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.

CatPeeler wrote:
If you're unable to finish 5 turns in the allotted time, I feel that you're simply not ready to compete at that points level (my main objection to this year's preliminary scenarios was that they were six turns, for this very reason). You can play, sure--but you're not ready to compete. Further, if you choose to use a large or otherwise complicated army, then I think the onus is on you to practice, practice, practice until you can still consistently finish the game in the time provided. If you can't--you're not ready.

The good news is that there's some leeway there. In my experience, most skilled players seem to only need 30-40% of the time allowed (that full mech & reserves are so prevalent in this edition certainly helps). Obviously, this gives their opponent some breathing room... but the catch is that if you have 60-70% of the time allowed, you have even *less* an excuse not to finish the game. In that sense, a hard-and-fast "50% of the time" rule isn't absolutely necessary, but I think that it would serve as a reasonably equitable standard to assume.

This still leaves *plenty* of room for newer players. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to expect that you'll need to start 'small,' as it were, and then work your way up. There are plenty of 1000-1500 point tourneys out there for newer players to cut their teeth on. Once they have things 'down' at that level, they can certainly move up to the next level.

Two things:


You say that if someone isn't skilled/practiced enough to finish in the amount of time you believe is acceptable to play in then they 'aren't ready to compete'. The problem with that, of course, is that person is also playing someone else. And if you end up drawing this player in the first round of the tournament and there really isn't enough time alloted in the round for that person to finish their game, then *both* players are going to be subject to whatever the outcome of the 3-4 turn game is. So not only does the lack of proper round times affect players who generally aren't fast players, but it also affects the opponents of these players as well.

And if the negative of having enough time for average players to finish their games in a tournament is that some players are stuck waiting for their next game for 90 minutes is this really such a horrible thing? I absolutely don't think so. If you don't want to go take a nice long meal break, then walk around and watch other games in progress, bring a book, etc, etc, etc.

The alternative that is being pushed here (using timed rounds or chess timers) is far, far worse to the overall gaming experience. You are only thinking of how it would apply to players who are genuinely *choosing* to slow-play. Imagine how these tools would actually effect someone who just isn't as familiar with the game or their army. Watching them get really frustrated rushing, making mistakes desperately trying to finish their turns way faster then they are comfortable...they're going to be miserable and that's going to make playing the game against them miserable.


Second, both you and I (and many other people) throw around how they think most people in a tournament are playing, but in my experience, I haven't found any tournaments that actually collect this data. And until we have this data to look at, we really can't figure out if there is an issue and how to address it if it exists.

To that end, I've really pushed the Adepticon guys to, starting next year, include a question on their game results sheet which says: 'Did you finish your game to its natural conclusion within the time alloted? If not, what turn did your game end on?'


I really believe that EVERY tournament should start asking this question routinely. Only once this kind of data has been collected can a TO really start to see if failing to finish games is really an issue or non-issue in their tournament and then they can look to ways to address the issue. Including this question will also let TOs track chronic slow-players to identify whether they are genuinely slow or someone literally trying to slow-play their opponent.

yakface wrote:The alternative that is being pushed here (using timed rounds or chess timers) is far, far worse to the overall gaming experience. You are only thinking of how it would apply to players who are genuinely *choosing* to slow-play. Imagine how these tools would actually effect someone who just isn't as familiar with the game or their army. Watching them get really frustrated rushing, making mistakes desperately trying to finish their turns way faster then they are comfortable...they're going to be miserable and that's going to make playing the game against them miserable.

I believe this is his whole point about "not being ready to compete." Tournaments shouldn't be about trying out new material; you should be bringing your A game which includes a good working knowledge of the game rules and especially those of your army. It's not unreasonable that these should be baseline expectations that help stem incidental slow down. Hell, at a recent tourney, I was playing ork dreadbash against a CSM plague marine army and it bogged down several times because the guy didn't know basic rules about his army, such as what denied him his FNP (such as deffrollas, rokkits, etc.), how IC characters worked in assault (how my dreads could attack Typhus or plague terminators in base contact, for example), how instant death worked (dreadnought CCW vs typhus), how you only got one attack and hit on 6s with grenades against walkers, and so on. Despite the fact that this guy had played his army many times before, despite the fact that I got the TO to make the correct ruling on each one of these issues, the game bogged down as the guy scoured the rulebook to back up what everyone else knew and was able to take for granted. The back and forth on these issues ate up at least 30+ minutes of our 2 hour slot, and we only finished 4 turns. IMO, that's unacceptable behavior in a tournament; know the rules, especially those pertinent to your army. It's one thing to have a differing opinion on a grey area of the rules, it's another to slow the game down through ignorance. "New to the game" or "new to this army" don't belong in tourneys, IMO. Get more experience, then go to tourneys with the list.

