Stalling: Legit tactic or poor sportsmanship?

[Zakion]

well lets look at the situation in that if your complaining about the time wasting then the chances are you have been stung in a game where if the time went on you would of won, fair point? So if we go by the theory that at the moment death clock isnt taking over the scene (yet) what is the issue. We as in tournie players have to have a time restriction so we have to live with it so whats another solution. What I have experienced is that when people jerk about with there turn they win on, normally the 2nd or 3rd condition. very rarely do they win on first, this maybe wrong but thats what ive experienced. So is there not a way to change that? The times ive been stung is when a 2pnt solo runs into a zone, dice down and its who has the most points in the zone. A bit crap that I loose two a 2 pnt model when quite often I maybe kurb stomping them so could a future soloution to SR's if death clock doesnt become the norm to be models in the zone count for double points but whoever has the most points on the tabel win, that way it merits those who have clearly attritioned the enemy down to no return but still rewards for being in a zone.

zakion

[WarpedWolf]

I'm going to side with stalling being a jerkass move. It's right up there with winning by rules lawyering.

[quindraco]

I'm going to side with stalling being a jerkass move. It's right up there with winning by rules lawyering.

If you hate "rules lawyering" you're going to have a bad time in a Warmachine tournament - this game is RAW and the rules are complex and it's played that way, as well. If you try to play RAI, it's unlikely to work out well for you.

[PG_Hacksaw76]

could a future soloution to SR's if death clock doesnt become the norm to be models in the zone count for double points but whoever has the most points on the tabel win, that way it merits those who have clearly attritioned the enemy down to no return but still rewards for being in a zone.

That is an excellent idea

[usbprime]

To the original poster......If you were to approach the TO, and complain, even if he didn't DQ your opponent, you could have at least asked him, or the group for a 2 minute extension......you can do alot in 2 minutes.....our last tourney, one guy did his significant activations, and moved models to get a CP for the scenario in 12 seconds! (sacrificed everyones movement and activation, and ran a solo onto the objective to control it......he didn't survive otherwise he'd have won with 1.3s left on his deathclock)

Our Gaming community has almost changed 100% to using the deathclock, purely because alot of our players like to use infantry, and timed turns almost punishes people who play lots of infantry.

As far as scenario's go.....some casters benefit huge from them......and some can't deal with them......in tournament format, you not only need to read your opponent, but the scenario. If you don't think you can beat your opponent, play to the scenario.

[paradox]

Yes, but the person losing by clock will lose because they played poorly and took up too much time. No one loses because of something their opponent did with the clock. That's the big difference.

This is far from the truth regarding most every time-out I've heard/read about.
Deathclock has its own issues, not the least of which is sloppy play (bad measuring, dice-snatching, loose placing, mumblers, speed-talkers). Given my timed experiences thus far, it can often enough be the bad/poor/sloppy player that wins in Deathclock because they are racing through activations.

That said, Hacksaw is correct. This is a DQ-able offense. It's not hard to detect. The TO has full control and final say. The OP also said he was playing for 1st, so the TO should have had a closer eye on this game than normal.
There is no issue calling the TO over. It is never "too late" or "not worth the effort." NOT calling the TO over when things like this happen is WHY people attempt these things in the first place.

It doesn't take long for a TO to figure out whether someone is legit taking time to think out a turn or stalling. The TO also has control of the round time. If round time is close and the TO feels there is a staller, there is nothing more rewarding than manipulating the clock against the staller.

[Omnus]

I am lucky enough to play in an area with lots of Deathclocks. But if it were timed turns, I always thought the tie breaker after scenario points should be army points killed past 50%. No VP sniping but would allow for "I have killed 70% of my opponent's army, I don't have to worry about one solo being in the zone when time is called" but models in the zone is the next tie breaker if neither opponent killed over half the opponent's force.

[Defenstrator]

I'm going to side with stalling being a jerkass move. It's right up there with winning by rules lawyering.

Complaining about Stalling is rules-lawyering. You're saying that the other person can't have their full ten minute turn because it might make you lose.

[Crate123]

Im a little on the fence here. On one hand I HATE losing because I got 1 round less than my opponent, on the other hand its wrong to not allow someone to have their full round when the round time is clearly explained in the rules.
I have never been in this situation myself but I know some of my friends have and I remember we used to theorize about the issue quite a lot back when I used to judge warhammer tournaments.

