Stalling: Legit tactic or poor sportsmanship?

[scout's honor]

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've been in or watched about 30 Deathclock matches by now. Of those 30, 3 were lost because someone ran out of time that I can remember. All 3 of these had the faster player pretty much waiting out their opponent in the end. Of the remaining games at least half of them were lost by one player doing something stupid to avoid getting clocked out, in part under pressure from the faster player.

It's not the same thing, but don't try telling me Deathclock completely removes every chance of douchy play and gaming the clock for a lame victory.

[ScottEBJJ]

I've been in or watched about 30 Deathclock matches by now. Of those 30, 3 were lost because someone ran out of time that I can remember. All 3 of these had the faster player pretty much waiting out their opponent in the end. Of the remaining games at least half of them were lost by one player doing something stupid to avoid getting clocked out, in part under pressure from the faster player.

It's not the same thing, but don't try telling me Deathclock completely removes every chance of douchy play and gaming the clock for a lame victory.

He never once made such a claim, only countered your claim that it did little to nothing to reduce possible issues.

The amount of gaming the clock possible in Deathclock is so limited by the number of needed simultaneous variables that in comparison to normal timed turns the consistent game to game ability to game the clock to a win is just not even comparable. Once in a blue moon someone will be able to game a win on the Deathclock, by having just the right caster, scenario, opposing lists, and/or by killing certain pivotal pieces. But in comparison, Timed Turns, offer a consistent round by round ability to game a win.

However most issues are simply solved by getting your TO at all involved.

[scout's honor]

He never once made such a claim, only countered your claim that it did little to nothing to reduce possible issues.

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

That was my claim. I never said Deathclock is not a better format in many ways. I just feel that there is this perception that douchy play in Deathclock is not really douchy, and I disagree with that. Or the idea that, lame as tie breakers are for deciding a game, time running out is not easily as lame.

[f2k]

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.

If, for example, I had ten minutes to make my move, I might spend the first nine of those thinking very hard about the move I need to do, calculating odds in my head, thinking about best- and worst-case outcomes etc...

Is this stalling or just playing the best game I can?

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.

If the steamroller tournaments were properly organized than there would never be the possibility of having a game ending from stalling since both players always have their full allotted time to make a move.

The only reason we have this debate is that, for some strange reason, the steamroller rules assume that the players won?t need the full x minutes per turn and so doesn't allocate enough time for a full game.

Seriously, it?s not the difficult to ensure that all games can run their full course...

I've been in or watched about 30 Deathclock matches by now. Of those 30, 3 were lost because someone ran out of time that I can remember. All 3 of these had the faster player pretty much waiting out their opponent in the end. Of the remaining games at least half of them were lost by one player doing something stupid to avoid getting clocked out, in part under pressure from the faster player.

It's not the same thing, but don't try telling me Deathclock completely removes every chance of douchy play and gaming the clock for a lame victory.

Wait...

What...

I think I?ve misunderstood what a ?death clock? is then. I?m thinking of a chess clock where each player has x minutes in which to play their game. With that setup it is virtually impossible to run your opponents clock down as it?s only running in his turn ? never in your own.

Well, you could, of course, take inordinate time to roll saves and so on. But as I said earlier, that?s the only case of legitimate and deliberate stalling I can think of.

[scout's honor]

Wait...

What...

I think I’ve misunderstood what a “death clock” is then. I’m thinking of a chess clock where each player has x minutes in which to play their game. With that setup it is virtually impossible to run your opponents clock down as it’s only running in his turn – never in your own.

Well, you could, of course, take inordinate time to roll saves and so on. But as I said earlier, that’s the only case of legitimate and deliberate stalling I can think of.

You can't make your opponent lose time in Deathclock (theoretically anyway - in practice there's stuff like Tough rolls or eHaley's feat and whatnot where there's something of a grey area), but once you have a significant lead it's possible to play conservatively because your opponent loses if he runs out of time first. It's not something that'll happen every game, but in my experience it's not all that rare for time pressure to have an impact on Deathclock games (although just learning to handle Deathclock properly may alleviate that somewhat).

[f2k]

You can't make your opponent lose time in Deathclock (theoretically anyway - in practice there's stuff like Tough rolls or eHaley's feat and whatnot where there's something of a grey area), but once you have a significant lead it's possible to play conservatively because your opponent loses if he runs out of time first. It's not something that'll happen every game, but in my experience it's not all that rare for time pressure to have an impact on Deathclock games (although just learning to handle Deathclock properly may alleviate that somewhat).

