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 still yet to see where the rules say a game should be 50/50 timewise or any evidence that any of the GW armies are balanced around 50/50 playtime.

Many armies are clearly designed to require more shooting or movement and more time to play than others...

This is nothing more than arbitrary 'army composition' by basically forcing everyone to play armies that are designed around 50/50 time split or suffer the penalties of punishment or possibly being unable to play competitively and using the time needed to actually play the army and complete all the actions of the units they had paid for. What happens if I assault you and we have a massive assault, is that all my time? What happens if you assault me and we have a massive assault, is that your time? Does that mean now I may want to forgo an assault and set up for you to assault me simply to save my time now? Can I build a whole army around forcing actions on your turn to ruin your clock usage and deny you actions because you run out of time?

Slow Play does not mean that 50/50 play is valid. Address the slow players by confronting them and not by hiding behind some clocks that don't actually address the issue and are not actually supported by the rules of the game.

@nkelsch.

The basic rule book isn't a rulebook geared towards tourney play. We all know that. It is geared towardas casual game play, so 50/50 doesn't matter. That's why they don't mention it.

However, if a tournement is instituting a timed round of say 2.5 hours, then its certainly the TO's right to enforce a 50/50 format,

Afterall.. game time limits are not in the rulebook either, but tournaments need them to run smoothly.

Unless we were to play unlimited time limits, like they do in some Chess tournies.

GG

generalgrog wrote:@nkelsch.

The basic rule book isn't a rulebook geared towards tourney play. We all know that. It is geared towardas casual game play, so 50/50 doesn't matter. That's why they don't mention it.

However, if a tournement is instituting a timed round of say 2.5 hours, then its certainly the TO's right to enforce a 50/50 format,

Afterall.. game time limits are not in the rulebook either, but tournaments need them to run smoothly.

Unless we were to play unlimited time limits, like they do in some Chess tournies.

GG

I don't think the armies are balanced for 50/50 play and due to the ebb and flow of the game, many times one particular assault turn will take much longer than all the other simply of when the 'clash' of the forces happens. This isn't slow play... this is how the game is played and one person should not be penalized because it just happens to be on his turn a lot of units were in the correct place for multiple assaults to kick off. (or outplayed his opponent to gain an advantage by coordinating assaults, now he is going to be punished for time?)

Slow play is its own issue and 50/50 time doesn't actually solve it especially since a majority of the actions in the game are 'both players' time. Like resolving assaults and shooting which would be unfair and unreasonable to allocate to only one player's time allotment.

I think instituting 50/50 time is just as arbitrary as comp scores... And a TO can use them... but they are a way of putting an artificial limit on specific kinds of armies or playstyles that the TO doesn't like.

Why not just call slow players on being slow and deal with it?

nkelsch wrote:Why not just call slow players on being slow and deal with it?

I have to agree with this. Timers will cost money, annoy people, upset some people, and be a fairly large hassle for the TO, all to prevent, at most, a few warnings and a dismissal to a slow player.

I'm not sure 50/50 time is inherently unfair, after all you could make the case that bringing an army you can't play quick enough in half the alloted time takes time away from your opponent, but I don't think the hassle to make this system work is worth the effort.

I totally agree with you on the assault phase problem, and that's why I listed it at the top of my list of "huge" logistical problems.

I also agree with you that 40k isn't balanced for tournement play, it's designed for casual play.

However it's a fact that people want to play tournements, so the dilemna has always been "how do you take a game that isn't designed for tournement play and still run a fair and balanced tourney".

That has always been the issue.... from day one. That is why they instituted comp. (I'm not a fan of comp either)

GG

A chat before the game starts is the first line of defense. My opponent can see that I mean business, and it clears up some issues they may otherwise have argued over later. If I see a tendency towards slow play I get proactive turn one if possible, starting with gentle reminders, "We've only got two hours for setup and play, so we'll need to move quickly", or "Can I help you move those orks/gaunts/guardsmen forward, under your direction of course".

If slowness persists I move on to "I understand you have some decisions to make but we really need to move things along if we want to finish". If I think my opponent is deliberately foot dragging I tell the judge and try and get someone to babysit the game.

