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.

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.