Ahh... Okay...

That makes more sense.

As for time pressure having an impact... Well, that will be a problem no matter what method of timekeeping you use.

[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?"

That was my claim. I never said Deathclock is not a better format in many ways. I just feel that there is this perception that douchy play in Deathclock is not really douchy, and I disagree with that. Or the idea that, lame as tie breakers are for deciding a game, time running out is not easily as lame.

What is being douchy? Playing quickly is douchy? Defending your zone and caster effectively enough that they can't finish you off with their resources is douchy? If they charge you with their caster, spend all their focus and you live, were you being douchy because you didn't give them extra resources, or they spent their focus unwisely?

Time is a resource in deathclock. In much the same way that you can build a list to give your warcaster extra focus and thus have more resources, or a list more hitting power or redundancy, you can build a list/play efficiently enough that time is a resource you are going to have more of. This is entirely in the realm of list building and player skill. Moreover, no matter how much you build your list to maximize time as a resource, you cannot take any time away from your opponent. They will get the full amount of time to either kill your caster or win on scenario.

Stalling is actively not playing the game, denying time and turns for your opponent and removing resources from your opponent. None of these things are true of waiting out the opponents clock in deathclock.

Moreover, there is not much you can do to prevent someone from stalling. If they are stalling, you can't play faster. Doesn't matter if you have the juice to finish them if you didn't get to activate. You can always prevent someone from winning by timing out, either by playing faster or by having redundancy in the models needed to either kill their caster or win on scenario.

In those games you mentioned, the faster player had protected key pieces enough that they developed an advantage - the opposing player did not have the juice to finish them off and the faster player outplayed them. They faster player did not prevent them from using their X minutes of time. The faster player did not prevent them from activating their models every time they were allowed by the time allocated. The time allocated was also equal to start, each player had the same resources to start with, just like they had the same resources to start with in points at the beginning of the game.

People thought I would have trouble with my eMadrak list with Deathclock - but I really didn't. It didn't matter that it took me time to do my activations, because my activations were killing enemy models, and I made sure I didn't lose my caster killers early. If I was wasting activations on boxcars to hit or boxcars to damage type attack rolls a lot of the time, or spamming AOEs that didn't kill much, then I might have more trouble. That is a skill issue, and a list design issue. Just because you have a bunch of AOEs that may possible do a little damage, doesn't mean you have to throw them all out there for example - save them for the games they are going to be killing on 5s to 8s or possibly 9s. Make sure that when you do use them you are ready and efficient.

They are two entirely different situations, and only one of them is douchy. The equivalent to stalling in deathclock would be to consistently argue rules, constantly delay your opponents turn with inane questions, force them to remeasure things over and over again, etc - much like stalling it is usually blatantly obvious when someone is genuinely asking questions and when someone is trying to eat your clock. If they aren't eating up your clock, they aren't being douchy and it is up to you to use your time wisely.

[scout's honor]

Moreover, no matter how much you build your list to maximize time as a resource, you cannot take any time away from your opponent.

Actually, you can't take time away from your opponent by stalling in timed turn games either. SR timed turns are set up to guarantee both players a minimum of turns and time during those turns. What you can do by stalling is preventing your opponent from getting more time/activations than that minimum. I still think that's not very sporting and it is against the SR rules, but from that POV it doesn't sound all that douchy to me.

It's even quite comparable to the arguments you make for Deathclock: both players get the same resources at the start of the game, and it's up to both players to play well enough so their opponent doesn't get into a position where he can stall out the game.

In those games you mentioned, the faster player had protected key pieces enough that they developed an advantage - the opposing player did not have the juice to finish them off and the faster player outplayed them. They faster player did not prevent them from using their X minutes of time. The faster player did not prevent them from activating their models every time they were allowed by the time allocated. The time allocated was also equal to start, each player had the same resources to start with, just like they had the same resources to start with in points at the beginning of the game.

You're implying that the time advantage "developed" by a player is always a function of better play. That's just not the case - some factions lend themselves better to fast-playing lists than others, and simply being successful more often with your dice rolls will result in a faster game, for instance - although I will say that in a Deathclock game between two good players chances of the game being affected by time pressure are fairly low.

[Mattman]

The fact that we are even arguing this tells me that I do not ever want to play this game on anything but a local level. I really don't compete in many tourneys and I will only do so with people I know and am comfortable with after reading this thread.