I think that a chess timer could be a valuable tool even if not part of an enforcement. My 1st real game in over a decade was at the prelim 'Ard Boyz. I had 50 shoota boyz and 15 lootas to start. I was pretty quick on my decisions and movement (to the point of making some mistakes) but my turns still took forever. Then there was a game when one of those blood claw terminators managed to get to a 30 man shooot squad... L:(.

But those are different issues (comp and slow play). I think it is beyond debate that this game doesn't have a FOC that is balanced in terms of play speed and that makes the issue kind of a moot point.

I can't see how it could work, to be honest.

Turn timers work in games where each player has a turn in which only they have to do anything, as what happens in that turn is entirely up to that one player. So if they take up too much time, or run out of time, the fault is entirely their own.

In 40K, your opponent has all sort of things that they can or have to do in your turn. The assault phase, as mentioned, is all about both players. But the shooting phase also involves your opponent... a player taking his time rolling saves, or figuring out wound allocation, or removing casualties, or dithering over specific rules is going to very quickly eat into your time.


So I would put it into the 'good idea in theory, but practically impossible to put in practice due to the complexity of the 40K turn structure...'

insaniak wrote:
So I would put it into the 'good idea in theory, but practically impossible to put in practice due to the complexity of the 40K turn structure...'

QFT

You could do it...but it would take a massive amount of rules minutia that would make star fleet battles seem like go fish.

I'll admit I've never played in a 40k tourney, timed or otherwise. But I have played in chess tournements. The 50/50 rule is BS. In chess each person is alloted a certain amount of time which happens to make a game to a maximum time limit. If the rule is that you can't use more time than me then what happens when I play "speed chess" (taking less time to think and just move the piece)? If you use more time than me can I cry "foul"? Chess is not a game about moving pieces and rolling dice it's almost purely intellectual. Chess players need a prod so that the game doesn't drag on for days. 40K has a time limit so that X number of rounds can be played in a day. It's a different purpose and needs a different answer. If my opponent plays an army with only 20 pieces should I have to match his speed of play? As long as I play as fast as reasonable why should I worry how much time I'm using? The game goes until it's over by time or scenerio. This whole thing seems to me, to be like the argument about should someone concede a game that they're losing. The comparision to chess is unfair to the game and the players. If there is a problem that's what TOs are there for. If they can't handle the problem then they shouldn't be running the tourney next time.

Let's say we use the clock run. What happens when a players time runs out? Do they get a automatic loss?

Crush all their models into dust imo.. Ironman 40k

Honestly Id prefer more TO's and stricter time rules over a clock.. but most tournaments Ive been to have what, 1 judge for 20 people? How many were on the floor constantly during adepticon?

If you can find a way to eliminate the subjective nature of "stalling" and have more enforcement present on the floor (You often waste more time trying to get a judge) then I think it can work

I don't think the armies are balanced for 50/50 play and due to the ebb and flow of the game, many times one particular assault turn will take much longer than all the other simply of when the 'clash' of the forces happens. This isn't slow play... this is how the game is played and one person should not be penalized because it just happens to be on his turn a lot of units were in the correct place for multiple assaults to kick off. (or outplayed his opponent to gain an advantage by coordinating assaults, now he is going to be punished for time?)

Disagree, ive never seen a well skilled and highly knowledgeable player be also a "slow player".. From my experience at 10 years of tournaments they are fairly mutually exclusive. Slow play generally involves either not knowing your rules completely or not knowing your tactics well enough to execute them in a timely manner. Personally I dont think I've run out of time during any tournament games, but I see it all the time on other boards

Tournaments give a SET time to finish your game in. How can it can be fair if you allow someone to play slow and break one of the above stipulations? IE finishing the game. Okay sometimes games do drag on longer than normal, but a lot of slow players have a very distinctive pattern. That pattern is that ALL of their games take forever, Im sorry but both players have a right to a full game not just the guy who plays an army he cant even finish a game with

None of what I said assumed tho that the player is doing it on purpose.. I havent seen an example of this personally but Ive read it does happen especially with ork armies

I'm not sure how the timer thing would work. If after 15 minutes, if I'm not done with my turn, it's forfeit, that leaves a lot of room for shenanigans.

During my turn, someone could drag their feet deciding what guys to take off in the shooting phase, reducing my assault phase time. If the point is to avoid dodgy players, this doesn't quite do it.

Your best bet is to tell the TO about slow players or tell the other guy to hurry up.