[Akiosama]

The best solution to this is deathclock. Yes it does add pressure, but it allocates the same amount of resources to each player, keeping a level playing field.

My concern for the issue of stalling has always been the idea that time is as much a resource as points for models, and yet, people complain about the allocation of said resource, despite the fact that the format specifies an amount of said resource for each player for each turn.

I won't disagree about how using up the entire time each turn can lead to situations that aren't fun, but why should one side be given more time to do their turn simply because they're fielding more models (at the beginning of the game), or because their army isn't as decimated (towards the end of the game)? It seems to me that when you lose models, you lose two resources - the points and abilities of said model, and an unspecified amount of time for your turn - and the fact that it's an unspecified amount, that while each individual model might not lose you time, per se, but mass loss of models will, makes it difficult to enforce, because it then becomes completely a judgement call. It's enough of an uphill battle, I feel, to try to mount a comeback when you've lost a significant part of your force just because you've lost that much of your force, but to also lose time in your turn because of it seems like a double-whammy. Should the opponent, who's probably already winning, gain more comparative resources when he/she's already in the driver's seat?

Stalling - bad. Being allowed to use allocated time each turn - should be expected. Where one becomes the other - that's the problem, and the fact that there are no hard and fast guidelines for stalling just seems to illustrate the point that it's completely a judgement call, which is never good for rules enforcement.

We make preparations for dealing with people's armies (a resource), why don't we also make preparations for dealing with time (another resource)? Play the game like you expect the opponent to use his/her full time allotment, use your own, and it seems to me all should be well.

But again, deathclock is the most fair solution for this problem. No stalling there, because the time allotment is equal and explicitly defined, as a resource should be.

My 2 crowns,

Lieutenant-Adept Akio

[PG_LunarSol]

Honestly, as someone new who hasn't played timed turns regularly, I enjoy Deathclock a lot more than turn timers. It means I can practice just turning on a stopwatch and see how much time I spent the entire game and work to improve. The game just doesn't play naturally with a rigid turn time limit. Some turns are just going to take longer than others.

I will say, as far as the deathclock is concerned, it'd be nice if there was still some sort of tie condition to keep odd gaming of the deathclock in situations like Overrun and other, easily contestable scenarios. Something like the game ending if both players get below 5 minutes or something like that that stops the game before it turns into a contest of who can do something meaningful fastest in order to not Deathclock themselves first.

[Syas]

Ask your opponent to turn to page 5; ask him if there is anything there he does not understand.

[mauler78]

I think in general stalling is just bad conduct at the table in a tournament.

That being said there are certain formats that make it worse then others. I will compare based off the different formats I have played in.

Timed match with no time limit on turns. In this case Stalling is to me blatant cheating, trying to run down the clock to deny you opponent the ability to react is just plain wrong.

Timed match with timed turns. Stalling is limited only to your opponent running each turn to its full limit. While I still think this is a ****** bag move, you can prepare for this by calculating the minimum number of turns you will get if you opponent resorts to this weak tactic, and play accordingly.

Death Clock, this breaks down into 2 areas for me. Stalling in general you opponent is really only hurting himself by running out his clock. To that I say have at it, you want to lose because you want to try and run out the clock. However, this is the ability to abuse the stall in the late game, if you have been conservative with you time and your opponent has not, then you could potentially deny him a turn.

Either way, in any format I very Stalling at the very least a HUGE bending of the rules if not a blatant breaking of them. Many of the TO in my area have said explicitly at the beginning of tournaments if you are caught stalling or running the clock you will be DQ.

[ScottEBJJ]

Complaining about Stalling is rules-lawyering. You're saying that the other person can't have their full ten minute turn because it might make you lose.

Stalling is no more or less against SR rules then charging on a curve. Both are illegal under the rules so it is not in anyway rules-lawyering to ask your opponent to play by the rules.

I get your general position, but it just is not how the rules are set up. You even have a direct qoute from Hacksaw.

People need to stop letting thier opponents pull fast ones on them. If what your opponent is doing is not by the book stop just complaining after the fact and get the TO involved. As Paradox said TOs can easily spot stalling and at the very least thier presences may prevent it in the first place. Stop letting your opponent get away with things.

[The Happy Anarchist]

So stalling is a jerk move and cause for disqualification, and running down the clock in Deathclock is using your resources effectively?

Just so we're on the same page here.

Umm. Yes? Playing slow to deny your opponent a turn is a jerk move. Using your own time effectively, while not restricting your opponents time in any way shape or form is just fine, as you are not removing any resource of your opponents.

