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.

Maybe we should implement time clocks into tournaments like they use in Chess. Here is how it works.

Example: 90 min rounds

1. If a game reaches the end by a dice roll ending the game or the final round of turn 7 is reached. 1 additional victory point for each player

2. If a game times out, the person with the least amount of time used is awarded 1 additional victory point.

3. If a game ends in an exact tie in time taken but does not end to a dice roll or turn 7. 0 additional victory points for either player

4. If a player concedes a game. 1 additional victory point to be awarded to the other player.

5. If a game times out and one player has more than 2/3 time taken for turns. That player is still eligible to win the match, but will receive a -1 modifier to his match score after the battle.

But when do you switch the clock? Obviously you have to do it every time your opponent takes an action during your turn (saves, close combat attacks, etc), but what about things like rule disputes? Whose time is used up if there's a disagreement?

Also in chess both sides have the same number of minis

40k not so much

It would favor low modelcount armies a tad ...

Suspend the clock for rules disagreements, other than that. Learn about how things work and have fun. The objective is to get to the end of the game. Not to create a weighted stall tactic to advance up the placement ladder. It will get players into the mind set that if you show up to a competitive scene, you need to know what you are doing if you are going to make it to the final tables. In my experience a loss to an opponent due to tactics and sportsmanship at the end because a dice roll ended the game or reaching turn 7 is just as good as a win compared to loosing a game because the other player stalled the game to steal a victory that finishing turn 4 would have done.

 Fenix wrote:
Suspend the clock for rules disagreements, other than that.

I suppose that's fair, but if you have 90 minute rounds with 90 minutes of clock time your rounds will still go over the limit. You'd have to build in a budget for rule disputes and other clock stoppages and have the total time on the clocks be significantly less than the round time, so you're probably actually giving less time for each game than the no-clock system.

The objective is to get to the end of the game. Not to create a weighted stall tactic to advance up the placement ladder.

The problem is that a chess clock does nothing to fix the problem of honest slow play (a clueless newbie will still be a clueless newbie and take the entire time given to them, probably not finishing all turns) while giving opportunities for dishonest slow players to exploit the clock if you aren't very careful.

I am not saying its perfect, maybe do away with the time clocks and just award players with +1 point for reaching the end of the game. Some sort of incentive to drive people away from the slow play loss to an opponent that you clearly had a strong chance of beating fairly.

 Fenix wrote:
I am not saying its perfect, maybe do away with the time clocks and just award players with +1 point for reaching the end of the game. Some sort of incentive to drive people away from the slow play loss to an opponent that you clearly had a strong chance of beating fairly.

Then you have to fix the overall scoring system so that a single loss doesn't kill your chances of winning the tournament. If a loss means you're not going to win the tournament then +1 point for finishing is worthless and you might as well try to stall and take even a tiny chance of a win without the +1 bonus. And even then it probably won't work, if I think I have a decent chance of winning a stalled game but a low chance of winning a complete game my obvious correct choice is to stall and take the win.