Skarboy wrote: Tournaments shouldn't be about trying out new material; you should be bringing your A game which includes a good working knowledge of the game rules and especially those of your army.

If 40K tournaments were actually perceived as serious competitive events, that would be true.

For many of the people who enter them, that's not the case. A tournament is just a handy excuse to get out and spend a day or two on their hobby... a chance to get in a good solid round of gaming, and not really seen as a great deal different to any other game on any other day.


If you want tournaments to be filled solely with 'serious' competitors, changing the perception of the event is going to be more effective than just adding a turn timer.

yakface wrote:You say that if someone isn't skilled/practiced enough to finish in the amount of time you believe is acceptable to play in then they 'aren't ready to compete'. The problem with that, of course, is that person is also playing someone else. And if you end up drawing this player in the first round of the tournament and there really isn't enough time alloted in the round for that person to finish their game, then *both* players are going to be subject to whatever the outcome of the 3-4 turn game is. So not only does the lack of proper round times affect players who generally aren't fast players, but it also affects the opponents of these players as well.

Was this in doubt? My argument is on behalf of the slow player's opponent. I haven't even really addressed possible sanctions--just that obvious slow play warrants the monitoring or intervention by a judge.

And if the negative of having enough time for average players to finish their games in a tournament is that some players are stuck waiting for their next game for 90 minutes is this really such a horrible thing? I absolutely don't think so. If you don't want to go take a nice long meal break, then walk around and watch other games in progress, bring a book, etc, etc, etc.

If you're playing in a multi-day event, where the players all have hotel rooms to crash in, you might have a point. The vast majority of tournaments (Ard Boyz included), though, are one day / three round affairs. If you allowed 3 & 1/2 hours per round for Ard Boyz, a half hour break, an hour for lunch, and an hour for check-in/table assignments/etc., you're talking about 13 hours. Even if you only extend it to 3 hours a round, you're still looking at nearly 12 hours of tournament time overall. When you factor in travel times at either end (I'll be travelling 2+ hours to the semi's, myself), the numbers rapidly exceed what I'd consider reasonable.

The physical and mental stress of a tournament can be exhausting--should we not aim to streamline things as much as possible? I'd rather have a 10 hour tournament day--with the expectation that the players involved finish all their games on time--than a 12-13 hour tournament designed to facilitate games for slower players. Much as I love 40k, I'm not terribly interested in a 16 or 17 hour day.

The alternative that is being pushed here (using timed rounds or chess timers) is far, far worse to the overall gaming experience. You are only thinking of how it would apply to players who are genuinely *choosing* to slow-play. Imagine how these tools would actually effect someone who just isn't as familiar with the game or their army. Watching them get really frustrated rushing, making mistakes desperately trying to finish their turns way faster then they are comfortable...they're going to be miserable and that's going to make playing the game against them miserable.

Which is why I think that one should reach a reasonable level of mastery before participating at a competitive level. I don't believe that a tournament is the appropriate venue to learn the game--much less one's own army. Again, if you're not able to finish your game in a set time, I don't believe you're ready to compete at that level.

An analogy that comes to mind is golf. A player that is able to complete a given hole in 5-6 strokes is going to have a miserable time if they're paired with a player who takes 10-15 strokes per hole. My point is that the hypothetical second player shouldn't even be playing with the first until he can play at a similar pace. Ever seen Happy Gilmore? Bob Barker's got a mean right cross...

Second, both you and I (and many other people) throw around how they think most people in a tournament are playing, but in my experience, I haven't found any tournaments that actually collect this data. And until we have this data to look at, we really can't figure out if there is an issue and how to address it if it exists.