Do you understand how Deathclock works?

@Paradox - actually you have misunderstood on at least one occasion. You claimed on the F&F forums that Phatasian got screwed by the clock, not by poor use of time - but he came right back and said "Honestly I wasn't upset at all that I lost that game. I could of easily had the time necessary to table him had i been a little more diligent. That's totally on me and is correctable in my play. Which to be frank. I like. " - You have this idea that if you ran out of time you got screwed by your opponent, or by them running away or what have you. That is not the case. If you run out of time, and didn't win, it is because you didn't use your time wisely.

This is different than timed turns and dice down, where you get randomly screwed by a random number generated at the beginning of the game, and often you get screwed because your opponent was playing slowly on their turn, causing you to lose out on a turn entirely.

[paradox]

This is far from the truth regarding most every time-out I've heard/read about.

@Paradox - actually you have misunderstood on at least one occasion.

I actually acknowledge that already.

You have this idea that if you ran out of time you got screwed by your opponent, or by them running away or what have you.

The idea I have is that short time limits and clock-pressures encourage and breed sloppy play, and that Deathclock may be a tad too short on time, given the times I have used itr recently.

Changing the multiplier of Deathclock from .53 to .55 would add a few minutes to the clock and maybe 15 minutes to the whole event, but liekly make a world of difference in time-outs.
I'm not oppossed to Deathclock, but I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker about it either. Deathclock has it's own issues. So does the normal timing format.

[PG_n00buaddib]

Ask your opponent to turn to page 5; ask him if there is anything there he does not understand.

I've never ever ever ran out of time. Ever. My turns usually take 1/2 - 2/3 of the time I have, because I plan during my opponent's turn (<3 chess) and the only times I'm actually forced to reconsider my plans is when dice mess them up. Like when you need 5 on a boosted slam attack roll and you miss. For me, that's the essense of page 5. Aggressive (but not reckless or stupid) play. I understand someone can take longer to resolve his turns so deathclock all the way. That way I'm rewarded for my fast play and he's got pretty much as long as he wants for his first few turns.

While we're at it, being able to resolve issues (unless we're talking unclear rules interactions and alike) with your opponent directly would also fall under page 5 imo. TO usually has better things to do then listen to people whine about who's done what wrong (most of the time AFTER the event, so it's impossible to fix anything, or so I hear). TO's there to keep things running smoothly but every player should do his part to resolve potential issues with his opponent (especially if that opponent's his mate) before running to the TO. 'My' guys are a great group who settle disputes with a (gentle-ish) punch in the shoulder and a joke. As always, no offense to anyone but judging by some people's attitude, I get the feeling not all players do their part to keep their games running as they want them.

[Syas]

I've never ever ever ran out of time. Ever. My turns usually take 1/2 - 2/3 of the time I have, because I plan during my opponent's turn (<3 chess) and the only times I'm actually forced to reconsider my plans is when dice mess them up. Like when you need 5 on a boosted slam attack roll and you miss. For me, that's the essense of page 5. Aggressive (but not reckless or stupid) play. I understand someone can take longer to resolve his turns so deathclock all the way. That way I'm rewarded for my fast play and he's got pretty much as long as he wants for his first few turns.

While we're at it, being able to resolve issues (unless we're talking unclear rules interactions and alike) with your opponent directly would also fall under page 5 imo. TO usually has better things to do then listen to people whine about who's done what wrong (most of the time AFTER the event, so it's impossible to fix anything, or so I hear). TO's there to keep things running smoothly but every player should do his part to resolve potential issues with his opponent (especially if that opponent's his mate) before running to the TO. 'My' guys are a great group who settle disputes with a (gentle-ish) punch in the shoulder and a joke. As always, no offense to anyone but judging by some people's attitude, I get the feeling not all players do their part to keep their games running as they want them.

My point is that I think running the clock intentionally is very anti-page 5. I am not a "abuse page 5 to be a jerk" player; I am a "respect the spirit of the game, as explained on page 5".

[PG_carnage4u]

I have been lucky and not really had to deal with people that stall very often.

I have been lucky enough to witness player know their turn is about to end, and if they stall they win, but they have chosen not to, and lost the game, but feel good knowing they didnt stall to win.. Sometimes when its only 1 to 2 minutes, you can "casually stall" and make it seem like your not stalling, or just play slightly slower. thats much harder to call though.

