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.

I have noticed a few people complain about slow play in tournaments, and about 3 of my 15 recent games ending with time being called instead of a game ending. Would it be offensive to use a stopwatch to time both our turns and record it as proof if a person comes off as slow, such as after noticing an opponent taking more than 30 seconds to move each model in a 10+ man squad? Im sure this doesnt happen to a lot of people, but it happens every once in awhile.

I am personally in favor of timers for players who are known to play slow. Whether they play slow on purpose, i.e. slow playing for advantage, or they are just notoriously slow. Granted everyone has a game that is slow once in a while for various reasons, and I don't sweat people tough decisions, but taking 3 minutes per unit in the movement phase is excessive. If it is a habit, and it's a competitive event, then I think timers are ok.

A better solution, for 40k, than timers is to have a TO watching the game and checking in on rounds every few minutes to insure play is moving along at a good pace. If it is not the TO can intervene and let the player(s) know they need to pick up the pace.

Something that has almost completely curbed slow play at our FLGS is a minimum turn requirement. The game must get to a complete 4 turns in the allotted time. Any game that does not complete 4 turns is counted as a loss for both players. We even had this in the Ard Boyz qualifiers and semis, it worked out well.

@ overwatch

Sorry, didnt really clarify. I was referring to 30+ player tournaments where the TO is usually busy on rules issues and setting up the list for the next game of players.

I fully support timing of the opponent if you think there might be an issue. But you have to remember that it's only a guideline and shouldn't be used as a cut and dry "you lose if you go over X time."

In reality, if he starts to run late on the first turn (let's say 20 minutes for 1 turn in a 2 hour game), then you should alert him to the fact he's playing slow and ask him nicely to speed up. If he does it again turn 2, I'd probably get a judge and formally address the issue with a judge around the 15 minute mark. (The times I reference are just rough guesses based on a 2 hour game. Adjust accordingly).

The bottom line is that you need to be proactive, to get a judge involved and to give your opponent a fair chance to address the issue.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:@ overwatch

Sorry, didnt really clarify. I was referring to 30+ player tournaments where the TO is usually busy on rules issues and setting up the list for the next game of players.

At that size our TO generally will have an assistant TO, or two, to help with the policing of the tables and keeping an eye on the time. If that isn't an option than Lee's proactive measures are a good way to go about it, or the 4 turn minimum would be a decent idea to implement as well.

I would stray away from simply timing every turn and then calling a TO over at the end and "surprising" your opponent with the information you've gathered. Generally being proactive as Lee suggests will get you further than an end of round ambush. I understand your point entirely and since you want to avoid being offensive than an open policy would be best I think.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

Defeatmyarmy wrote:@ overwatch

Sorry, didnt really clarify. I was referring to 30+ player tournaments where the TO is usually busy on rules issues and setting up the list for the next game of players.

At that size our TO generally will have an assistant TO, or two, to help with the policing of the tables and keeping an eye on the time. If that isn't an option than Lee's proactive measures are a good way to go about it, or the 4 turn minimum would be a decent idea to implement as well.

I would stray away from simply timing every turn and then calling a TO over at the end and "surprising" your opponent with the information you've gathered. Generally being proactive as Lee suggests will get you further than an end of round ambush. I understand your point entirely and since you want to avoid being offensive than an open policy would be best I think.

Makes since to advise them if your lagging on turn 1 and be polite about it.. I didnt mean that I would secretely record the rounds, I was just wondering peoples opinion on being timed. I saw all the Warmahordes players had timers set up from the TO at Kingdom and got the idea from them.

Works fine for Warmachine Tournaments, don't see why it wouldn't work for other games.

I support the use of chess timers in tournaments.

It's iffy. Consider:

On one side, you have Draigowing. About 20-25 models.

On the other side? Green Tide. 150+ models.

The Ork guy is going to be taking a good deal more time than the GK player will.

@Daedalus

While that is true there is nothing more frustrating than a person with only 20ish models to move taking 20+ minutes for a movement phase when my Nids (90ish models) and my all foot GK's (60 models) take less than 5. It's not always horde players who are slow.

I saw all the Warmahordes players had timers set up from the TO at Kingdom and got the idea from them.

Warmahordes has specific tourny rule set that require such clocks and time management. And it works OK for that game because of the turn structure -- with 40k's assault phase mechanic its a bit more problematic. And although arguable, I think warmahorde armies don't vary quite as much in terms of model counts (40k varies between 30-200+. Warmahordes is not quite as variable, at least from my days playing mk1)

The biggest problem I have with a chess clock in 40k is what is really slowing down games. In chess the an actual move takes seconds, all the clock is controlling is time thinking about the move. In 40k it really is the 'move' itself or the mechanics that slow the game down. Speeding that process up can actually cause the game to slow down due to arguments. Think about all the things that can get glossed over if playing fast and loose. Or forgotten.