To that end, I've really pushed the Adepticon guys to, starting next year, include a question on their game results sheet which says: 'Did you finish your game to its natural conclusion within the time alloted? If not, what turn did your game end on?'

I really believe that EVERY tournament should start asking this question routinely. Only once this kind of data has been collected can a TO really start to see if failing to finish games is really an issue or non-issue in their tournament and then they can look to ways to address the issue. Including this question will also let TOs track chronic slow-players to identify whether they are genuinely slow or someone literally trying to slow-play their opponent.

That sounds like a fantastic idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, ninja'd on several of my points...

insaniak wrote:

Skarboy wrote: Tournaments shouldn't be about trying out new material; you should be bringing your A game which includes a good working knowledge of the game rules and especially those of your army.

If 40K tournaments were actually perceived as serious competitive events, that would be true.

For many of the people who enter them, that's not the case. A tournament is just a handy excuse to get out and spend a day or two on their hobby... a chance to get in a good solid round of gaming, and not really seen as a great deal different to any other game on any other day.


If you want tournaments to be filled solely with 'serious' competitors, changing the perception of the event is going to be more effective than just adding a turn timer.

Agreed COMPLETELY. I see no reason they couldn't develop tiers of events or something along those lines to differentiate casual/hobby events from tournaments based solely upon battle results. Even still, I believe there is sufficient cause to develop at least some guidelines for timely play, if not timing mechanisms.

Skarboy wrote:
Agreed COMPLETELY. I see no reason they couldn't develop tiers of events or something along those lines to differentiate casual/hobby events from tournaments based solely upon battle results. Even still, I believe there is sufficient cause to develop at least some guidelines for timely play, if not timing mechanisms.

I feel dice cheating and problems with custom dice is far more of an issue than 'slow play' especially since slow play can be addressed easily. Makes slow play look like a stupid waste of time.

I do laugh at the idea of 'LOL COMPETITIVE' events for a dice game where grown men cheat and somehow they should be elite events free of inexperienced players or something.

One of the major reasons there is 'slow play' is inexperienced players not knowing rules and the ensuing disagreements. Maybe since events are serious business and only experienced players should be allowed to participate they need to do a rules quiz before hand where you need to quote core rules and page numbers from memory or else you are banned from the event or forced to play against the other 'slowies' that don't know the rules. I mean these events should be competitive right?

I do like how somehow events that require painting are now supposedly the dumping ground for inferior players so people who only care about battle points want to be seen as a higher tier or caliber of player/event. Very nice touch.

yakface wrote:.
And if the negative of having enough time for average players to finish their games in a tournament is that some players are stuck waiting for their next game for 90 minutes is this really such a horrible thing? I absolutely don't think so. If you don't want to go take a nice long meal break, then walk around and watch other games in progress, bring a book, etc, etc, etc.

Happens to me all the time. At the Blobs Park tourney this past weekend, I finished three of four games in under 1 1/2 hours, with a 2 1/2 hour time limit. So I spent a lot of time wandering around, drinking beer, catching up with old friends, making new friends, ohhh I dunno, being sociable.

don_mondo wrote:ohhh I dunno, being sociable.

This is very difficult for some people.

Yeah, it's hard, I'm such a shy and bashful type, ya know..............

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.

sounds good to me.

I think it's been well addressed why there should not be timers. However, if those who still feel timers should be used, then each player should also use identical armies. That is the fairest way to ensure that each army should take roughly the exact same amount of time to play. my first turn.

And if there's a rules disagreement, the person who loses the disagreement should be penalized for taking up valuable clock time.

It sounds nice, but 40K is really not designed to have timed rounds. Timers just aren't practical.

If people scored Sportsmanship in a more truthful manner rather than giving max or chipmunking scores, I don't think timers would even be an issue. Nobody wants to address another player on what appears to be dubious actions, thus undermining the scoring parameters.

40K just isn't a good system for serious competitive play. It makes for some fun games, but trying to shoehorn 40K into a true competitive enviornment simply doesn't work.

So i actually read all this...

To the people saying assaulty armies will be penalized....
If your an assault based army, will you have alot of shooting? no guess what!? turn 1-2 your time clock barely moved! omg you still have over an hour on your clock from a 2.5hr game..now you get to where you finally assault people, guess what? their clock has less time on it than yours! why? because they were shooting and using their assault phase (those that can move).