There is way to much venom and anger in this thread about something that is completely subjective and makes me question why people get so worked up over a game. One that will not matter 1 minute after it is over.

I am really of the opinion that the focus on tournament play and the national circuit of event is eroding the simple joy of just playing a game and turning this into more of litigious experience.

[althai]

If the rules prohibit it, it's cheating. If the rules don't specifically prohibit it, it's a legit tactic, however annoying you may find it. You can't fault someone for playing within the rules to their best advantage—that's the entire point of any game.

Since the steamroller rules specifically prohibit stalling, case closed.


The problem here is that the rule as written—no intentional stalling—can only be enforced by mind-readers. Taking 60 seconds to decide which unit to charge is legal if the player was estimating distances or computing probabilities, but illegal if the player just wanted to use up 60 seconds of clock time. Rules should be written to allow/disallow actions, not states of mind.

Unenforceable rules always encourage cheating.

[Crate123]

There is way to much venom and anger in this thread about something that is completely subjective and makes me question why people get so worked up over a game. One that will not matter 1 minute after it is over.

Remember, this is the internet.
Everything is multiplied in here. A model isnt subpar, its awful. A particular brand of music isnt "not to my taste" its terrible and an afront to human kind. Read everything with that in mind and a lot of the venom goes away.

[PG_petegrrrr]

If the steamroller tournaments were properly organized than there would never be the possibility of having a game ending from stalling since both players always have their full allotted time to make a move.

Seriously, it’s not the difficult to ensure that all games can run their full course...
.

Proper organization has nothing to do with deliberate stalling. Nothing what so ever. I'm not even sure how the two could be lumped together. Stalling has nothing to do with the T.O. or the event and everything to do with the player. It's created by the player and controlled by the player. The only thing a T.O. is involved in is catching it.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Double post. sorry!

[PG_Pyrodude32]

You can't make your opponent lose time in Deathclock (theoretically anyway - in practice there's stuff like Tough rolls or eHaley's feat and whatnot where there's something of a grey area), but once you have a significant lead it's possible to play conservatively because your opponent loses if he runs out of time first. It's not something that'll happen every game, but in my experience it's not all that rare for time pressure to have an impact on Deathclock games (although just learning to handle Deathclock properly may alleviate that somewhat).

You can not run your opponents clock down at all. See Turn Timer (relevant quote is below). You could play conservatatively if you wanted to - but it doesn't matter if your opponent beats you with a second left on his clock and you have 23 minutes left on yours. The game isn't over until the clock hits zero. I've found that Warmahordes tends to favor the aggressor - which is just an observation of mine. I can't tell you how many games i've lost from a last ditch effort from my opponent - and when he won he just looks at me and says that shouldn't have worked - by all rights you should have beat me. Just goes to show you never know the outcome until you roll the dice.

When a player moves a model, rolls dice, or takes significant time to make decisions during the other player?s turn, the player whose turn it is has the option of stopping the clock while these actions are resolved.

You are allowed to stop the clock for every roll and decision that your opponent has to make. If your opponent doesn't immediatly have the answer to what model/unit moves next during Haley2's feat then by all means stop the clock. If someone picks at you for keeping a tight lip on your clock - let the T.O. know, that would fall under unsportsmanlike conduct in my book (which this would just be handled by a quick warning - and refering to the Turn Timing rules so the person could read it).

[f2k]

Proper organization has nothing to do with deliberate stalling. Nothing what so ever. I'm not even sure how the two could be lumped together. Stalling has nothing to do with the T.O. or the event and everything to do with the player. It's created by the player and controlled by the player. The only thing a T.O. is involved in is catching it.

Of course it has.

Stalling is only a possibility because the steamroller games are too short and thus there is the possibility of running out of time before the game is at an end.

If the tournament was organized so that there was always time enough for all games to go their full allotted time, then stalling would be a non-issues. Thus, stalling is, at the core of the problem, an issue with tournament organization and not with the player.

Put in other words: the tournament organization has nothing to do with any given player making the conscious decision to stall, but it has everything to do with stalling being a viable strategy.

As I said, if I have x minutes to play my turn, then x minutes I will take. If the tournament is not organized to allow me to do so, then it?s the tournament that?s got a problem and not me.

Answer me this: why does a 15 point steamroller match only allow a total time of 30 minutes for a complete battle? Those 30 minutes are only enough for five full turns ? and that only if no time is subtracted and both players are ready to move immediately after the other player completed his turn. But, in all practicality, with the time needed to change turn, resolve various effects, the possibility of having time subtracted and so on, the very organization of the tournament only allows for some four full turns, plus possibility a single turn for one of the players, to be played before time is called.
On the other hand, if something like 60 minutes was allocated to every round, then stalling would become a non-issue as there would be more than enough time to complete a full six turn battle, and have a little chat while admiring your opponent?s paintjob as well.

