Stalling: Legit tactic or poor sportsmanship?

[HRViolation]

*** yes, legit yes.

In any game that defines a time limit for victory, it is up to the game designers to ensure that the rules allow for milking the clock.

Think basketball - 24 second shot clock, think football 40 secondsd to hike the ball.

PP needs to allow for people to 'use up' all of their allotted time to take their turn. If they run the clock out on you, too bad for you.

This alleviates any "he is cheating me he said she said" arguments.

[PG_petegrrrr]

Those are all example where time limits are the only and desired endings of a game.

This is not one of those examples. Most games won't go to time limit, and clearly PP sees time limits as a last resort, hence rules on stalling and variable end times to make it harder.

[sourclams]

To those saying that there's no time issues built into current SR2012 10 min. timed rounds, I think It's very possible for players to play a game blitz-style and get considerably more turns in than the SR2012 format would have expected. It's very unusual, but theoretically possible. So each player averages 5 min. turns for 110 minutes of a 120 minute game round without anything materially happening; the game could still go either way. Player 1 begins Turn 12, achieves the "win" condition, but it takes all 10 minutes of his turn. Player 2 loses after having taken 11 turns vs player 1's 12 turns, and could have easily contested/achieved the "win" condition had he gotten a turn 12.

Is this a structural problem (i.e., limited time but limitless rounds and timed formats going beyond the scope anticipated because of cautious play/infinite tough rolls/something else unusual) with current SR2012 that is unusual but unexpected and has a potential solution (Deathclock), or is this an individual problem (player stalled! ; and note I never said that the player did stall, only that their last turn took them all 10 of their legally allowed minutes) that requires sanctions by the TO/gaming community?

[ScottEBJJ]

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...

Are you really trying to get across that you think not letting someone bend or break the rules, which would be cheating, is the same as cheating itself? Do you not see the universe imploding logical loop in your statement?

This is a game. To play a game there has to be rules, otherwise there is nothing to play by. We are talking about playing a game competitively, in a tournament setting. Part of that activity is agreeing to play as close to the game rules as possible, with stipulated penalties for doing otherwise. You do this so everyone is operating on the same playing field and everyone has a chance to come out on top that day. Everyone agrees to this when they sign up for a tournament.

So how in any way can anyone be the bad guy for just asking their opponent, friend or otherwise, to play by the rules they agreed to play by. Even if it negatively effects that persons fun. To do anything else is the jerk move as you aren't just effecting your game but the whole tournament. If that person can't have fun under the rules they agreed to play by, well then they shouldn't have come to the tournament. It should not be on a player to allow their opponent to break a rule just because the opponent wants to, even in the name of "fun'. A player shouldn't be congratulated for letting themselves get walked over, which is what letting a person stall you out is. Moreover, if the OP had "fun" in this scenario he wouldn't have posted on the forums about it.

I honestly can not make any sense out of your position on the matter.

Your "What-if" scenarios have exactly no bearing on anything I'm saying. They just literally have nothing to do with just expecting your opponent to play by the rules. More over that type of behavior itself is against the same rules. And I'm going to be honest, I feel like a new player would be really pissed off if they were expected to let their opponent break rules left and right, just because it be more fun for their opponent

[PG_thegreatblah]

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.
.

I have DQed folks for stalling because they feel this way, not that it is wrong to, but there are many instances where filling up the clock because you feel the time is allotted to you can get you in trouble for stalling.

Really it's a lot more simple than many are arguing here though. We have all played games with folks that try to win by gaming the clock or finding loopholes in the rules. While these players might have justified their actions to help them win, they run the risk of getting warnings and possibly disqualifications by the TO.

Most of us that have been a TO have very little patience for shenaniganizing. Since the final decision lies with the TO no matter how much you think you might be OK, the simple fact of the matter is that the TO can and will throw you out if he has to spend large amounts of time warning you to stop stalling to the point where removing you from the tournament is the best solution available to him/her.

[paradox]

I have DQed folks for stalling because they feel this way

Can we end thread now? Because this is really all that has to be said.

[ScottEBJJ]

It's the same as any other rule. You might not like it, you might want it to work a different way, but that isn't how it works right now. You can suggest changes, but if you don't follow it you should expect the prescribed outcome.

Stalling, as wriiten, is a DQ. So stop trying to rationalize stalling.