I dont know what kind of person that has full turn (10 minutes) but only a few models, thinks it ok to just use up the entire time. Your given 10 minutes to complete all your models. if it takes less time good. You dont just sit there and use up the rest of the time because its there.

I think deathclock does help this situation, but its not the perfect solution either. Just different.

[Soulvayne]

Just looking at the breakdowns in the SR Rules the games all seem setup to have 5 turns between each player not counting that random modifier to length. Might as well just treat it as some sort of cooking show where the next turn doesn't begin until the previous one ends; whether that person used all their alloted time for their turn or not. It would seem like alot of this comes down to well player A got 6 turns and I only got 5 etc. Its sort of boring though to play like that especially towards the end of the game where there might be few models on the board, but combat itself might be more time consuming.

[f2k]

Now, I don?t go to tournaments these days due to the rampant ******baggery going on there, but I?ll chime in anyway...

I have a hard time seeing how slow playing is poor sportsmanship and/or cheating. If you have x minutes to play your turn, then you?re entitled to use all x minutes.

If this becomes a problem with the overall time limit for a game, then it?s a problem with the tournament, not the player. It?s not really that hard to figure out how long a game should last: 6 full turns times two players times x minutes is the formula. If you have any less time to play... Well... Then the tournament organizers have failed, in my opinion...

[PG_petegrrrr]

If a guy has 5 models left, and it somehow takes him ten minutes to move themhile nervously glancing at the clock the whole time , when the turn before he moved twice as many models in half the time ...that's a sportsmanship issue, and potentially a DQ.

It's a judgement call certainly, as you can be legitimately slower with less models since each move means more, but if you are clearly stalling to win by running out the clock, that's against the rules and is a DQ'able offense.

It's part of the rules of the game, and if you don't know the rules, that is a player problem, not a TO problem. Also, the 6 full rounds thing is not correct. It's actually only 5 full rounds plus a variable.

[Akiosama]

My question then would be by whose standard do you judge slow play versus stalling? Personally, I'm a slow player, and I can be overly cautious and indecisive - one reason why I don't play in many tournaments... but if I'm up against someone who regularly runs his entire turn in 4 minutes, would it be fair for him to pressure me and call over a TO because I don't play my force as fast as he does? I'm sorry, but having a TO watch the game just adds that much more pressure to the game, especially for something that I wouldn't be doing wrong.

The problem, to me, is that the stalling is subjective, and that there is a defined turn length given by the event, but it's only "if you use it in a manner befitting the unwritten rules of the tournament format." "No stalling" is written, but there's no definition of the term in the rules, and it feels to me that this lack of definition can be abused.

Now, am I going to run out the clock when I don't have anything left to do? No - I'm not that kind of player. However, I feel it would be unfair if I had to play under the scrutinizing eye of a TO, just because I don't play as fast as the guy across the table, if I'm finishing my turns within the proscribed turn length that's dictated for the event.

I think that there needs to be some sort of guidelines, simply because right now we have a DQ worthy infraction that's based solely on the opinions of the TO, which seems out of line with PP's rules, given their intricacies in the wording of their game rules. Shouldn't the tournament rules be nearly as air-tight as their game rules try to be?

My 2 crowns,

Lieutenant-Adept Akio

[scout's honor]

Umm. Yes? Playing slow to deny your opponent a turn is a jerk move. Using your own time effectively, while not restricting your opponents time in any way shape or form is just fine, as you are not removing any resource of your opponents.

Do you understand how Deathclock works?

It's not exactly hard to understand. Which is why I'm assuming you understand that if one player has a list that can be activated faster and/or just can play faster than his opponent, this is potentially an advantage as well. But apparently using that advantage is not lame, since the opponent can and presumably should just learn to play faster and bring a faster list.

[f2k]

If a guy has 5 models left, and it somehow takes him ten minutes to move themhile nervously glancing at the clock the whole time , when the turn before he moved twice as many models in half the time ...that's a sportsmanship issue, and potentially a DQ.

It's a judgement call certainly, as you can be legitimately slower with less models since each move means more, but if you are clearly stalling to win by running out the clock, that's against the rules and is a DQ'able offense.

It's part of the rules of the game, and if you don't know the rules, that is a player problem, not a TO problem. Also, the 6 full rounds thing is not correct. It's actually only 5 full rounds plus a variable.

Sorry, but I still don?t see why. He has x minutes to move his models and it?s his right to spend all of those minutes doing so.

