but therein is the core issue: one player getting significantly more than half the time. When two players are of roughly equal speed and number of units, this isn't a problem, but this is rarely the case, it seems.

don_mondo wrote:Absolutely not. Why should I be penalized for your actions? Allow me to explain. I play primarily IG. My movement and shooting is quickly resolved, usually in 10-15 minutes max. So as long as there are no close combats, I don't have any time issues. But then YOU want to assault my units, and that combat carries over into my turn. Now we're have to use my time to resolve an action you initiated. So peeler, whose time does resolving that hth come out of, yours or mine? I sure as heck didn't want it or initiate it. But you want to take the time used for it out of my half, right?

So no, no timers.

Fair enough point, but not really that significant an issue. Why? Number one, by the time you reach a gunline IG (my assumption, based on your post), the assault army is probably down several units. If not, the combats probably won't spill into your turn much because you will be ruthlessly slaughtered on my charge. If they do carry over, it's a matter of a little dice rolling, not analyzing the situation, measuring charge move, moving models, etc. Attacks, hits, wounds, saves. Done.

Further, during your shooting phase, when you pop a transport and the guy fiddles for 10 minutes deploying his squad out of the wreck, THAT comes out of your time as well. If the game was measured so that this sort of thing was accounted for, would that not improve your turn as well?

And again, the concept of timers or measured rounds is more to set a baseline, an expectation, and an enforceable means to combat the slow player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I'm really not sure buying clocks, and making the game less pleasant most of the time is the solution here. Most big tournaments have mechanisms to deal with it, the only problems I've had with slow play were generally in smaller events where the TO is too nice a guy to really crack the whip.

I agree. It's usually smaller events, but you do run into TFG at big events and higher-end tourneys. Most TOs have enough on their plate that dealing with time issues gets pushed down on the agenda and more often than not comes down to, "You guys figure it out." Slow play, IMO, is against the spirit of the game, when done intentionally. If you're just slow, there should still be a means to keep the round time fairly distributed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:And the 'front end' timed rounds idea goes out the window should you be playing all-reserve riposte armies. Deployment, all in reserves, these units in these vehicles with these ICs attached. Takes what, 3 minutes? Turn 1, OK, I'm done, 5 seconds. Turn 2, now it starts taking longer, and if I'm unlucky on my reserves rolls, I start getting units in on turn 3 or 4, but now I have less time?

Fair enough. Again, the "timed rounds" was more of a concept than hard rule. IMO, it's difficult to enforce the concept of slow play without some guideline as to what constitutes slow play. At least providing a framework for a turn gives some feedback.

don_mondo wrote:Point being, there are too many variables, too many army types, for any one 'timer' idea to cover them all fairly. Is it really fair to tell a player with over 100 models that he gets the same amount of time per turn as a player with 28 models? (Loganwing army I saw at the tourney this weekend, so yes that's a real 2K army number of models) Think someone is dawdling? Have the judge keep an eye on him, and penalize him if you decide he is stalling. But don't punish everyone else for the actions of a few.

You know what, as an ork player who has 100+ models on occasion, it is ABSOLUTELY fair to tell me I have only half the game to do my actions versus a Loganwing army or what have you. You think it's fair that some horde player can just assume, by the nature of his army, that he deserves 60-70-80% of the game? No way in hell is THAT fair. If you're going to play horde, you learn to move faster or don't play them.

I fully support some kind of timer.. Having the TO issue warnings never works because its all subjective

You need to have a fully objective way to make players play faster..

As Ive said many times, any tournament in which games do not go the full amount of time is devoid of any competitive value.. Im sorry, but ork and nid players should NOT get a pass just because they play horde armies (cry me a river)..

Thats like saying a sporting match should just end because one team had too many injury time outs and the game has gone on long enough

Chess clock is a great way to do this.. Or atleast guarantee one player does not monopolize all the time

If you play a slow army you should have TWO options

1 ) Play faster
2 ) play a different army

NOT 3 ) Only get to turn 3 and force your opponent into a draw thus skewing the entire results of the tournament.

I get very tired of hearing that we must respect the rights of people to play what army they enjoy or that its their right to play how they want.. What about the rights of their opponent to get a fair tournament game?

So, you think it'll be easier to get TO's to adopt clocks than to simply enforce a relatively simple standard?

I don't' buy that slow play is subjective. Moving models takes time, but standing and thinking (the real killer), is easy to spot and doesn't take long.

Make it clear that if a player gets multiple complaints, and the TO verifies that the player is taking longer than needed, they'll be told they can't play any longer at those events.

CatPeeler wrote:I don't care how long any individual turn takes, so long as each player gets half of the total time allowed. Chess clocks would work.

EXACTLY!!!

This is what we are talking about doing in my local club.

You have... say 45 total minutes to play your side. If you only use 30. GREAT. If you run out of time, then that sucks for you.

It encourages people to know their armies and rules, and it encourages fast gameplay.