[Mr_Smigs]

Can we end thread now? Because this is really all that has to be said.

agreed.

i could go on, but, ScottEBJJ's post is almost word for word the same mistunderstanding of my position that came up the last time, and I haven't figured out a polite way to respond to it without it being mistaken for an insult.


f2k's comment:

Interestingly, last summer I helped plan a Flames of War tournament ... 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.

pretty much sums up a lot.
different games. different "tournament" mentalities.

FOW is a game where you can pre-measure everything, and the rules suggest to declare your intent on every action (EG: "These guys are moving here, but staying out of your range...") so both players can agree on the result...
this leads to tournaments being basically regular game days, with a schedule.

WARMACHINE, as I currently observe it, is more "kickass now, talk about the awesome stuff after the round is over..."
which leads to these discussions that really have no answer as it's controlled by each TO individually.


ok.. that was my last attempt. think I'll follow this thread to see where it ends... but take my part of the discussion elsewhere...

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that one major factor in your event going belly-up is that you decided to ask for twice as much of people's precious free time as a normal tournament. Two-day tournaments tend to be limited - in every game I've ever heard of - to relatively major events, because it is asking a lot for people to spend two days on a single tournament. That's why we have time limits at all. People just don't have unlimited free time.

[PG_Pyrodude32]

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.

Your opponent (assumed to be skilled) won't be forced into these moves by the clock (99 out of 100 times. which leaves this to being an extreme case) - generally when your opponent is forced into a hail mary is right after you get done with a hot turn(s) that has crippled 85-90% of their army and they WILL lose during your next activation. Thats more of a play/tactical issue than a clock issue. All of the scenario's that we've used locally on Deathclock have been EXTREMELY positive and we haven't had any issues at all. We have had issues with the standard round turns - which is one of the reasons why i'm seeing a HUGE shift in my local meta as they've been going towards Deathclock.

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.

Then we both agree that this is a non-issue (as 2-seconds is an inconsequential amount of time in the grand scheme of things). Why was it brought up then? Point is your opponent can't slow down your clock or sap your time in deathclock - only you can, and that's where time management comes in.

Personally, when I play I keep the clock by me. Its in easy reach so I can stop the time when I need to. The biggest issue that i'm seeing from your perspective of the argument stems from the problem of indecisiveness - and that will cause your time to go out rather quickly. When i'm in a tournament setting - I won't think about all of the different battle plans that I can come up with - i'll just blow and go - so the first idea that has a reasonable amount of success i'll just go with it.

[Kamahin]

It's the same as any other rule. You might not like it, you might want it to work a different way, but that isn't how it works right now. You can suggest changes, but if you don't follow it you should expect the prescribed outcome.

Stalling, as wriiten, is a DQ. So stop trying to rationalize stalling.

This is about how I feel about it. Due to personal feelings I don't like the idea of stalling being a grey area, but thats what PP decided. So I play by it.

[althai]

Stalling is a PLAYER issue.

Intent can be deduced from actions.

The former proposition [that you can't tell stalling from being a slow player] is demostrably false. The latter is quite true.

Sometimes intent can be discerned from actions. Hell, sometimes you can tell what someone is thinking just by reading their face. But sometimes you can't. Any rule which is based on a player's intent rather than their actions encourages dishonest players to cheat, by doing what is in their best interest and disguising their state of mind to make it appear legal. Some people might get called on it, but good actors will get away with it, and other players may be accused of cheating when they were just slow players. We have firsthand accounts of people who make decisions faster than they are comfortable at times out of fear of being accused of stalling.

Maybe it's time to switch to a system where there is no need for a rule against stalling, because there is never an advantage to be gained.

[PG_petegrrrr]

No, what you have is "firsthand" hypothetical situations that essentially never happen in the real world, if you are going off stories in this thread.

What you do have is a lot of current and former T.O.'s giving you firsthand reports that it is

A) never going to be used against a player that is just slow

and B) only ever applied to blatant stalling, which the only way to hide would be an elaborate, game long charade which takes the kind of preparation and acting that frankly few players can pull off, especially for something that may not actually ever come to pass.

Those are the only actual, experience based, "This has really happened and is not some hypothetical doom and gloom that ignore the actual experience of the people who deal most directly with this in favor of internet hysteria and hyperbole" thing that has been shown during this thread, which hopefully gets locked at some point.