If he?s looking nervously at the clock it might be because he knows that, despite having x minutes to make his move, he actually has only y minutes before being accused of cheating and possibly DQ?ed...

Is he playing the clock? Yes, he probably is. But then again, he might just be thinking really hard ? when you have few models left every move becomes crucial and must be played to maximum advantage.
In any case, taking the full x minutes is well within his right. If this becomes a problem insofar that his opponent must now forego his turn, then it?s s a problem with bad tournament organization, not with the player.

I must admit that I?m rather confused about this whole issue. Apparently, the tournament rules gives you x minutes to complete each turn, but you risk DQ?ing if you use more than y minutes to do so, where y is defined as an arbitrary number between zero and x, to be determined by your opponent and the judges.

What a strange concept...

[PG_petegrrrr]

It's not his right because there is a rule that says so right in the steamroller document under sportsmanship, which says stalling is DQ able offense.

Stalling is a bit of a judgement call, but when its bad enough to warrant a TO or Judge being called in the first place, it's usually pretty out of control.

[f2k]

It's not his right because there is a rule that says so right in the steamroller document under sportsmanship, which says stalling is DQ able offense.

Stalling is a bit of a judgement call, but when its bad enough to warrant a TO or Judge being called in the first place, it's usually pretty out of control.

The same rules wich has a nice chart showing the turn lenghts?

Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. If the rules says that I have 3 minuttes to complete a turn in a 15 point game, then I have 3 minuttes to complete my turn. And I can't find any place in the rules where it says that I have less time once I've started to lose models so it's always 3 minuttes.

Now, if we were talking about stalling in your opponents turn then you might have a case. But the rules says that I have x minuttes to complete my own turn and so x minuttes I will use...

I do note, however, that the round lenght is rather low compared with the turn length. The 15 point game, for example, has a round length of just 30 minuttes or, in orther words, five full turns provided no time is subtracted. Not a whole lot of time...

But then again, I'm a social kind of player. I much prefer to take my time, have a beer, and a chat with my opponent, rather than being rushed through a turn. Another reason why I dislike tournaments...

[Kamahin]

The document says "stalling" but never defines what qualifies as stalling. The idea that taking your full turn, no matter how few models you have, is stalling is getting onto questionable ground.

To me stalling sounds more like the idea behind taking extra long to respond to questions or make tough rolls.

[Hai-pe-neki]

If a guy has 5 models left, and it somehow takes him ten minutes to move themhile nervously glancing at the clock the whole time , when the turn before he moved twice as many models in half the time ...that's a sportsmanship issue, and potentially a DQ.

It's a judgement call certainly, as you can be legitimately slower with less models since each move means more, but if you are clearly stalling to win by running out the clock, that's against the rules and is a DQ'able offense.

It's part of the rules of the game, and if you don't know the rules, that is a player problem, not a TO problem. Also, the 6 full rounds thing is not correct. It's actually only 5 full rounds plus a variable.

Having half the model to move often just means that you have to think twice the time the action of each of them, since you have to make every single resource "earn" you something.

In deathclock games i often end spending 15+ minutes in an important turn activating in this order: shredder, pvayl, typhon, scythean. And then more time at the end of the turn for the feat.
Just 4 models in a 50 pt list, but the difference between your caster/a bunch of your beasts killed and a lost game.

Oh, and i look very often at the clock, i'm absolutely SCARED by it (probably a "child fear" of ages of bloodbowl playing XD )

[Carrington]

I'd accept that 'stalling' is poor sportsmanship, but it also seems to be one of those places where

a)the rules could and should be tightened so as to avoid ambiguity -- were I refereeing, 'stalling' would be a call I wouldn't particularly enjoy making.

b)players can learn a form of play that minimizes the clock's role as an opponent and maximizes its role as an ally, though here the 'death clock' seems preferable because less capricious.

c) would it still be stalling if the player was e.g. taking an inordinate number of low-odds shots, and/or making aoe attacks that were 'full of sound and fury' -- calculated to involve lots of dice rolls -- but 'signifying nothing.'

and

d)finally, the most visible cause of the OP's loss was 'stalling,' the underlying cause was that it was a close game: his opponent had put him in the position where he had to accomplish something in his turn, lest his opponent win.

Tough way to lose, but one of the many.

[PG_petegrrrr]

The point is this:

1) A rule exists that says if you stall you may be DQ'd

2) This will only ever come up when it has become so blatantly obvious that your opponent has had to call a judge, or a judge was managed to notice it from afar, which entails extreme cases of stalling.