In the end your army type be it CC oriented, Shooting oriented, has no bearing on time. Because the shooty army is burning time from the get go, while the assaulters are move, run, done. The only problem that arises is a HORDE army, solution to that? no offense but in a tourny its a competitive format from the word GO, if you can't complete a game in 2.5hrs due to your inability to move/control that many models in quickly enough time, you should not be bringing this army to a timed match unless your able to wield it in an effective manner within the boundaries of a set amount of time to complete your game.

THAT is the issue, if you cant play fast enough to finish a match your penalizing your opponent for your own faults.

I'm of the frame of mind that if you equally broke down a game into chess clocks and actually played a couple casual games with your army of choice. Id bet money youd start finishing games in a very short span, especially if you auto forfiet for running out of time.

Hmmm this is actually a good point that i've thought about before. The opponent can on occasion ruin the game with a ridiculous time waster. But then again people should get to take their time.

TopC - you assume that shooting and assault are equivalent, time wise. That is a fairly unsafe assumption, especially with possibly complicated multi I combats.

I'm generally in favor of turn timers, but I'm intrigued by the time difference arguments.

I say try it out and warn the players in advance. People will have to adjust their lists
to fit the requirements, but from what I've seen, many tournaments have
something going on that force players to adjust their lists or gameplay styles. Why
not test turn timers?

Because of the time skews between early and late game, chess clock
timers would probably be best.

40k was never indented to be at timed game, and thus should not be.

If you really want timed turns play space hulk. That game was designed from the ground up to be a timed game. Also note that just because the marines are the only side to be timed doesn't mean the genestealers can take their time. The faster the genestealer player takes their turn the less time the marine player has to think. I love space hulk because the marines have to fight 2 deadly enemies: the bugs and time it's self.

I think the biggest problem with the time issue is that peoples' perceptions of how long their turns take versus how long their opponents are taking is always skewed.

I ran horde orks (again) this year for 'ard boyz, and in all of my practice games, we made it to the end of all 6 turns, with one game that made it to 5.

Come 'ard boyz, I had one game make it to 4 turns, and 2 make it to 5. The round that made it to 4 had the other player grumbling about time, when, to me, it seemed like HIS turns were the ones taking forever.

A chess clock might help illustrate a time difference, but I also think people make assumptions about the breakdown in turns that may not actually be accurate.

I like the idea of having a stop watch if you think your opponent is a gakker. I have came across this 20 mins left board pretty sparce, saying to opponent lets speed it up to finish, playing our turn in 5 mins , then expecting the same, then he stalls out 15 mins so he doesnt loose the game. stalling is totally against the spirit, and i personally would rather loose than stall in 40k , if you want to stall go play magic the gathering.

kartofelkopf wrote:I think the biggest problem with the time issue is that peoples' perceptions of how long their turns take versus how long their opponents are taking is always skewed. .... The round that made it to 4 had the other player grumbling about time, when, to me, it seemed like HIS turns were the ones taking forever.

The last time I played in 'ard boyz I had nob heavy orks (not bikers) and the SM player I beat in the first round was complaining that wound allocation was what caused the game to be short. In reality, he had a shooty SM army and he took 32 minutes to deploy his army, he took a long time to decide what each unit was going to shoot and he was slow to rolling dice - he only had one color and so to roll various weapons took twice as long as normal.

Very frustrating to be the one accused of slow play when my turns did not take long at all and my setup consisted of plunking down BWs.

I have encountered players that stall on purpose because it improves their chances of winning. An all infantry guard army players was famous for this. I never saw him play a tourney where he got past round 4 and he won often.

I also have a friend who is disabled and does take a while to move stuff due to this. He also does not usually make it past turn 4-5 because of this reason. He wins some and losses some.

I cannot see instituting a timer as it would ruin the game for one, but help to deal with another. How do you suppose we deal with situations like this when they arise?

In my first match at the semi finals Ard Boyz, my opponent attempted to stall out the game on turn 2 by moving all of his models exactly 1", and then running them all exactly 1" back to the position they were at before moving.

And he didn't care who knew.

And he was playing orks. He took over 40 minutes to get thru his movement and shooting phases, and he didn't fire a shot.