This thread ran its course 4 posts in when Hacksaw said "It's a DQ'able offense".

[althai]

No, what you have is "firsthand" hypothetical situations that essentially never happen in the real world, if you are going off stories in this thread.

Geekly said that he is afraid of being accused of stalling, if he takes too long to think:

I'm concerned that if I take over-long to think about and plan my turn, that I'll be accused of doing it.

That's a firsthand account of someone who is afraid to use his allotted time to consider his moves carefully, for fear he will be accused of cheating.

What you do have is a lot of current and former T.O.'s giving you firsthand reports that it is

A) never going to be used against a player that is just slow

and B) only ever applied to blatant stalling, which the only way to hide would be an elaborate, game long charade which takes the kind of preparation and acting that frankly few players can pull off, especially for something that may not actually ever come to pass.

Those are the only actual, experience based, "This has really happened and is not some hypothetical doom and gloom that ignore the actual experience of the people who deal most directly with this in favor of internet hysteria and hyperbole" thing that has been shown during this thread, which hopefully gets locked at some point.

This is extremely poor evidence. You're telling me that you've never seen someone stalling who you couldn't tell was stalling, and therefore you can always tell whether someone is stalling. But saying you've never seen someone stalling who you couldn't tell was stalling is a tautology. If you couldn't tell they were stalling in the first place, you would have no way of knowing they were stalling. So you can't reasonably draw any conclusions from that fact. (This logical error is known as the toupée fallacy.)

In order to draw any reasonable conclusions about how easy it is to detect stalling, you need to have some way of telling when people were actually stalling, which is independent of whether you thought they were stalling.



One final comment: Having a rule against stalling makes it legal for slow players to play the clock, but illegal for fast players to do so. If you're ordinarily a slow player, choosing to play quickly because it gives you a better chance of getting the last turn is perfectly legal. But if you're ordinarily a fast player, choosing to play slowly because it gives you a better chance of getting the last turn violates the stalling rule.

[Bean Mk. II]

Maybe it's time to switch to a system where there is no need for a rule against stalling, because there is never an advantage to be gained.

While I very much agree with much of what you are saying, I can't think of a system in which there is never an advantage to stalling. Can you?

[PG_petegrrrr]

Geekly said that he is afraid of being accused of stalling, if he takes too long to think:

That's a firsthand account of someone who is afraid to use his allotted time to consider his moves carefully, for fear he will be accused of cheating.


This is extremely poor evidence. You're telling me that you've never seen someone stalling who you couldn't tell was stalling, and therefore you can always tell whether someone is stalling. .

1) Poor evidence beats ZERO evidence, so you don't really have a leg to stand on there regardless.

2) I'm not saying that. I'm saying Stalling is not some widespread problem. It's generally very isolated. And generally, at a big con or event, the T.O. warns players about it before the games even start, and it's never an issue. People will occasionally try it at a big con certainly, but people are much better than you might think about sniffing it out, and once you have been busted word travels and extra scrutiny is headed your way.

I'm saying that stalling only every comes into play when it is bad enough to be noticed, which is a completely logical thing to say if you stop and think about it.

Stalling that isn't bad enough to be noticed generally won't have much effect on the game.

Stalling that will have an impact on the game is what generally gets noticed.
Therefore blatant stalling being discovered is a self fufilling prophecy for getting busted, unless your opponent is just too shy to speak up.

There are no great, Moriarty-esque warmachine villains, who go out to cons intent on carrying an elaborate ruse where they intentionally pace themselves slower in the hopes that they will be able to use this facade, this false pattern of exaggerated slow play, to one day squeeze out a stall win in a game that may or may not happen, all the while twirling their no doubt handlebar mustaches, and steepling their fingers while whispering "...good...goooooood.....".

Stalling that is bad enough to impact the games generally gets caught or gets a judge called which puts an end to it. That's just how it is.

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

Maybe it's time to switch to a system where there is no need for a rule against stalling, because there is never an advantage to be gained.

This would only be possible in a situation where everyone involved has unlimited time and nothing better to do. Such a situation does not exist. The closest we can get is something like Chess Clock or Deathclock timing, where gaming the clock is harder, and there is currently a major push to switch to that anyway. The obstacle in most cases seems to be that chess clocks can be prohibitively expensive.