So, by its very design, steamroller tournaments opens up for stalling and so it?s the tournament organizers fault, not the players.

[correlation2]

Stalling is a mentality thing, not a time thing.

You give someone a 1 hour turn and if they're set on stalling they're going to push that boundary as much as they can as well. That's the problem. Someone who intends to stall is trying to illegally game the tournament structure to their favor. Doesn't matter at all how much time you give them - those time limits are just generalizations to keep the tournament on track anyway.

It's like dealing with a thief who intends to steal ( cheat ) from you. If you give them 1 dollar they will steal. If you decide hey, I'll give them 10 dollars so they aren't going to think about stealing, they'll take the 10 dollars... then steal from you.

Mentality. Mentality.

[Geekly]

Stalling wouldn't be disallowed if it couldn't be used to your advantage in the current format. However, I'm concerned that if I take over-long to think about and plan my turn, that I'll be accused of doing it. It's hard to prove or disprove either way.

The Deathclock seems like a more objective and enforceable method of implementing time restrictions.

[Kamahin]

So as an example:

Time is coming close and one guy gets close to the caster kill, but can't finish the job. The armies have dwindled down to only the core, say Stryker and a crippled charger vs Madrak and a few models left. Troll player has Mulg engaged on Stryker but leaves him with 2 hp when his turn time runs out. But the Cygnar player is in the lead on scenario points atm.

And there are two minutes left before dice down is called. With only two models to activate, who he knows can't leave to risk the free strike, but won't be able to get anything by attacking or save himself. By the thought process of stalling, shouldn't he just forfeit his whole turn because he 'shouldn't' win? Because face it taking his full attacks without boosting won't help him other than to run out the clock, and by using his models he is only trying to buy time, even if he doesn't go intentionally slow.

But is that really okay to do? Say your next turn won't mean anything so just let me take my next one because I can win the game?

[Soulvayne]

Proper organization has nothing to do with deliberate stalling. Nothing what so ever. I'm not even sure how the two could be lumped together. Stalling has nothing to do with the T.O. or the event and everything to do with the player. It's created by the player and controlled by the player. The only thing a T.O. is involved in is catching it.

If you go solely by the time limits in the SR rules the game is broken down to be won/lost in 5 turns or less. Could a TO technically run an event in a way that Player 2 does not get to begin their turn until the turn time limit has elapsed regardless of Player 1 actually using the full allotted time? Though it does seem kind of idiotic to run an even that way, it sort of kills the chance of someone trying to stall as well since you know that the game is over at the end of player 2's 5th turn. I potentially might make an event run a bit longer though you can basically plan exactly when each game in theory "should" end.

[paradox]

Stalling is a PLAYER issue.

Intent can be deduced from actions.


Most games in events I've run end well before dice down is called. Some go to time.
Very few players stall. But one bad apple will spoil the event, so to speak. It is not that hard to figure out, it is DQable, and most of the protest here completely misses the point.

If someone stalls you, or you feel you are being stalled, call the TO over. If you choose not to, then it's your problem and nothing can be done later to help you.
If you are worried about being DQed over stalling, there are two possible issues: 1. You are a staller and deserve it. 2. You are not a staller and are getting worked up over nothing.

As for Deathclock, once you get near the end of a player's clock, the player with more time can "stall out" the player with less time simply by taking quick activations and camping up in zones and generally playing it safe. It creates a situation not unlike VP sniping, although much less pronouced.

It's been a perpetual issue in one form or another, and no system is perfect.

[scout's honor]

You can not run your opponents clock down at all. See Turn Timer (relevant quote is below). You could play conservatatively if you wanted to - but it doesn't matter if your opponent beats you with a second left on his clock and you have 23 minutes left on yours. The game isn't over until the clock hits zero. I've found that Warmahordes tends to favor the aggressor - which is just an observation of mine. I can't tell you how many games i've lost from a last ditch effort from my opponent - and when he won he just looks at me and says that shouldn't have worked - by all rights you should have beat me. Just goes to show you never know the outcome until you roll the dice.