Timers aren't the end point of the discssion--that role still falls to the TO.

What timers can do, though, is help convince a TO or judge that he needs to watch a particular game.

Case in point: last years Semi's at Ernie's Games in Kirkland, WA.

A notorious cheater (the same player that had his 'win' stripped at the last Seattle GT) slowplayed rednekgunner in the 2nd game. I think they finished three turns.

Judges were alerted between the 2nd & 3rd game, and they had one judge watching the entirety of Nathaniel's last game.

Oddly enough, that game finished with plenty of time to spare...

If a timer / chessclock / stopwatch does nothing more than prompt the scrutiny of a judge, it has done its job.

CatPeeler wrote:If a timer / chessclock / stopwatch does nothing more than prompt the scrutiny of a judge, it has done its job.

Surely, though, the slow player's opponents complaining to the judge would have the same effect, without the TO needing to purchase a whole bunch of timers...

insaniak wrote:Surely, though, the slow player's opponents complaining to the judge would have the same effect, without the TO needing to purchase a whole bunch of timers...

In an ideal situation, sure. If you need to convince a judge that there's an issue, though, having some form of documentation can only help.

"Judge, this guy is slow-playing me. Can you watch / get him to speed up?"

vs.

"Judge, I've played 8 minutes & 32 seconds of the last hour and ten minutes, can you watch the rest of the game to help things along?"

My digital stopwatch cost me $9 at the sporting goods store--less than what I've spent on dice & templates. If you can't be bothered to spend ten bucks to help nip slow playing in the bud, your cell phone or watch may even have a timer built in. As far as I'm concerned, every tournament player should add a timer to their kit.

Yeah, he said / she said rarely works anywhere.. Better to have evidence

Kirasu wrote:Yeah, he said / she said rarely works anywhere.. Better to have evidence

And you showing the TO a watch is different how?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:And you showing the TO a watch is different how?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you seriously believe that a TO wouldn't give any more credence to a complaint with a stopwatch than to one without any documentation?

CatPeeler wrote:Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you seriously believe that a TO wouldn't give any more credence to a complaint with a stopwatch than to one without any documentation?

I wouldn't, if I was running the event.

A stopwatch displaying a couple of times means what, exactly? That the player has been timing the turns? Or that they have simply been running a stopwatch and stopping it at random times? How is the TO going to know?

And, again, even if you accept that whatever is shown on the watch actually relates to the game, it doesn't take into account the fact that a single player's turn does not consist of actions only taken by that player. You can't accurately time how long a single player is taking, because so much of the game isn't about that single player.

insaniak wrote:I wouldn't, if I was running the event.

A stopwatch displaying a couple of times means what, exactly? That the player has been timing the turns? Or that they have simply been running a stopwatch and stopping it at random times? How is the TO going to know?

Which, again, is why you ask the TO to come and watch the game and decide what actions (if any) should be taken. I wouldn't expect a stopwatch alone to disqualify anyone--it can, however, lend at least *some* degree of weight to a complaint.

I think that we can all agree that, by it's nature, slow play may be difficult to 'prove.' Unfortunately, I've seen plenty of occasions where a judge has been apathetic or dismissive about complaints.

By keeping a stopwatch visible, I'm convinced that I have two things on my side:

1) Obvious warning against slowplay shenanigans for a would-be cheater.
2) A tangible increase in the likelihood of a judge taking closer notice after a complaint.

Does a stopwatch "prove" anything? For the reasons already noted, of course not. I am convinced, however, that it presents enough "documentation" to get an otherwise lazy judge off his butt. And if the simple presence of a stopwatch nips an intentional cheater's slow play in the bud, it's already done its job.

If you're blessed by either a decent opponent or a competent judge, the watch can go back in the case.

CatPeeler wrote:Which, again, is why you ask the TO to come and watch the game and decide what actions (if any) should be taken. I wouldn't expect a stopwatch alone to disqualify anyone--it can, however, lend at least *some* degree of weight to a complaint.

That, I think, is where we'll have to disagree. Asking a judge to oversee the game is really the best option... but the stopwatch doesn't make your complaint any more weighty. It just means you have a stopwatch.

I think that we can all agree that, by it's nature, slow play may be difficult to 'prove.' Unfortunately, I've seen plenty of occasions where a judge has been apathetic or dismissive about complaints.