Kirasu wrote:

I get very tired of hearing that we must respect the rights of people to play what army they enjoy or that its their right to play how they want.. What about the rights of their opponent to get a fair tournament game?

They paid the points for a tourney legal army they are allowed to take that many models. Just because some people are taking armies that completely avoid movement and assault phases and focus on shooting only, now they want those who use all 3 phases to be 'punished' or be told not to come to the event?

So scissors wants to ban Rock and only have paper allowed to play.

Basically defensive armies use less time. Aggressor armies have to do a lot more movement and a lot more assaulting and use a lot more time. There is no fair way to clearly determine 'who' is wasting 'what' time on paper... If you have a ton of shooting and I have to roll a ton of armor saves... is that your time or my time? When you pile in on my assault is that your time or my time? Are we going to be clicking chess clocks?

Not to mention none of this is supported by the rules, nothing says the game is required to be 50/50 timewise.

I had a 260 model ork army at 'ardboyz and we never had a problem finishing a game. I played fast but by some of the arbitrary rules some people would ban my army before the game began or even if the game was played fairly they would want 50% of the time as an arbitrary setting. Frankly the longest phase I had with opponents was opponent shooting phase. It took much longer to resolve *HIS* blasts on my hoard than it took me to move and run with accurate measurements. Is it now my fault because he brought too many guns or my fault because I have too many bodies to get shot? And now we have 'too many' what determines 'just enough? I thought codex legal armies were the end all, be all of what should be played?

People know when time is being wasted and there is no way to measure that validly. But to try to say hoards or assault armies who use more time than gunlines somehow should be removed from play... that sounds like 'comp' scores to me... You know... Applying arbitrary and unfair rules to specific lists that are codex legal but punish them for playing in the event.

I still find it funny that people feel they have the right to 50% of the time. When my opponent is making actions I am still playing the game. Both players are using 100% of the time.

I don't think anybody wants to ban armies that take long to play, which are seldom the problem. The problem are players that take too long.

Polonius wrote:I don't think anybody wants to ban armies that take long to play, which are seldom the problem. The problem are players that take too long.

Exactly. If someone is running a 250+ model ork army, playing fast, and giving their opponent their fair share of the time, then there's no problem. Experienced horde players can move models with great skill, so I hardly think that's the issue, or that anyone is suggesting banning certain armies or builds. As suggested by others, it's almost always a player issue rather than an army-build issue.

What is being suggested, and I think is fair, is simply establishing some kind of structure to ensure equity of time distribution. The reason you see that TOs don't do an adequate job in enforcing is that there is no structure to enforce. What is too long? What is deliberate slow play? You need some kind of structure, even if it's just a maximum time per player turn because the TOs also can't sit like a hawk at every table ensuring smooth gameplay.

I consider time being wasted when your opponent takes longer than 5 mins to decided where he wants to move his squad, what unit he wishes to assault, what psychic power should he use, pacing every member of every squad exactly 2 inches away from each other so that blast weapons won't be as damaging, etc...

You should be planning your turn while your opponent is taking his, I also agree that a chess clock would be best for stuff like this cause I hate it when my opponents become undecided on what to do and you can never tell if their stalling or really can't decide what they should do. But I would only want chess clocks at very competitive tournaments like GT's and ard boyz, its a little to much for local tournies and RTT's as chances are you will probably be facing new players than you would at a GT or a ard boy's semi or final round.

The slowest players I've ever encountere have been two differe SoB players, and a guy running foot eldar. Oh, and one ork player that was clearly new to the hobby.

There's no real correlation between how many models a player has and how long their turns take. Some stuff takes longer (counting attacks and then dice, moving so many modes), but most players quickly learn the tricks. things like rolling the run move and adding to movement on turn 1 for orks and nids, knowing exactly how many dice are in a brick, etc.

Polonius wrote:The slowest players I've ever encountere have been two differe SoB players, and a guy running foot eldar. Oh, and one ork player that was clearly new to the hobby.

There's no real correlation between how many models a player has and how long their turns take. Some stuff takes longer (counting attacks and then dice, moving so many modes), but most players quickly learn the tricks. things like rolling the run move and adding to movement on turn 1 for orks and nids, knowing exactly how many dice are in a brick, etc.

Right in time they learn to play faster which is fine for local tournies and such but when you start doing GT's and such (not that GW has official tournaments) you need to know these kinds of things.

I think the chess timer would work, provided you stop it when close assault begins. Essentially, the only time a player 'wastes' time during his turn is planning movement/shooting priority. When the assault phase hits, it's pretty hard to waste time without blatantly rolling the dice slow....

So, time the moving/shooting phase...then when the assault phase hits take off the timer.

Luthon1234 wrote:

Polonius wrote:The slowest players I've ever encountere have been two differe SoB players, and a guy running foot eldar. Oh, and one ork player that was clearly new to the hobby.