True, but if your opponent is forced to make moves that the odds really don't favour that's still an advantage - and I've seen that pan out often enough. Obviously there's still a risk he beats the odds anyway, but that risk can be significantly smaller than making an aggressive play of your own. If you lose despite the odds being in your favour it's bad luck, if you lose because you didn't go for the plan with the best chance for success it's just playing badly.

You are allowed to stop the clock for every roll and decision that your opponent has to make. If your opponent doesn't immediatly have the answer to what model/unit moves next during Haley2's feat then by all means stop the clock. If someone picks at you for keeping a tight lip on your clock - let the T.O. know, that would fall under unsportsmanlike conduct in my book (which this would just be handled by a quick warning - and refering to the Turn Timing rules so the person could read it).

If my opponent is ready with his Tough rolls or eHaley round plan I don't see the point in just slamming those clock buttons for the two seconds difference that can make - and it'll slow me down regardless: I'll still need to make up my mind about what to do after each Tough roll (that's easy enough) or after each model my opponent says activates next (that'll take some more time). And of course the opposite applies: I could start making the most of stopping my clock and starting my opponent's when he's playing that eHaley list or those Tough models. It may not amount to a whole lot, but it won't be nothing either.

[Baaltharus]

Its an interesting question, if for instance I have 7mins for a turn I would expect to be able to use those 7mins up as I see fit. If however, I have effectively finished my turn after 4 mins and I'm sitting on my hands for another 3, I'd be expected to be called up on it.

I look at it this way, if I've sacrificed 2/3's of my army to go 1-0 in the VPs, need 2 more point to win but only have 5 models left and 7 mins on the clock. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with me using 4 or 5 mins to considering how best to prevent my opponent contesting my 2nd point and the moves he'd react with in relation to what I might do in my turn. To this end I feel if you are given time 'X' then its your time to use as you see fit.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Of course it has.

Stalling is only a possibility because the steamroller games are too short and thus there is the possibility of running out of time before the game is at an end.
......
So, by its very design, steamroller tournaments opens up for stalling and so it’s the tournament organizers fault, not the players.

That is just full of flaws, and a giant redirection away from the one point you cannot get around at all: The rule exists, and it does so for a reason.

Nothing in your argument changes, impacts, or in anyway answers to that, hence I am done arguing with you. You don't want a discussion, you clearly want to rant about a rule that you don't like, and I have no interest in banging my head against a wall.

Any reasonable player has nothing to fear from this rule at all. If that's still not to your satisfaction, don't play in steamrollers.

[PG_n00buaddib]

I think most people here who argue stalling shouldn't be punishable aren't doing it because they intend (or already are) play/ing like that, it's the hypothetical part that bothers them. Or is that just me? So far, PP has been great at listening to playerbase and implementing out suggestions in the game and I feel this is actually a very productive discussion with both sides presenting reasonable arguments but it all boils down to ''you can't really prove someone's stalling or just being a slow player'' vs ''slow players have nothing to worry about''.

[paradox]

it all boils down to ''you can't really prove someone's stalling or just being a slow player'' vs ''slow players have nothing to worry about''.

The former proposition is demostrably false. The latter is quite true.

[Mr_Smigs]

wow...

three pages...

has anyone even brought up how things like, resolving continuous effects can sap a player's time limit?

that I've seen HARDCORE games where someone rolled Feora knowing there were bane knight lists (MK1) designed to sap their time... just so they could roll up, pop feat and say
"If you can finish resolving your fire.. one model at a time.. within your 7 minutes on those 30+ models... you might get a chance to win..."

if you roll against an OCD player who runs a 5 model mangled metal list at 50 points... but has to spend 3 minutes measuring his control range to every model a dozen times before and after moving...
is he stalling?

what about a kid who's really enthusiastic about the game, but has to re-read his cards because he hasn't memorized everything...
does it matter that he makes it to the final round, if you're going to call him on stalling for reading how the Thunderhead's Pulse works for the fourth time that game?

when is a player more likely to ask about "take backs" because of improperly followed rules, or confusion in intent...
when they're rushing to beat the clock,
or when they can take their time to communicate clearly?

one thing the tournaments of other games have taught me is that, when there's a prize on the line, there are too many people who become concerned with playing the RULES over playing the GAME.

IMO, the OP mentioned he didn't call the other player out on stalling because they were a friend...
kutos for that. that's how the game should be, friendly.

but then, when "dice down" is called, and there's one action left to make or break victory... most of the people I'd call friends would insist on finishing the action (as long as it's just one more activation... not a whole battle plan to enact...) out of curiosity of it's success...

as for the rest of this lot,
it sounds like "stalling" has become the new replacement for VP sniping from MK1...