[sourclams]

You can achieve near-chess clock level timing with two kitchen timers. Player A hits Pause on his timer which is at 50:00 after he took his 10 minute turn. He then hits Start on Player B's timer which is at 60:00, and now begins ticking down. Each player will gain some insignificant amount of time between hitting Pause and Start.

[althai]

While I very much agree with much of what you are saying, I can't think of a system in which there is never an advantage to stalling. Can you?

Deathclock.

More generally, any system in which either the round doesn't end until every game has finished, or every game is guaranteed to have finished by the time the round is supposed to end. Deathclock achieves the latter, by ensuring that if the game lasts more than X time, someone will have died by the clock.

[kolonelk]

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?

If it's not stalling, it's either highly disrespectul to your opponent, or a sign of mental incompetence. If you honestly require this much thinking time and can't perform most of it while your opponent is playing out his turn, you might want to try a game that is less taxing to your resources, like snakes & ladders.

[althai]

If it's not stalling, it's either highly disrespectul to your opponent, or a sign of mental incompetence. If you honestly require this much thinking time and can't perform most of it while your opponent is playing out his turn, you might want to try a game that is less taxing to your resources, like snakes & ladders.

If I'm going for a caster kill, I might spend 60 seconds deciding whether to boost attack and/or damage rolls, because I'm calculating the expected damage per focus for a roll with boosted attack, boosted damage, and boosted attack-and-damage. This is not stalling, because I know exactly what I'm calculating, and how the results will affect my next game decision. If I get to my last two focus and my opponent is down to one box, I might take some more time to recompute, because now I'm replacing my "maximize expected damage" heuristic with "maximize chance of doing at least 1 damage". Is this disrespectful to the opponent? Is it a sign of mental incompetence? I don't see how. In a game as ruled by probability as Warmachine, computing probabilities often makes the difference between a play with a 40% chance of winning the game, and a play with a 60% chance of winning the game.

For a game as complicated as Warmachine, it is often the case that increased time to decide results in better play. This is taken for granted in games like Chess and Go, which is why competitive play generally imposes time limits. It shouldn't be surprising for Warmachine. So why do you feel the need to insult people who choose to take a bit more time to play their best game?

1) Poor evidence beats ZERO evidence, so you don't really have a leg to stand on there regardless.

I meant it is, literally, zero evidence. If you don't have any source of knowledge about whether someone was stalling that is independent of whether you perceived them to be stalling, you have exactly zero evidence about how well your impressions match reality. I'm not going to put any weight on conclusions reached through faulty logic.

People are much better than you might think about sniffing it out.

How do you know this? How do you have any idea about the rate at which stalling goes undetected, if you only know about the instances when it was detected?

I'm saying that stalling only every comes into play when it is bad enough to be noticed, which is a completely logical thing to say if you stop and think about it.

Yes, it's bleedingly obvious that it only gets detected when it gets detected.

Stalling that isn't bad enough to be noticed generally won't have much effect on the game.

Other than, say, causing the person who would otherwise have lost to win because their opponent runs out of time just before they were going to make the winning move.

[Bean Mk. II]

Deathclock.

Lol. No.

Deathclock still rewards stalling. It doesn't reward stalling in the same way or in the same situations, but you still need a rule against stalling in Deathclock. Otherwise, abusing the Deathclock system is not only easy, but far, far more devastatingly effective than it is in a timed-round-only format.

No, Deathclock may be a good way to reduce stalling, but it isn't a system in which there is never an advantage to stalling, and it isn't a system that eliminates the need for Organizers to make judgement calls about whether or not players are stalling.

[kolonelk]

For a game as complicated as Warmachine, it is often the case that increased time to decide results in better play. This is taken for granted in games like Chess and Go, which is why competitive play generally imposes time limits. It shouldn't be surprising for Warmachine. So why do you feel the need to insult people who choose to take a bit more time to play their best game?

Because maths isn't that hard. There's a massive difference between needing a bit more time to calculate odds and absorbing your entire turn frivolously. Anybody smart enough to know the probabilities involved couldn't take more than a minute or two to decide whether to boost or not, for example.

In a timed tournament environment if you've hit 4 minutes in and not touched a single model I'd be calling for a TO to hustle things along.

[AshenFang]

To those that say it's alright: I'll happily call a TO over to the table if I think you are waiting out the clock, and happily win by your Disqualification.

[Bean Mk. II]

To those that say it's alright: I'll happily call a TO over to the table if I think you are waiting out the clock, and happily win by your Disqualification.

