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.

Consider the following scenario - a player states they think they remember having read a rule but don't remember where they saw it. They open the rulebook to find it... Several minutes go back as they flip pages. How long do you think is reasonable? This applies to a tournament game. At some point if this happens more than once (same player) then it starts to fall into the slow play category IMO.

How would you handle this situation - assume it happens more than twice.

It's not a pick-up game; it's a tournament. I'd say dice for it if you can't find it almost immediately. Your opponent picked his army list and prepared it ahead of time. He should already be familiar with most of the rules for his choices.

While the rule might be important, it's also important to get the game in.

Are we assuming that no judge/TO is available to come over and resolve the problem?

If you believe a rule exists, you should know what section of the rulebook it is in or should be in. If you aren't confident or versed enough with the rules to find the relevant section within a minute, you shouldn't challenge a rule and should lose the challenge.

If you don't believe an opponents statement or use of a unit or ability, if they can't supply the relevant information within a minute of your asking, they deserve to be ruled wrong. Ask to see the rule, if they are playing it, they damn well better be able to supply you said rule, codex, section etc in a minute flat. No longer than two.

I would start hinting at the time limit. I would say things like: "Wow look at the time if we don't get this game moving we might not finish." Its not disagreeing where you might start an argument but it is acknowledging the time limit and making your opponent acknowledge the waste of time as well.

In a perfect world, where all the rules were actually in relevant parts of the book, even better, in EVERY relevant part, 1 min.

In the world we live in, where important exceptions to the rules are only listed in one relevant place, not even close to the rule that they are exceptions of, 3 min.

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:
In a perfect world, where all the rules were actually in relevant parts of the book, even better, in EVERY relevant part, 1 min.

In the world we live in, where important exceptions to the rules are only listed in one relevant place, not even close to the rule that they are exceptions of, 3 min.

Yep, after 3 minutes, player either concedes that he can't enforce what he can't find, or if both players agree, dice off.

GT or rtt, bring in the TO.

 Brothererekose wrote:

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:
In a perfect world, where all the rules were actually in relevant parts of the book, even better, in EVERY relevant part, 1 min.

In the world we live in, where important exceptions to the rules are only listed in one relevant place, not even close to the rule that they are exceptions of, 3 min.

Yep, after 3 minutes, player either concedes that he can't enforce what he can't find, or if both players agree, dice off.

GT or rtt, bring in the TO.

I agree. 3 minutes at max. The rulebook and codexes are hardly well organised. 7th is better than 6th, but there are still rules in strange places. So 2 minutes to find the rule, and an extra minute to allow for slow readers (like the guy with dyslexia in my group).

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we assuming that no judge/TO is available to come over and resolve the problem?

That would take a lot longer. It takes time to find a judge and call them over to your table and explain to them what the problem is. Then all they will do at that point is get out the rule book and look it up themselves and so you are not any better off.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Are we assuming that no judge/TO is available to come over and resolve the problem?

That would take a lot longer. It takes time to find a judge and call them over to your table and explain to them what the problem is. Then all they will do at that point is get out the rule book and look it up themselves and so you are not any better off.

So, Allan if you and I have a beef, can we just go straight to arm wrestling?

Wait i thought we were suposed to sword fight the differences?

 pizzaguardian wrote:
Wait i thought we were suposed to sword fight the differences?

No, Dreadsocks.

Back on Topic:
Allan is right. At a big GT or even smaller rtts, getting a TO could take far longer, and could well take a few more minutes to look it up.

@DozerB
I'm spending a few minutes each day with the RB looking up stuff that is brought up here on dakka and after games. It's gonna take multiple consultations and rereads to really know the rules, with so many of them, especially given how poorly these rules are written as Instructional Text, both in format, layout and language structure.

Cook books are better Instructional Texts by comparison. Legal Speak, that is Law, is comparatively worse/more difficult to understand. Right. ?

I'm Post-It noting my RB and I've seen folks use those colored tabs too. Yeah, you could just use the index in back, but color coding your references is a memory aid.

If you don't know where a rule is, or your opponent doesn't, call a judge.

Finding a judge and getting them to come to your table can take time, but it's not going to take several minutes (it really isn't) unless it's an extremely understaffed event; i.e., at NOVA you won't find a problem getting a judge to address the question or getting a volunteer to at least go find the head judge.

The other component here is if both situations take a fair bit of time, the judge situation at least gives you the ability to appeal for a time extension to make up for what was lost in getting a judge to come over. You are not likely to get a time extension granted for a "claim" of your opponent slow-reading his way to a game advantage without witnesses other than the person trying to beat him.

The main thing is to know the rules for your army inside and out.