[correlation2]

If your turn timer is running during the maintenance phase that's stupid.

[PG_petegrrrr]

I think there is a misconception that it's hard for a T.O. to spot the difference between deliberate stalling and a player that is simply always deliberate, and that somehow good players with slow habits will be cut in the crossfire somehow. Let me assure you, it's not really that hard for a T.O. with a little experience to tell the difference.

Also, Mr. Smigs, continuous effects are not on the clock. I think you may be suffering from mark 1 holdover on that one.

Let me put your mind at ease with the following line from the rules document:

A player’s timer begins after the resolution of continuous effects.


Rule number 1 of internet forums: The vast majority of problems aren't actually problems

[ScottEBJJ]

has anyone even brought up how things like, resolving continuous effects can sap a player's time limit?

that I've seen HARDCORE games where someone rolled Feora knowing there were bane knight lists (MK1) designed to sap their time... just so they could roll up, pop feat and say
"If you can finish resolving your fire.. one model at a time.. within your 7 minutes on those 30+ models... you might get a chance to win..."

No one brought it up because it isn't possible, please re-read your SR rules.

IMO, the OP mentioned he didn't call the other player out on stalling because they were a friend...
kutos for that. that's how the game should be, friendly.

Why should someone get kudos for letting their friend cheat? Should we let friends pre-measure everything? Why should we act any different to strangers then we would a friend?

[correlation2]

Thank god. lol. That would just be... so dumb.

[drachenfels]

i didnt read the entire thread but what i skimmed through didnt seem to mention something...

how do the players know exactly when the round will end and dice down is called?
isnt each round a set length +/- a randomized time? (d6 min i think?)
shouldnt this information be kept secret from the players SPECIFICALLY to prevent situations like this? so players know about how long each round will be, but not exactly how long until dice down is called?

[PG_petegrrrr]

If players know when the round started, they can figure out when the round is close to ending. If my turn starts on minute 96 of my 100 minute 50 point tournament, I can be fairly sure that the tournament will end sometime in the next 10 minutes for example.

You can never precisely know, but you can give yourself a workable range.

[Mr_Smigs]

No one brought it up because it isn't possible, please re-read your SR rules.

huh.. 3 people pointing it out... one even mentioned suffering MK1 hold over... none noting that that was labeled as back in MK1...
that was just citing an example of someone who looked at the RULES back then, and designed their list to exploit them.

Why should someone get kudos for letting their friend cheat? Should we let friends pre-measure everything? Why should we act any different to strangers then we would a friend?

if it makes the game better. yes, pre-measure everything.

should a player be rewarded for making everyone feel like crap at the end of the game?
if you played a player who chanted "roll a one, roll a one roll a one..." every time you did something, and did a happy dance when it happened... then called the TO over every time you said something during his turn because you were "disrupting his concentration"... how would you feel when they took first place?
do you know any new players who'd want to return to a tournament where that happened?

the OP let his opponent cheat, and (I'm assuming) fun was had by all.
the later part of that statement is what should be important, not the former.
he should be congratulated on his desire for a enjoyable game on both players part, over his need to prove he can pee further than his opponent.

most people have stopped reading at this point, and already have their responses armed and ready to go...

but i'm feeling long winded today, so I'll continue..

if you've got to use the RULES as a weapon to win, or cheat to win, IMO, that's all on the same level of
"you're a ****, you shouldn't be playing this, or any other game written in the last century as a competition event...."
purely my opinion.
it's gotten me in trouble in the past, because, as been noted above, the internet exacerbates everything so people will start trying to make extreme examples of how playing fast and loose with the rules can ruin a game...

it's not something i seem to be able to explain anymore...
last time i tried, it was on "take backs" in a tournament setting, and I was blasted with a warning for my attempts.

i stepped into this thread 'cause I was curious what all the hubbub was about...

but seriously, i feel shame that players think stalling should be done on purpose, as a valid game tactic, and that it's prevalent enough that it needs serious discussion and policing...

[f2k]

That is just full of flaws, and a giant redirection away from the one point you cannot get around at all: The rule exists, and it does so for a reason.

Nothing in your argument changes, impacts, or in anyway answers to that, hence I am done arguing with you. You don't want a discussion, you clearly want to rant about a rule that you don't like, and I have no interest in banging my head against a wall.

Any reasonable player has nothing to fear from this rule at all. If that's still not to your satisfaction, don't play in steamrollers.