I'd rather tournaments were realistic in the schedule and points limits then using something like a chess clock. 2 hours for 2k is just not enough time. 2:15 for 1850 is pushing it, especially with non-standard wacky stuff.

daedalus wrote:It's iffy. Consider:

On one side, you have Draigowing. About 20-25 models.

On the other side? Green Tide. 150+ models.

The Ork guy is going to be taking a good deal more time than the GK player will.

You can slow play with any army, one of my 3 was a draigowing turtle. I admit large armies take a lot of practice to finish games on time, my movement phase for my DOA army horde takes 15 minutes turn 1 if everything is on the field legging it. Ive seen a few horde players actually finish turns faster than some elitest armies and some elitest armies play slower than horde armies.

Agree with Winterman.

I thought about using timers in 40k.

But to be fair, you'd have to do it like this:

Player 1 activates his clock. Moves as normal.

Declares unit 1 is shooting. Rolls to hit and to wound. Stops clock, player 2's clock activates.

Player 2 allocates and makes saves. Stops his clock, player 1's clock starts.

And so on.

Do-able? Sure. Will it take a lot of getting used to? Yes. Are tournament going to provide chess clocks for every table? Probably not.

The other question is - how big of an issue is slow playing? Yes it occurs, but is instituting such a grand change the real solution?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you can't slow play with 20 models or 200. I'm just saying that, however you measure turn time, you should allot for the fact that the guy with 200 models could well be legitimately taking more time than the guy with 20.

daedalus wrote:Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you can't slow play with 20 models or 200. I'm just saying that, however you measure turn time, you should allot for the fact that the guy with 200 models could well be legitimately taking more time than the guy with 20.

This is one of the reasons why the timer works much better in a smaller skirmish style system like Warmahordes. That and in Warmahordes each player's turn is literally their turn with very little, to none of the time from your turn being eaten up by the opponent. Timers on every table would be very tricky in 40k and Fantasy tournaments given the wide range of model counts at the varying levels of game play. That doesn't mean someone should be allowed to play slow with a large number of models but the model count is a consideration. This is why I am a huge proponent of the 4 turn minimum requirement over timers in GW games.

A four turn minimum or what? Should everyone else at the tournament be forced to sit and watch as the one slow table forces round after round to be delayed?

And four turn minimum? With reserves that may mean the player who goes first only gets two turns with any enemy models on the table. Seems too few really, in spite of being poorly enforceable and hell on TOs.

I think NO, the rules are meant to play the game without clocks. Iff you want to play with clocks try Kings of War or Warpath...

There is a lot of ways to disturb your opponent turn time in 40k, and the rules are not made for that type of game.

Myself, I got bad experiences with time, in both sides of it, but i would never accept "timed games", because the rules are not for that.

To Redbeard:

I think it's a 4 turn minimum or both players lose.

Slow players generally play the maximum time anyway, so waiting around for them isn't anything new.

I had a friend who would time his games and found out during play what actions take me the longest. he did not have it for me but it helped improve my game anyway.

Redbeard wrote:A four turn minimum or what? Should everyone else at the tournament be forced to sit and watch as the one slow table forces round after round to be delayed?

And four turn minimum? With reserves that may mean the player who goes first only gets two turns with any enemy models on the table. Seems too few really, in spite of being poorly enforceable and hell on TOs.

I explained this in my first post.

It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Also, if somebody reserves out and you only get to turn 4 in 2 hours then you have a really good case to make to the TO about intentional slow play.

I agree on timing players. Nothing feels bitter like being costed an extra turn because one guy had to slowly roll dice and spend extra precious minutes figured out just how exactly he wanted his models to be placed.

While I am strongly against slow play and yes, I've seen people do it in tournies, there are a few problems with timing a players turn. Pretty much every turn in the game is interactive, ie BOTH players have to perform actions. I shoot you, you have to make saves and decide which models to remove as casualties. I assault you, you have to react and both sides have to attack, etc etc. Multiple combats are especially time consuming as you sort out which models are engaged with which models, etc etc. So, how do you accurately time each players ACTIONS instead of turns?

Am completely against this. If you pull out a stop watch, I'm going to pack up. I'm here to enjoy the game, and I can't very well do that if I'm being hounded by a stopwatch.

OverwatchCNC wrote: That and in Warmahordes each player's turn is literally their turn with very little, to none of the time from your turn being eaten up by the opponent.

eHaley's Feat turn(opponent gets to choose your activation order) and Harbinger's Feat turn(damage rolls whenever you end your movement closer to her) are simply two examples to prove that statement inaccurate.

Reading any thread on the PP boards regarding death clock will show it's a more common problem than you think.

I was recently at a tournament where my opponent was slow playing.

However, the joke was on him. It was the first game and because the tournament started late we had 30 minutes less time than was originally scheduled. Apparently he wasn't paying attention when that was announced. I was.

They did come around to let everyone know when there was 30 minutes left; but he was in the bathroom when that happened and I *forgot* to mention it when he got back.