So, to turn the question around, if the judge is already apathetic or dismissive, do you honestly think they're going to be any less so just because you have a stopwatch that displays some (so far as they can see) random numbers?




But again, how do you actually time the game? Are you going to start and stop the split every time either player takes an action? Or just time the phase and hope the other player's actions in that phase don't skew the times too much? Because very little of the game is actually a single-player-at-a-time affair. So unless you're stopping and starting the clock for every individual action, you're not actually getting an accurate representation... so it's essentially meaningless. All you're actually timing is the length of time that both players are taking to complete a phase.

As being the one slow played by Nathanial last year, I can say that I did complain, and I got a whole lot of nothing. The short version of the story is that Ernie at last years Semifinals had to take off for some reason, and I heard him tell his friend " I gotta go, watch things for me." I took this as the guy watching the store was a judge, and during my game when TMFG Nathanial walked over to the mission brief to read it 3 times and spent almost 20 minutes deciding what psychic powers to use, the "judge" was right there watching my game. I pointed to my watch and looked at the judge, and all I got was a shrug. I took this as the home team advantage, and played on, despite the gross flagrant cheating in every other phase ( He was recorded at the Seattle GT doing the same things). I ended up loosing the game only because we ended on T3, and I was playing mech marines, he had mech eldar w/2 council jetbike squads. I then told Ernie after he got back, and all I got was thanks for the info.

I told this story, because if I were to have had a stop watch I could have said exactly how long I had played and fought harder to get him DQ'ed.

We could always start a website devoted to posting pictures, names and armies of slow players.. Shaming worked for certain organizations for a thousand years!

The problem is still the lack of judges and at times lack of caring how a tournament is run.. Either just being dismissive or being overworked (After all it is usually a volunteer thing)

I think timed turns are good, but I dont know how to enforce it very well without more judges. Its like knowing how to properly stop crime in a city but never having another police officers to do it..

Perhaps a solution could include making sure the top tables are watched more closely during the final round. That way you can atleast use the judges you do have more efficiently.

As being the one slow played by Nathanial last year, I can say that I did complain, and I got a whole lot of nothing. The short version of the story is that Ernie at last years Semifinals had to take off for some reason, and I heard him tell his friend " I gotta go, watch things for me." I took this as the guy watching the store was a judge, and during my game when TMFG Nathanial walked over to the mission brief to read it 3 times and spent almost 20 minutes deciding what psychic powers to use, the "judge" was right there watching my game. I pointed to my watch and looked at the judge, and all I got was a shrug. I took this as the home team advantage, and played on, despite the gross flagrant cheating in every other phase ( He was recorded at the Seattle GT doing the same things). I ended up loosing the game only because we ended on T3, and I was playing mech marines, he had mech eldar w/2 council jetbike squads. I then told Ernie after he got back, and all I got was thanks for the info.

I told this story, because if I were to have had a stop watch I could have said exactly how long I had played and fought harder to get him DQ'ed.

Yeah good story.. It illustrates another problem that is not unique to judging.. Peoples unwillingness to confront others. Often people just want to ignore something that doesnt affect them rather than speak up or take a side. Doing so would require him to do more than just making a ruling on a rule, he would have to rule *against* the actual player not just the interpretation of a rule

Kirasu wrote:Yeah good story.. It illustrates another problem that is not unique to judging.. Peoples unwillingness to confront others. Often people just want to ignore something that doesnt affect them rather than speak up or take a side. Doing so would require him to do more than just making a ruling on a rule, he would have to rule *against* the actual player not just the interpretation of a rule.

And herein is a very important truth. A lot of TOs, in all honesty, don't have the skills necessary for the job. In an ideal world, yeah, you either just remind the other player to play faster or get the TO and have them make a ruling if they don't. But the vast majority of the time, the TOs are the store owner or employee, perhaps not even that knowledgeable about the game, and not able/willing to make that call. Add to that the fact that most gamers are not... adept... in the social graces and you have the potential for abuse. All the more reason that some kind of structure should be in place, if only to give the TO some tangible rule they can point to in order to enforce these sort of issues.

insaniak wrote:So, to turn the question around, if the judge is already apathetic or dismissive, do you honestly think they're going to be any less so just because you have a stopwatch that displays some (so far as they can see) random numbers?