Ehh?

How is it full of flaws?

Rather than attacking me personally and then just running off in a huff, how about you tried to counter my argument?

In short: my argument is twofold ? 1) that the rules says that I have x minutes to complete a turn so I have x minutes to complete my turn and 2) that stalling is only a problem because steamroller tournaments do not allow enough time to complete a full six turn game in which both players use their full x minutes. Thus the stalling rule has no practical purpose, is difficult to enforce, and has only been inserted because the tournament is badly planned.

Please counter this by showing how stalling would still be a problem, provided that there was always enough time for a full six turn game.

[Mr_Smigs]

Please counter this by showing how stalling would still be a problem, provided that there was always enough time for a full six turn game.

stalling wouldn't be the problem. players meta playing to manage always having the last turn of the game would be the problem (as it has been in the past, leading to the current rule of random game length)...
GW tried to solve it with random turn extensions at one point
Wyrd does the same...
PP and Infinity use random ends to the rounds rather than rolling to see if one player gets another turn...

each game approaches the problem of "end of game" management differently.

with the way SR events are composed, KNOWING who has the last turn would have a notable impact on strategy.

[correlation2]

There's no such thing as a "full six turn game". You either have a time cap or you don't. You either work within the generalizations of timed turns or you book the event for 2-3 days and let everyone take as long as they want.

The main problem with saying "I have X amount of time, damn anyone who says otherwise" is that by using that logic someone can just walk off to get a snack or something in the middle of their turn. There's no defensible reason for someone to be allowed to waste time just because the guidelines afford them time to play the game properly.

You're given time to play. You aren't given time to stall. That's the game.

[DarkLegacy]

Ehh?

How is it full of flaws?

Rather than attacking me personally and then just running off in a huff, how about you tried to counter my argument?

In short: my argument is twofold – 1) that the rules says that I have x minutes to complete a turn so I have x minutes to complete my turn and 2) that stalling is only a problem because steamroller tournaments do not allow enough time to complete a full six turn game in which both players use their full x minutes. Thus the stalling rule has no practical purpose, is difficult to enforce, and has only been inserted because the tournament is badly planned.

Please counter this by showing how stalling would still be a problem, provided that there was always enough time for a full six turn game.

Allowing the second player to utilize his/her turn without repercussions from their opponent just leads to clearing zones and winning by tiebreaker because they don't have to worry about their opponent killing them on the non-existent next turn.

[paradox]

1) that the rules says that I have x minutes to complete a turn so I have x minutes to complete my turn and 2) that stalling is only a problem because steamroller tournaments do not allow enough time to complete a full six turn game in which both players use their full x minutes. Thus the stalling rule has no practical purpose, is difficult to enforce, and has only been inserted because the tournament is badly planned.

1. Just because you have X minute turns does not mean you cannot stall by using all the minutes. If in turn 1 you used all the miniutes to take your 1st turn, I would almsot certainly wager you were stalling. At 50pts I see players regularly use 2-3 minutes in turn 1. Slow players may take 5. Absent any other facts, and without the ability to directly observe the hypothetical player, that would be a strong case for stalling.
Similarly in late game, where a player has 5 models left, and takes 2 minutes to activate per each model, there is a strong case for stalling, again absent the personal observation of the game.
There is no one instance or action alone that can easily equate to stalling. It is a pattern of behavior over a turn, round, game, etc. It's not too hard to spot, though. Especially for an experienced player and TO. You can look at a table and tell if they have anything worth fretting and pondering over.

2. Who said 6 rounds is a full game. I have played full games that ended in 3 rounds. I have played 8+ game rounds in a regular timed event round. Most games CAN go 5 rounds, even with very full turn usage. Many can go 6+ with good players. A large majority of games I witness end fully with a clear winner before dice down (say 80+%). There is no problem with the event round length of SR. Turn time I woould like to be +1 minute longer, but that is a minor issue neither here nor there.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Ehh?

How is it full of flaws?

Rather than attacking me personally and then just running off in a huff, how about you tried to counter my argument?

In no way did I personally attack you, and I didn't counter your argument because you were arguing completely irrelevant points to the key issue of "here is a rule. it exists. PP wants it inforced. adapt to it or don't play in that format" and debating a bunch of unrelated ideas about what you think steamroller should be holds no interest to me.

This is exactly why I am not discussing the matter with you further.

You may call it walking away in a huff or whatever you like. I call it refusing to continue banging my head against a wall.