3) This is a ruling that will only every come up in said extreme, blatant cases.

4) If you are trying your best to move models and just need a few moments to ponder, or your are taking your time for a critical move you are in zero danger of this ever being ruled against you.

A situation where this might come up would be something like:

Player A is on his fifth turn, and knows that their is probably less than 10 minutes left in the game. He is currently winning on VP by 2 points but has 2 heavily damaged jacks left in dire straights. He moves 3 of his 4 models in under 2 minutes. He then sits there and "ponders" his final move of a model that is not in range for any charges, melee, attacks, or scoring opportunities for the next 8 minutes...until dice down is called.

That is the sort of extreme case that will get you busted.

The rule is unclarified because it is basically always going to be a judgement call, but judgement calls are part of the reason why tournaments have judges, but in this case the stalling would have to be pretty dire, and you are in no risk of running into it if you play a fair game to the best of your abilities.

[Akiosama]

Pete,

If you did the movement like you say in your example, you deserve to be caught, I guess.

Flip that around - what if you sat there and look at the table for a serious amount of that 10 minutes, and then start moving your models? I'd say in that situation it's hard to figure out whether or not the person's stalling or really thinking about how not to lose the game.

If you're trying to stall, you should be smart enough to make it look plausible. But at the same time how do you figure between the plausible situations and true situations where the person is using the time as it's supposed to be used, since a good 'staller' is going to disguise it as a plausible situation.

That, and I wouldn't necessarily rely on 'blatantly obvious that your opponent has had to call a judge, or a judge was managed to notice it from afar, which entails extreme cases of stalling' to keep abuse of the TO in line. In some cases (I don't know how big of a percentage it is or anything) there can be conflict of interest, and that can factor in - the TO is friends with one of the players, or the outcome of a particular match affects the standings for a friend, etc. I'm not trying to say that most TO's would do this, but to believe that none would is pretty fantastic.

It's one of the reasons why while it was fun as heck when it first hit the market, lazer tag venues did pretty well, and then died off. The people running the games after a while started to let their friends run rampant while enforcing the rules on the other people in the game, and the whole game became unfair and unfun.

And other games, too, have had problems with TO mechanations affecting tournament results and it can take a long time to even see that anything's happening. And given that stalling is already a grey area, it's a good place for this sort of problem to arise.

I think that judges are there to clarify rules issues, and the likes, but it's a lot of power they wield. It's one person's opinion that can DQ a player from the tournament, often propped up by his/her opponent who has a stake in the game if their opponent is given a game loss or is DQed.

There is an inherent need to trust the TOs and judges in this sort of environment, and I think it's appropriate to do so. It's just that with this issue being simply a judgement call, it's very difficult to plead one's case if accused, and therein lies a very large problem. It's a crime of intent, which is hard to prove, and the rules cannot provide any sort of support to help the accused. It's a 'guilty until proven innocent' call.

My 2 crowns,

Lieutenant-Adept Akio

[paradox]

Pete is completely right and spot-on.
Anyone who has run events knows it, too.

It's not too hard to spot stalling. At least stalling worth DQing over. You know it when you see it. Does it suck to make the call? Yes. Welcome to running events. Thank your PG next time you see him/her.

[kolonelk]

Now, if we were talking about stalling in your opponents turn then you might have a case. But the rules says that I have x minuttes to complete my own turn and so x minuttes I will use...

If you had only your warcaster and maybe a single jack/beast left alive, would you really need several minutes to complete your turn? There will be situations where no matter how much a player grimaces and makes his "thoughtful" face you know they're just wasting time to be a d-bag.

[Kamahin]

I'm still going to have to politely disagree, I don't think taking the full allowed turn no matter how few models you have should ever be an issue. Just like I don't think someone during deathclock saying everything sacs movement and activations and caster camps, and clicks back the clock is 'gaming'the clock either.

The idea that even though turn limits are outlined you can create a fuzzy grey line of 'allowable' turn time doesn't sit right with me. But others are free to disagree.


That said, if I am at a tournament and the TO makes it clear that's the way he wants it run, I will make no arguments, its his tournament, I will follow his rules. But it doesn't mean I have to agree to the thought process behind it.