I do, actually. As has been mentioned in several threads, people are generally non-confrontational--TO's included. I think some of the bad judging out there is due to that desire to avoid unpleasantness. In that case, having a timer gives them an 'out,' in the sense that there's at least something he can point to as the basis for a ruling, other than himself. "I'm not saying you're cheating--the stopwatch is saying your cheating. You two better Play Nice, or the mean ol' stopwatch is going to disqualify you."

But again, how do you actually time the game? Are you going to start and stop the split every time either player takes an action? Or just time the phase and hope the other player's actions in that phase don't skew the times too much? Because very little of the game is actually a single-player-at-a-time affair. So unless you're stopping and starting the clock for every individual action, you're not actually getting an accurate representation... so it's essentially meaningless. All you're actually timing is the length of time that both players are taking to complete a phase.

In actual practice (at least, in my experience), such precision is entirely unnecessary. I time the entirety of my deployment, and the entirety of my own turns. Slow play typically becomes obvious long before the game gets to the point where a complicated assault has even begun.

Guys like that are tough to handle if the Judges won't do anything about it. I have been in a similar situation before where I went directly to the TO and told him what kind of cheating happened and how and then very clamly and directly asked that either a judge be present to watch the game to prevent the cheating or have us both disqualified. The TO looked at me like I was insane but I simply showed that I would lose if the cheating continued and rather than let my opponent get away with it I would like us both disqualified for cheating to ensure that he could not inflict that on any other opponent. The judge stood by the table for a few minutes and nothing went awry on my turn and started to leave, i convinced him to stay once more andhe saw how theis player who was supposed to be so great didn't actually know the rules. He had cheated so often and consistantly he didn't actually know how to play the game legit with any skill. So he spent the rest of that round moving between all other tables and ours to make sure that the game was played correctly. It was so bad for the cheater that he accused the TO of fixing the tourney and not knowing the rules. The TO ended up DQ'ing him and giving his other two opponents prizes for having to play him since it was the final round of the tourney. That was at the Game Matrix in Seattle a few years ago.

On a side note, the 15 minute player rounds I discussed earlier your turn was ended if you exceeded time but since you could bank slow rounds it only happened once or twice. As long as all assaults were already in progress at the ding, thats where the TO would add extra time to the table just to make sure that things were moving quickly. If someone was slow in assault they were not given the extra time. It could be unfair to some but as I said made things move much more smoothly overall.

[quote=CatPeeler
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you seriously believe that a TO wouldn't give any more credence to a complaint with a stopwatch than to one without any documentation?

But the major problem is you assume 'slow play' happens on the slow players turn.

Sure when it comes to 'movement' or shooting order' that is his turn, but rules disputes, Assault, measuring and determining LOS to HIS models happen on YOUR turn as well.

So how does this 'clock' solve any of that? How are you going to capture him Quibbling about cover and LOS to all his units? How are you going to capture when he asks you to measure *EVERY* distance even ones clearly in range? What about when ie fights over rules on your turn? Those are all huge 'slow play' issues that are not on his turn and won't be captured with a chess clock.

If the TO cares about slow play, he is already aware of it and will confront the player.

The issue is TOs many times won't and people think a stopwatch or chess clock will not force a bad TO to confront people... They will still avoid it.

Chess clocks solve nothing as the real issue is Tournament organization... And I still don't agree with the premise the game is balanced or designed for 50/50 play as a single assault can take up way too much time when it is both players involved.

The premise of the game isnt entirely relevant considering the premise ALSO does not include tournament play

Accommodations and restrictions must be used to facilitate well coordinated games. Since a time limit is used then a way to enforce said time limit should be implemented, it's fairly simple

When you institute a law in a society you must also create a mechanism for enforcement of said law. To do otherwise is to permit exploitation of the law.

In a normal game you can say "I wont play you" and that in itself can solve the problem and at the same time provide a deterrent to adverse behavior. (Ex. the offending player has less people to game with). This does not hold true in a tournament because if you concede out of principle well you just handed him an easy win and ENCOURAGED bad behavior on his part

Again, every rule needs a mechanism for fair enforcement. If 40k had a real competitive scene like MTG you could hire judges who are vetted and trained, but alas not gonna happen