Only if stalling is actually against the rules--I think the question is whether it should be.

Of course, there should be some mechanism for ensuring that the first person to start a turn with a lead in objective points doesn't win automatically, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a rule against stalling.

[althai]

Because maths isn't that hard. There's a massive difference between needing a bit more time to calculate odds and absorbing your entire turn frivolously. Anybody smart enough to know the probabilities involved couldn't take more than a minute or two to decide whether to boost or not, for example.

In a timed tournament environment if you've hit 4 minutes in and not touched a single model I'd be calling for a TO to hustle things along.

So you're saying that it's perfectly fine for me to spend two minutes after declaring a charge on your caster to decide whether I want to boost the attack roll, but if I want to spend four minutes planning my entire turn that's unreasonable, and you'd call for a TO?

That seems like fairly absurd constellation of beliefs.

[The Happy Anarchist]

Lol. No.

Deathclock still rewards stalling. It doesn't reward stalling in the same way or in the same situations, but you still need a rule against stalling in Deathclock. Otherwise, abusing the Deathclock system is not only easy, but far, far more devastatingly effective than it is in a timed-round-only format.

No, Deathclock may be a good way to reduce stalling, but it isn't a system in which there is never an advantage to stalling, and it isn't a system that eliminates the need for Organizers to make judgement calls about whether or not players are stalling.

Not following you. Unless you mean you need the rule that you pass the clock when necessary and/or can pause for rules questions? That is part of the way the rules work.

It pretty much eliminates stalling as a factor, and in order to eat enough of someone's time on their clock to let you win you have to be so blatant about it that it is almost to the level of being ridiculous, making it trivial for the TO to DQ.

[kolonelk]

So you're saying that it's perfectly fine for me to spend two minutes after declaring a charge on your caster to decide whether I want to boost the attack roll, but if I want to spend four minutes planning my entire turn that's unreasonable, and you'd call for a TO?

That seems like fairly absurd constellation of beliefs.

If you don't make it clear that's exactly what you're doing, yes. At least after charging you've committed yourself to doing something other than staring at your shoes and whistling.

[Bean Mk. II]

Not following you. Unless you mean you need the rule that you pass the clock when necessary and/or can pause for rules questions? That is part of the way the rules work.

It pretty much eliminates stalling as a factor, and in order to eat enough of someone's time on their clock to let you win you have to be so blatant about it that it is almost to the level of being ridiculous, making it trivial for the TO to DQ.

We've had this discussion, I think, but no--you're missing the point.

Althai's suggestion was that we need a "system where there is no need for a rule against stalling, because there is never an advantage to be gained."

What I mean is that, even in Deathclock, you need a rule against stalling--a rule that lets the TO come over and disqualifying you for blatantly eating time off your opponent's clock.

If there were no rule against stalling in Deathclock, players could eat time off each others' clocks, and it would be perfectly legal (and thus not grounds for disqualification) regardless of how blatantly they were doing it.

The fact is that Deathclock still rewards stalling. It might make stalling easier to spot (I'm not at all convinced, but that's a different discussion) but it still requires the TO to spot stalling, make a judgement call, and then enforce a rule against stalling. Without a rule against stalling, Deathclock would be a nightmare.

Thus, it does not fit the criterion Althai laid out.

edit: just so it's clear, I'm aware that Deathclock does incorporate this rule. I am merely pointing out that, contrary to Althai's assertion, the rule is a crucial element of the Deathclock system.

[scout's honor]

When i'm in a tournament setting - I won't think about all of the different battle plans that I can come up with - i'll just blow and go - so the first idea that has a reasonable amount of success i'll just go with it.

I find it hard to reconcile this statement with your apparent conviction that time pressure is not necessarily a big deal. If your solution to having a limited amount of time is to not take the time to consider all your options I'd say time pressure is a really big deal and that you're not exactly managing it skillfully - no offense. I can certainly see how this way of playing will ensure you won't risk getting clocked out, but it does come down to not necessarily making the best move purely in the interest of being faster. Should that be the expected style of anyone who is not up there with the top players in a competitive environment?

[althai]

What I mean is that, even in Deathclock, you need a rule against stalling--a rule that lets the TO come over and disqualifying you for blatantly eating time off your opponent's clock.