Game ended at the end of turn 3. He was still too far out to contest my objectives and I had already had his contested. It was a 1500 point game and we had an hour an a half. His army had maybe 35 models, most of which in transports. Mine had over 40, also most of which were in transports. Both of us had reserved about half our armies to begin with; and neither of us spent time looking anything up in the brb or our codexes. In short the ONLY reason we were done was due to his playing.

When they called Dice Down, he was furious stating that he thought we still had another 30 minutes. I just shook my head while happily writing down a win for myself.

The other 2 games I played in the tournament were all over within 90 minutes with over 30 left to spare; one going 6 rounds, the other 7. Those were fast paced and very enjoyable. Each of his lasted the full 2 hours allotted going only to turn 5.

It takes me an average of about 7 to 8 minutes to play my side in a 1500 pt game. I believe it boil's down to a matter of respecting your opponents time.

Terrible idea for 40k. The turns are interactive and the game is not designed or balanced for equal time.

Orks usually have one turn where all my assaults are coordinated. We have a rule that promotes such an action. There will be a moment in the game where green skins crash into power armor like waves on the rocks. This assault will take a long time to resolve. The other player has just as many attacks, armor saves and other things in my turn, but yet it is my time? What if he slow plays during my assault? Do I lose time? If he slow plays enough is my assault negated? What happens if there is no more time left, do we stand there, no attacks made until his phase?

The game is not designed for it, it would actually break the game in situations where attacks simply are not made. It also further destabilizes the meta by removing specific army types and unit types from The game because they are not clock friendly. Time consuming rule mechanics and footsloggers will be drastically impacted and removed from what we see used, which further limits what type of units you need to expect.

Works great for blood bowl where the turns are not interactive and a model can stand still and do nothing without harming the mechanics of the game unlike not resolving models in assaults attacks.

I also feel it will increase slow play of people with small model counts as they will feel morally obligated to more time per model opposed to simply playing at a reasonable speed.

OverwatchCNC wrote:
It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Okay, so I'm losing on turn three, with no real expected way to come back. Why shouldn't I slow play and knock out my opponent as well, under this proposed rule? It seems to me that the unscrupulous player would play slowly for the first few turns. If the game is going their way, they harass their opponent to hurry so they don't both lose. If the game is not going their way, they get to take their opponent down with them.

And this right here is my love/hate relationship with tournaments. I love playing green-tide orks, unfortunately this is a pretty slow way to play, especially for me, since I take a little extra time than normal deriving a battle plan during my movement phase. I don't slow play intentionally, but it's what happens when I try to feign any semblance of tactics.

That's generally the problem with the tournament scene, that constant feeling of being rushed tends to cause bad mistakes and compromises for the sake of time, thus screwing over any tactical thought you had to begin with. Yes, I know 40k isn't the most tactical game around, which is why utilizing every little bit helps.

This is really what sets apart the better tournament players from the rest, they have perfected that time management to tactic thought period. As well as bring armies to complement (another case for why mech is popular, arguably faster than moving 180 models a turn).

I guess that's my long-winded way of saying no, do not time turns/moves/rolls etc, instead even tack on an extra 30 minutes to each round!

Redbeard wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
It is a 4 turn minimum, by the time time is called, or both players get charged with a loss. It has proven easily enforceable and it was enacted and thought up by our TO. As I stated earlier this was enforced at the Ard Boyz semifinals that was held by our FLGS with over 30 participants in the field.

Okay, so I'm losing on turn three, with no real expected way to come back. Why shouldn't I slow play and knock out my opponent as well, under this proposed rule? It seems to me that the unscrupulous player would play slowly for the first few turns. If the game is going their way, they harass their opponent to hurry so they don't both lose. If the game is not going their way, they get to take their opponent down with them.

This. And yes, people will do it on the theory that taking you down with them is beeter than going down alone. Silly tournament scoring only belongs in silly tournaments. Like the time a local group decided to score a Draw at 5 points and a loss at 10 points (they thought it would promote people playing for the win?). Oh, and it was NOT announced in advance, so we only found out halfway through the first turn after driving a couple of hours to get there. Well, for some players, when they saw that they were losing, they basically threw the game, ie played to LOSE, so as to rack up more points. So those of us who did play for the win and finished with draws got punished while those that threw the game scored higher? Yeah, nuts, ain't it?

Whenever I play in a tournament against a Horde, I always say.

"Please get your models on the table as I deploy, and please play quickly so we dont run out of time. If we get to a place where both of us wont be able to finish the round, we wont start the round unless you allow both of us to finish".

that being said, if I feel like a game is going slow, I play like how many rounds we will actually complete, Like if we are going to play 3 rounds, the 3rd round I will position myself like it is the last.

I dont really care if people slow play, but I do care if we start a turn, but only 1 player does anthing, that I dont allow because its stupid.

If I feel like a person is slow playing on purpose, I tell them and confront them to move faster. If they dont, then I go get a TO to watch them and the game.