There's no real correlation between how many models a player has and how long their turns take. Some stuff takes longer (counting attacks and then dice, moving so many modes), but most players quickly learn the tricks. things like rolling the run move and adding to movement on turn 1 for orks and nids, knowing exactly how many dice are in a brick, etc.

Right in time they learn to play faster which is fine for local tournies and such but when you start doing GT's and such (not that GW has official tournaments) you need to know these kinds of things.

I don't think it's fine for any tournament. I think if you don't know how to play your army in the time alloted, you shouldn't be allowed to play, regardless of army.

The last pre-Ard Boyz tournament I played in was 2000 points. In the second round, I played a... gentleman... with a tervigon spam army.

We barely finished 5 turns, of which I'd played--literally--12 minutes. I refuse to play that idiot again.

I now have a stopwatch that I bring along to tournaments. If my opponent is cool, I don't bother with it (I stopped timing things after the 2nd round of each of my games in the preliminaries, for example). If my opponent is TFG and intentionally slow plays me, I am now able to point to my stopwatch if I need to complain to a TO.

I voted for hte chess timer.

G

Slow play might be the single most annoying and difficult to stop form of cheating possible.

Anything else, you can at least move past it, but if you're slowed... You can't even play.

Reasonable play time can be practiced. If you find that you take too long (either due to amount of models or remembering rules, etc), then that's what you should practice when you play casual games.

Example, for my Orks, I used to sometimes take a long time calculating my attacks when I charged into close combat because I'd count each Ork in the combat. Now, I keep that mob's casualties together so it's just a simple matter of subtraction and then multiplying how many attacks I get. To make sure that I'm taking as little time as possible, I've even made a habit of practicing how quickly I can count all my dice for the roll, by making them easily accessible to hand, etc.

I can understand an inexperienced tournament player slow playing unintentionally, but it should only happen once, then it's player responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again.

I don't think any form of turn timer would work. Chess timer....I'd have to see it in action.

As an ork player at 2k points, my turns generally go like this:

Turn1 Move: 2 minutes.
Turn1 Shoot: 3 minutes or less.
Turn1 Assaults: 2 minutes.

Turn2 Move (and disembarking): 10 minutes
Turn2 Shooting/running: 10 minutes.
Turn2 Assaults: 30 minutes.

Turn3 Move: 2 minutes
Turn3 Shooting: 2 minutes
Turn3 Assaults (continuation of turn 2): 15 minutes.

Etc.

That's a pretty general format.

I chose other as some of the most fun tournaments I played were out in the Seattle area where a FLGS used this method. Each player had 10 minutes to deploy and 15 minutes to complete each game round. However, each table noted the total time they took for a round and it carried over into a bank.

So If I took 3 minutes to deploy and 6 minutes to complete my turn1 I had 16minutes in the bank so to speak that I could use when it was important.

In that situation I never had to worry about an excessive assault phase due to banked time.

There were some exceptions made to ensure that assaults were completed and neither player penalized where the TO was directly involved. Rounds lasted 2 hours 40 minutes and the TO had 20 min between rounds. She stole from this time if needed.

Now this wouldn't always work but it did encourage players to be thinking ahead of the game and knowing what they were going to move where before they started touching thier figures. That fact alone sped up the entire process so much many people stopped keeping track because everything was so much smoother.

It does take a more competitive or mature mind set for these things to work usually. And it doesn't work in all situations but almost all games were finished at thouse tourneys and players seemed to have lots of fun!

Dashofpepper wrote:I don't think any form of turn timer would work. Chess timer....I'd have to see it in action.

As an ork player at 2k points, my turns generally go like this:

Turn1 Move: 2 minutes.
Turn1 Shoot: 3 minutes or less.
Turn1 Assaults: 2 minutes.

Turn2 Move (and disembarking): 10 minutes
Turn2 Shooting/running: 10 minutes.
Turn2 Assaults: 30 minutes.

Turn3 Move: 2 minutes
Turn3 Shooting: 2 minutes
Turn3 Assaults (continuation of turn 2): 15 minutes.

Etc.

That's a pretty general format.

So, as I suggested above, a chess timer that starts at the top of your turn and ends the moment close assault hits would suffice?

I sponsored a thread on this issue last year and we had a nice long discussion on chess timers. You can read it here. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/248150.page

I am on the side of instituting some sort of a timer. There are a few HUGE logistical problems that would need to be overcome before they should be used.

1: Assault phase..oponents are operating in the others phase and can eat up a large portion of time if they wanted too. How do you prevent this?

2: Rules arguments. People can just "rule stall" you, during your turn. How do you overcome this?

3: Timers are expensive, and you would want the decent electronic ones so they won't "break down" during a game.

4: People don't necesarily know how to use chess timers, they would need to be trained before attending.

5: What is the penalty for running out of time? Forfeit?

The good thing about chess timers is you have a bank of time, so you could effectively play real fast during some turns to try and save time for later turns.

I have been meaning to buy one to test it out, but haven't got around to it.

GG