If there were no rule against stalling in Deathclock, players could eat time off each others' clocks, and it would be perfectly legal (and thus not grounds for disqualification) regardless of how blatantly they were doing it.

I think you're not implementing deathclock properly. If player A's clock is active, player A should be playing. If player B does something to interrupt player A, then player B's clock should become active (or both clocks should be paused, for something that requires TO intervention). If the rules are written this way, then any time player B tries to stall, player A's clock is no longer active, and so player B gains no advantage.

[Bean Mk. II]

I think you're not implementing deathclock properly. If player A's clock is active, player A should be playing. If player B does something to interrupt player A, then player B's clock should become active (or both clocks should be paused, for something that requires TO intervention). If the rules are written this way, then any time player B tries to stall, player A's clock is no longer active, and so player B gains no advantage.

Not true. Both in concept and in the way the Deathclock rules are actually written, there are plenty of things that player B can do to interrupt player A without warranting a timer switch. The most simple, obvious (and, frankly, effective) mechanism is just talking. Ask your opponent questions--better, even, if they are not questions about the game--on their turn. Very, very few people that I know have the cold, hard, mental discipline necessary to concentrate effectively on a wargame through a barrage of conversation.

This doesn't warrant switching the timer over (indeed, the Deathclock rules are quite specific regarding what sorts of events allow you to switch the timer in the middle of your turn). It's a highly-effective stalling tactic that works in the Deathclock format and is entirely legal--unless there is a rule against stalling. Even then, the judge has to make a discretionary call--deciding whether you're simply being outgoing and friendly (or unintentionally hyperactive) or whether you're actually trying to stall.

So, no. It's easy to gain an advantage through stalling in Deathclock.

It might be easy to spot, but without a rule against stalling, in general, Deathclock would be ripe for abuse.

[f2k]

agreed.

i could go on, but, ScottEBJJ's post is almost word for word the same mistunderstanding of my position that came up the last time, and I haven't figured out a polite way to respond to it without it being mistaken for an insult.


f2k's comment:

pretty much sums up a lot.
different games. different "tournament" mentalities.

FOW is a game where you can pre-measure everything, and the rules suggest to declare your intent on every action (EG: "These guys are moving here, but staying out of your range...") so both players can agree on the result...
this leads to tournaments being basically regular game days, with a schedule.

WARMACHINE, as I currently observe it, is more "kickass now, talk about the awesome stuff after the round is over..."
which leads to these discussions that really have no answer as it's controlled by each TO individually.


ok.. that was my last attempt. think I'll follow this thread to see where it ends... but take my part of the discussion elsewhere...

I’de just like to point out that I play the same regardless of the game. Flames of War, WarMachine, Fantasy, Infinity, whatever... I still want to socialize and have a good relaxing time.

I agree that many, though not all, regards WarMachine as a more “hardcore” and “kickass” game. Which was, in fact, the major reason why I stopped playing some time ago. The insane combo-driven game play where you had to bring your a-list to every game and where every game seemed like just a training session for tournament play really put me off.

As I said, I play to be social and have a good time. Winning is nice, but by no means necessary...

But I digress...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that one major factor in your event going belly-up is that you decided to ask for twice as much of people's precious free time as a normal tournament. Two-day tournaments tend to be limited - in every game I've ever heard of - to relatively major events, because it is asking a lot for people to spend two days on a single tournament. That's why we have time limits at all. People just don't have unlimited free time.

Without going in to too many details, let me just say that you’re completely wrong. All slots were filled and we had people on a waiting list in case someone jumped ship...

The problems began when half the organizers went MIA shortly before tournament. After a lot of debate, the few of us who remained, reluctantly, canceled the tournament since we felt that we no longer had the manpower to run it properly.

[watchgeorgerock]

I am for the if dice is down and noone wins on scenario and both casters are alive then you both lose

[Bean Mk. II]

I am for the if dice is down and noone wins on scenario and both casters are alive then you both lose

Actually, that's not a bad idea. Avoiding a tie-breaker is an obvious requirement for the system without a rule against stalling.

The important thing in this suggestion, though, I think, is making the result a loss rather than a draw--if you can stall out for a draw, that's better than losing and thus worthwhile.

In this system, the best you can do is stall out to make your opponent lose, too. That's not nothing, but my guess is that merely bringing another player down with you will not be enough incentive for most people--that most people would prefer even a long-shot at winning to stalling out for a double loss.