[PG_petegrrrr]

While I fully appreciate the dissenting opinions, the fact remains that T.O.'s are given the option to DQ for stalling for a reason. It's because that is not how PP wants the games to end, so it is part of what can be a surprisingly tough job as a T.O. to watch out for stalling.

It's not that a T.O. wants to run it that way, Privateer Press wants it run that way, otherwise that rule would not exist.

The rule was introduced by the head of the steamroller program for a reason. PP doesn't want games ending from stalling, and as a TO I have to follow those rules as best I can to ensure an even playing field.

What we as T.O.'s want doesn't really matter. Our job is to make sure our players enjoy a fair playing field, answer rules questions, and make occasional rules calls, tough or otherwise in the service of that goal.

[The Happy Anarchist]

It's not exactly hard to understand. Which is why I'm assuming you understand that if one player has a list that can be activated faster and/or just can play faster than his opponent, this is potentially an advantage as well. But apparently using that advantage is not lame, since the opponent can and presumably should just learn to play faster and bring a faster list.

Again, you misunderstand. Doesn't matter how fast you play your list. If you design a list that is super fast and efficient to play, good on you! Wait to go!
I still have the full amount of my time to kill your list. If I can kill your list in X minutes, it does not matter how fast you can play your list. That is the joy of Deathclock. You can "game" your clock all you want by playing quickly and efficiently and it doesn't take your time away from me. I still have X minutes to kill your caster or win on scenario. If I couldn't do it in X minutes and you win on time, yes, you outplayed me.

Also, do you seriously not see the difference between taking time from your opponent by not playing the game, and playing your turns efficiently and quickly and protecting yourself enough to not lose on scenario or get your caster killed? One of these things involves avoiding playing the game, the other one requires you to play to the best of your ability.

I actually acknowledge that already.


The idea I have is that short time limits and clock-pressures encourage and breed sloppy play, and that Deathclock may be a tad too short on time, given the times I have used itr recently.

Changing the multiplier of Deathclock from .53 to .55 would add a few minutes to the clock and maybe 15 minutes to the whole event, but liekly make a world of difference in time-outs.
I'm not oppossed to Deathclock, but I'm not a Kool-Aid drinker about it either. Deathclock has it's own issues. So does the normal timing format.

I can see your point there, though it has been my experience that the vast, overwhelming majority of games I have seen clock out have been as the quoted experience - games where the player could have played faster, planned during the opponents turn, chosen priority targets, etc rather than games where they played to the absolute best of their ability and could not stop from getting clocked out. Apparently you feel that is the minority. This seems odd to me as it is quite contrary to what myself and others I have seen reporting on deathclock have talked about.

In any case, I don't disagree with your general premise. To me, I think of it as a bit of a skill level ceiling, at least as regards to how quickly you can make decisions. In my area we haven't had a huge problem with people being clocked out, newer players that would be playing slower often don't get to the end of their time limit because they have lost on scenario or been assassinated well before - and that is likely a factor. However, if you did feel people were a bit too rushed than upping the time a bit more shouldn't be too big an issue. It would certainly give some breathing room, either to newer players or those who think a bit more methodically. I wouldn't be against adjusting the times in Deathclock for sure.

[correlation2]

This conversation reminds me of an IRL conversation between a disliked demographic and the public.

"You guys are horrible because you do X."
"Yeah, well, we have the right to say X as outlined by this document."
"It's still wrong."
"Well, we're allowed to, so, naanaa na naa naaaa na!"

I guess my point is that trying to abuse a document for the wrong reasons ( I have the *right* to waste time if I want to by purposefully misinterpreting the intent of timed turns! ) is not a defensible position. It doesn't really matter how solid your point is within the confines of a document - that document exists as a general outline of a principle, and nowhere does that principle encourage or support acts like stalling.

At least, that's my opinion.

[PianoDan]

Well said mate

[ScottEBJJ]

This conversation reminds me of an IRL conversation between a disliked demographic and the public.

"You guys are horrible because you do X."
"Yeah, well, we have the right to say X as outlined by this document."
"It's still wrong."
"Well, we're allowed to, so, naanaa na naa naaaa na!"

I guess my point is that trying to abuse a document for the wrong reasons ( I have the *right* to waste time if I want to by purposefully misinterpreting the intent of timed turns! ) is not a defensible position. It doesn't really matter how solid your point is within the confines of a document - that document exists as a general outline of a principle, and nowhere does that principle encourage or support acts like stalling.

At least, that's my opinion.

Except for the added fact that said document specifically outlines taking that approach is DQable