Being that he went first, he was intentionally trying to end the game without giving me a second turn. My second turn, I was given 7 minutes to play before the match ended.

He never once sat back and 'thought'. No he just moved as slow as possible.

I learned my lesson that day. From now on, if someone tried that on me at a tournament, I will be getting ejected from the tournament.

Chess timers on turns will save not only angry opponents, but probably lower court costs afterwards.
I won't get physical over a game. I will get physical over someone blatantly trying to cheat me.

SHarrington wrote:In my first match at the semi finals Ard Boyz, my opponent attempted to stall out the game on turn 2 by moving all of his models exactly 1", and then running them all exactly 1" back to the position they were at before moving.

And he didn't care who knew.

So... why didn't you get a TO?

I really think that's the single biggest problem in re: to cheating/slow-playing is nobody says anything to a TO AS SOON AS something fishy starts to go down.

Everyone wants to be a nice guy and doesn't complain until after the fact... which just makes it impossible for a TO to rectify the situation.

TFG is a bully-- and bullies only back down when they're confronted. By being complacent, you enable TFG to continue to be TFG.

Slow playing when it is being clearly done to give the player a better chance at winning and especially if the guy admits to it is cheating. Although I do not see how him foregoing an entire turn of shooting or doing anything did not give YOU a major advantage that early in the game, but if it continued throughout I can see it being an issue.

Like we talked about at Ard' Boyz though kart, what do you do about a guy that is just ignorant of the most basic rules? You cannot call a TO over to babysit you because of that, and you should not have to since he is trying to deal with everyone else questions as well. It also makes YOU kinda look like TFG in the process.

My first game in the Semi's this year we had to call over the TO 3-4 times and go see him about as many. The time wasted during these stops happened on both our turns, but was 95% of the time him being incorrect on some rule I thought should be common knowledge.

Blaring example being he tried to claim cover for a Leman Russ sitting in area terrain, with less that 25% of the tank covered. We handled this by breaking out the rulebook I was amazed to discover he owned, but this happened on my turn so the turn timer would penalize me there. The only way this could be handled is to mark the time when the dispute started and penalize the player who was WRONG the time spent working it out. This would be fine, but it opens up a whole new pain in the arse that I doubt any TO wants to deal with on top of all the other organizers duties. It seemed hard enough to get everyone to remember to take down VP's each round this year.

Simple fact is like most have been saying this game was not meant to be played inside of time constraints, and I think there is no totally fair way to make it work like we (tournament players) want without spending 12hrs playing the tournament. Or making any major event into a 2day affair which many people are not willing/able to do.

kartofelkopf wrote:

So... why didn't you get a TO?

I really think that's the single biggest problem in re: to cheating/slow-playing is nobody says anything to a TO AS SOON AS something fishy starts to go down.

Everyone wants to be a nice guy and doesn't complain until after the fact... which just makes it impossible for a TO to rectify the situation.

TFG is a bully-- and bullies only back down when they're confronted. By being complacent, you enable TFG to continue to be TFG.

Its quite an easy answer. Calling a TO over is a joke. As anyone can can tell you, 99% of the results is the TO saying "Don't do that again" and walking away.
And they continue to do it. Slow Playing is not enforceable.

It's easier just to enforce it yourself. Which is what I will be doing from now on. I used to think those guys at tournaments that got angry at their opopnents and yelled at them were douches. I'm beginning to see that there might be a valid reason for being like that.

I might be the douche at my next tournament, but I will get a fair game out of it.


*Shakes his head* TO's are a joke. Babysitters who number crunch. In fact, now that I consider it, most of the time I have seen a ruling asked of a TO, he asks another player what the rule is.
I'm willing to bet every single person that has been to a tournament has seen this as well.

Nope
Because stupid feths like me are slow

SHarrington wrote:
Its quite an easy answer. Calling a TO over is a joke. As anyone can can tell you, 99% of the results is the TO saying "Don't do that again" and walking away.
And they continue to do it. Slow Playing is not enforceable.

It's easier just to enforce it yourself. Which is what I will be doing from now on. I used to think those guys at tournaments that got angry at their opopnents and yelled at them were douches. I'm beginning to see that there might be a valid reason for being like that.