It does have a problem, though: it severely penalizes players who get matched up against legitimately slow opponents.

[althai]

Not true. Both in concept and in the way the Deathclock rules are actually written, there are plenty of things that player B can do to interrupt player A without warranting a timer switch. The most simple, obvious (and, frankly, effective) mechanism is just talking. Ask your opponent questions--better, even, if they are not questions about the game--on their turn. Very, very few people that I know have the cold, hard, mental discipline necessary to concentrate effectively on a wargame through a barrage of conversation.

Look, asking your opponent irrelevant questions while they're trying to play their turn should clearly be against the rules. It doesn't matter if your intent is to stall, or you're just hyperactively social, it should be illegal for one player to distract the other player during their turn, regardless of intent.

My problem with the "no stalling" rule is the exact same action (e.g. taking 60 seconds to decide whether to boost a roll) may be either perfectly appropriate or a rules violation depending on the intent behind it. With deathclock, you don't need rules against deliberately playing slowly, as the deathclock timer already penalizes slow play (but—this is important—based on actions rather than intent). You do need rules against slowing down your opponent's play, but again, these rules can be written based on actions rather than intent (no interrupting your opponents turn except for a rules question, in which case the timer is paused, or an in-game action, in which case you become the active player).

[Bean Mk. II]

Look, asking your opponent irrelevant questions while they're trying to play their turn should clearly be against the rules. It doesn't matter if your intent is to stall, or you're just hyperactively social, it should be illegal for one player to distract the other player during their turn, regardless of intent.

My problem with the "no stalling" rule is the exact same action (e.g. taking 60 seconds to decide whether to boost a roll) may be either perfectly appropriate or a rules violation depending on the intent behind it. With deathclock, you don't need rules against deliberately playing slowly, as the deathclock timer already penalizes slow play (but—this is important—based on actions rather than intent). You do need rules against slowing down your opponent's play, but again, these rules can be written based on actions rather than intent (no interrupting your opponents turn except for a rules question, in which case the timer is paused, or an in-game action, in which case you become the active player).

I challenge you to find even one other person who thinks that talking to your opponent in the middle of a game (beyond what is necessary to execute the game in progress, of course), without the intent to stall, should be banned across the board.

Come back with even one other person, and I'll consider taking this argument seriously. As it is right now, this seems roughly equivalent to disqualifying everyone who wears a blue shirt--which is to say utterly bizarre, completely unfair, and ultimately undesirable.

*By "person" I mean "warmachine player." I understand that other gaming communities have adopted that convention. I just don't think it's one that has, really, any support in this community.

[PG_Killbox]

All for 'no tiebreakers' as a variant. I've never tried it, though can only imagine it would make the game more nail-biting and there's no reason to play for the dice-down, though inevitably someone somewhere would just so they can deny their opponent the win.

On the matter of stalling, if it's super obvious (like 9 minutes to allocate focus in a 10 minute turn), call TO over. Otherwise, build a bridge and get over it.

[Geekly]

I was playing a game the other day and decided to try an assassination attempt in what looked to be the last round of the game. Either I killed his caster, or he was going to kill mine on the next turn. My turn was going to be really complicated. I was playing Grayle and needed to move models and use my own movement shenanigans to get my engaged Stalker, who was 12" (1" more than his threat range) away from the enemy caster, freed up and sent into combat. I'm still new to the game, and new to Grayle, and needed some time to work out my turn. I spent a good two-three minutes first trying to find an assassination vector, then working out my order of activation, what Grayle would do on his turn, and how it would all work out. Granted, I'm new and some of you would insult my intelligence/efficiency and might say I took more time than than was needed. I'd say that I took all of the time that I needed to play it out. Had I been under the "stall" clock, I would have been sweating it, and not because I felt like I didn't have enough time in my turn to work it out. Fortunately, it was a friendly game, and there was no timer running.

I failed the attempt because of some missed rolls, but had it gone off, it would have been epic.