[f2k]

stalling wouldn't be the problem. players meta playing to manage always having the last turn of the game would be the problem (as it has been in the past, leading to the current rule of random game length)...
GW tried to solve it with random turn extensions at one point
Wyrd does the same...
PP and Infinity use random ends to the rounds rather than rolling to see if one player gets another turn...

each game approaches the problem of "end of game" management differently.

with the way SR events are composed, KNOWING who has the last turn would have a notable impact on strategy.

Point conceded.

However, the ?last turn? problem is inherent in all YGO-IGO games. Whether or not it?s worse than playing the clock?

Well...

I do admit a certain bias here as I find no point in playing if I can?t relax for a while and have time to chat a bit with my opponent. This is, after all, a social game.
Thus, I?m quite forgiving when it comes to how long my opponent takes. If he wants to go to the toilet or get something to drink during his turn. Well, so be it. The more time for me to ponder my next move...

There's no such thing as a "full six turn game". You either have a time cap or you don't. You either work within the generalizations of timed turns or you book the event for 2-3 days and let everyone take as long as they want.

The main problem with saying "I have X amount of time, damn anyone who says otherwise" is that by using that logic someone can just walk off to get a snack or something in the middle of their turn. There's no defensible reason for someone to be allowed to waste time just because the guidelines afford them time to play the game properly.

You're given time to play. You aren't given time to stall. That's the game.

As I just said above, I have no problem with someone walking of in the middle of a turn if he needs to.

As for a ?full six turn game?...

Well, I never said that the individual turns couldn?t be timed. So, you have six turns times two players times x minutes and that?s how much time must be set aside for the game.

Interestingly, last summer I helped plan a Flames of War tournament (which sadly turned belly up for a number of reasons) and the question of how long each game should last was one of the major issues we had to deal with.
In the end we decided that we would prefer a two-day tournament rather than a highly compressed one-day tournament. More time for talking. More time for socializing. And a chance to throw a bit of a party during the evening.

Some prefer a quick, highly competitive tournament and some prefers a slower, more laid back tournament. I?m firmly in the latter camp, it seems to me that many steamroll players in the thread is in the former.

1. Just because you have X minute turns does not mean you cannot stall by using all the minutes. If in turn 1 you used all the miniutes to take your 1st turn, I would almsot certainly wager you were stalling. At 50pts I see players regularly use 2-3 minutes in turn 1. Slow players may take 5. Absent any other facts, and without the ability to directly observe the hypothetical player, that would be a strong case for stalling.
Similarly in late game, where a player has 5 models left, and takes 2 minutes to activate per each model, there is a strong case for stalling, again absent the personal observation of the game.
There is no one instance or action alone that can easily equate to stalling. It is a pattern of behavior over a turn, round, game, etc. It's not too hard to spot, though. Especially for an experienced player and TO. You can look at a table and tell if they have anything worth fretting and pondering over.

2. Who said 6 rounds is a full game. I have played full games that ended in 3 rounds. I have played 8+ game rounds in a regular timed event round. Most games CAN go 5 rounds, even with very full turn usage. Many can go 6+ with good players. A large majority of games I witness end fully with a clear winner before dice down (say 80+%). There is no problem with the event round length of SR. Turn time I woould like to be +1 minute longer, but that is a minor issue neither here nor there.

See, I think this is the main issue. I don?t think you can stall at all as long as you take no longer than the x minutes you?re given. How you want to use those minuttes is up to you ? not me. You could spend them picking your nose, for all that I care...

Well...

Ok...

I might actually care if you started doing that...

In no way did I personally attack you, and I didn't counter your argument because you were arguing completely irrelevant points to the key issue of "here is a rule. it exists. PP wants it inforced. adapt to it or don't play in that format" and debating a bunch of unrelated ideas about what you think steamroller should be holds no interest to me.

This is exactly why I am not discussing the matter with you further.

You may call it walking away in a huff or whatever you like. I call it refusing to continue banging my head against a wall.

Okay. I think I can see where you?re coming from now.

I?m arguing the original OP ? namely how I feel about stalling in an environment with timed turned. We somehow got sidetracked by using the steamroller format as the sole example, but the OP was not restricted in such a way.

Okay, let?s drop the steamroller debate completely. You?re right: the rule is there. As several of us have argued, it?s a rather strange rule given the overall construction of the steamroller tournaments, but so be it - I'm not actually asking you to change it.

Instead, let?s return to a more generalized debate about time limits and stalling. There?re many other tournament formats out there...