I might be the douche at my next tournament, but I will get a fair game out of it.


*Shakes his head* TO's are a joke. Babysitters who number crunch. In fact, now that I consider it, most of the time I have seen a ruling asked of a TO, he asks another player what the rule is.
I'm willing to bet every single person that has been to a tournament has seen this as well.

As a tournament organizer I can say that I have asked other people for assistance with an army specific ruling. The reason for this is two fold. First it is quicker for me to ask someone I trust than to try to find the rule in a book I am unfamiliar with (and no it really isnt reasonable to expect the TO to have every book memorized. Do you?) and second because I have noticed in the years that I have run events that having a second person back your decision cuts down on people bickering when it goes against them. I have had more people attempt to argue their reason for interpreting a rule incorrectly than I care to count. Alot of people just ignore a TO ruling or complain the rest of their games about how it was unfair or it was because they dont like me. I dont really care who a person is. When I call a ruling it is because I felt it was correct not because of something personal.

As to slow playing being enforceable. I can say that on 2 separate occasions I have talked to people for stalling the game. The first was uncooperative and was banned from the next event. He came back afterward and did not stall. The second was very understanding and explained that he was just slow. He got better with his game and confidence and got faster. So I believe that like any other situation that this is completely enforceable. You just have to go about it in the correct manner.

As a Warmachine player of 6 years, I'm highly supportive of turn timers. Steamroller tournaments have been timed (12 minute turns, 100+2d6 minute games at the 50 point level, with a single 5 minute extension) for ages in that game, and I've rarely seen anyone who's had to forgo more than one or two models on a busy turn. While it's true that Warmachine typically features smaller model counts than 40k, the more abstract ruleset of 40k means that turn lengths really shouldn't be any longer.

While I feel sorry for those who for reasons of mental or physical handicap can't manage to keep up with said limits, I'd suggest that competitive play might not be for them. For those without any such disability who can't keep within timed turns, even with an extension, might I suggest you practice more?

Mind you, timed turns don't completely eliminate stalling. It's still easy enough to intentionally use all 12 minutes of your turn when you've got two models left and you know dice down's coming some time in the next three. It's also easy enough to drag out your opponent's turn with nitpicking, unneccessary measuring, and rules questions.

The only real way to solve this problem is to have TOs (and, in Warmachine's case, Press Gangers) willing to actually address problem players and remove them from the tournament. Privateer's historically used a Strike system (or at least my local PGs have), although the current Steamroller rules doc allows for simply DQing people who break the rules, act unsportsmanly, or stall. If your tourneys have these problems and nothing's done about it, the problem is as much your TO as the player(s), and you really ought to get a new one.

Ironically, Sportsmanship scoring isn't new and slow play falls right into it. Historically, this score has been used/abused so much that many events are looking to drop it. However, you still see folks claiming its the TO job to enforce every player at every table at all times.

Not realistic. Players have largely had to govern themselves in various events over the years.

Players have had the ability to control this for years, yet seem incapable of doing so. I've also started seeing this dilemma (slow play) crop up more often b/c of Ard Boyz events and playing 2500 points in 2 1/2 hours.

Basically, it seems like grown men afraid to openly discuss an issue with their opponent and want a TO to be the fall guy.

Timers still won't work. Instead of slow play, these unscrupulous players will just find another way to continue their shenanigans.

Whenever one of those random stupid rules comes up that people just think "WTF!?" at happen . . . the ones people go to the TO for . . . I just say "I know it's stupid and makes no sense, but sadly that's the rules." =/

This generally makes the stupid rule go down a bit better. Also I don't exploit these stupid rules, they just sometimes happen. Unlike TFG or whatever.

Oshova

I for one understand all this but can't realisticly see a way to fix it. One of my biggest complaints this year was in ard boyz where I didn't get to take my last turn, which would have totally changed the outcome of the game. Time was called, I had used 45mins of the total time, where my opponnet who was playing marines used the rest of the time. Normally I see this with horde armies, which to an extent I understand. I mean 200 models takes longer to mover,shoot etc then 50.
Worse yet I have had people have emergencies and during their turn 5 run to the bathroom and not return for 25 mins, and in one case my opponent turned to the table behind him to give his buddy an immediate recap of the epic dice rolls he just made with play by play.