[PG_Pyrodude32]

I was playing a game the other day and decided to try an assassination attempt in what looked to be the last round of the game. Either I killed his caster, or he was going to kill mine on the next turn. My turn was going to be really complicated. I was playing Grayle and needed to move models and use my own movement shenanigans to get my engaged Stalker, who was 12" (1" more than his threat range) away from the enemy caster, freed up and sent into combat. I'm still new to the game, and new to Grayle, and needed some time to work out my turn. I spent a good two-three minutes first trying to find an assassination vector, then working out my order of activation, what Grayle would do on his turn, and how it would all work out. Granted, I'm new and some of you would insult my intelligence/efficiency and might say I took more time than than was needed. I'd say that I took all of the time that I needed to play it out. Had I been under the "stall" clock, I would have been sweating it, and not because I felt like I didn't have enough time in my turn to work it out. Fortunately, it was a friendly game, and there was no timer running.

I failed the attempt because of some missed rolls, but had it gone off, it would have been epic.

Sorry Geekly, but I think that your missing out on what stalling actually is.

As a T.O. sign's that typically set of alarms that a guy is attempting to stall the game are listed below. (This is just a generalization and is by no means complete. This is just from personal observations of mine)

1. Takes the full turn time for the first turn (no dice rolls for attack and damage rolls) - then on a crucial feat turn is able to complete multiple model activations and multiple attacks without having to forfeit any model/units activations. Then when there are drastically fewer models left on the table takes the full turn time to activate and move models. When completing the intensive feat turn has a look of practiced movements about the person - which shows that the player has been in that situation before (i.e. does not have the panicked rush of a new player. This is easier to spot than what it might appear - especially if the T.O. has been walking the tables repeatedly and observes all of the games)
2. When someone starts trying to look "busy" - i.e. by maybe repeatedly measuring control areas to determine if one model is in charge range - when they are obviously in or out of range. Looking at the clock more frequently than other previous turns, especially when its not the appex of the battle (i.e. lots of attack and damage rolls), and there are drastically fewer models on the table than previous turns.
3. Taking a long time to decide how to move a solo to contest a scenario point - when its off to the side in a battle (i.e. has little to no impact in the grand scheme of the game in grinding out your opponent through attrition).
4. Had a guy one time who was not deploying his army because he was running a Magnus1 tier that gave him wreck markers to place on the board. He forgot the wreck markers at his house so he was cutting some out. The tournament had already started - 5 minutes ago, so this is a case of stalling. I was playing in the tournament instead of running the event, his opponent was about to call the T.O. over - but the T.O. showed up and said ok whats taking so long. The guy was trying to cut out perfect circles and the T.O. simply said - let me see your paper and scissors and in about 5 seconds cut out the remaining wreck marker circles. What he did was cut out a square around them and let the pencil line represent the circles. Gave the guy a warning because he was stalling (albeit was not deliberate in this case, which was why it was a warning instead of a DQ. Also, no T.O. likes to disqualify someone - at times we're forced to, but thats a hard call and it does have lasting repercussions as the person will bad mouth all of your future events, etc.)

Now - I have a guy in my local meta who from this internet hyperbola thread would be accused of stalling, when its blatantly obvious as a T.O. that he's simply a slow player. During intensive feat turns even when he uses his time extension, typically he is having to forfeit damage rolls with models in a unit - or forfeit model/units activations all together because there physically isn't enough time for him to complete everything at that point. He uses longer turns than other opponents, but even on off of feat turn's he's still having to forfeit some damage rolls with a unit. The only thing that he currently lacks is experience and play time under his belt to get faster. It sounds like this is the situation that your under - and you have absolutely nothing to fear from being kicked out of a tournament. When i'm running an event, it becomes very easy to judge the skill set of a person after watching one round. If you see a sudden shift in play styles during the following games, things are taking drastically longer, etc. then red flags start to get raised and i'll watch that table a little closer. Just because someone's thinking about an order of activation does not mean that they are stalling - and the difference is pretty obvious - especially when common sense is applied.

Stalling is almost impossible to actually define a ruleset for - and if a ruleset was defined on stalling then it would more than likely be based off of a system where you have X amount of time to move a model (say 5-15 seconds). Otherwise how would you actually regulate it? I don't know about you but that would create an absolute NIGHTMARE for a T.O. and for the players playing the game. The Steamroller document would have to grow another couple of pages just to handle the additional rules - and what would it actually solve? Stalling just simply isn't a widespread issue - there are a couple of isolated cases, but any T.O. worth their salt can solve that without it ever being a problem. Also remember - disqualifying an individual is the last thing that a T.O. wants to do. It always has a negative side effect to some degree - that person will bad mouth any future events that you do, the person that he was playing against now has to wait for his next game - which isn't fair to him either.