At my FLGS, we have been discussing ways to improve the tournaments we run. One issue is with time limits. Typically we use a 2 hour per game time limit with the caveat that the players shouldn't begin a new game turn unless there is ample time for each player to have a turn before time expires. For the average army with competent players and favorable dice rolls for game continuation, this would allow for 4-6 game turns within the time allotted. However, there are some players who (intentially or not) use more than their fair share of play time, limiting the number of game turns. This has led to some imbalance in the games, and I feel that it skews the tournament results.

So, we have started looking into various methods of making the games more equal. The two ideas are:

(1) Limit the amount of time a player has per turn by providing a player-turn time limit, possible 15 minutes, allowing 4 game turns per game. The problem is that Infantry-Based Assault armies would be penalised due to their need for more time to maneuver before getting into combat (at which point their turns tend to speed up).

(2) Provide each player with a "Time Allotment" (ex. each player has 60 minutes of play time). They could then use their time as they see fit (probably through the use of a Chess Clock). The issue with this is, What to do when one player runs out of time? If we allow the other player to continue play for as many additional turns as they have time for, then we penalize certain armies/players and reward those who can play a turn in a very short period of time.

Neither option is a good choice, so we still have no idea of what we might do in the end. I would like to hear what everyone else things of these ideas. If you have a better idea of how to prevent certain armies/players from monopolizing the game time, please share.

Culven wrote:(2) Provide each player with a "Time Allotment" (ex. each player has 60 minutes of play time). They could then use their time as they see fit (probably through the use of a Chess Clock). The issue with this is, What to do when one player runs out of time?

I still believe that this is the better of the two methods - If one player runs out of time - they forfeit the game - (thats what happens in chess!) You'll be surprised / amazed at how fast you can play a game. Certainly adds a real "think on your feet" and ups the tempo considerably.

Edit : I believe you could also introduce a 'handicap' system with the introduction of time - the higher the ranking player the less amount of time they receive. E.g. If you're a new player / less experienced (unseeded) then you'll have more alloted time than a more experienced / veteran opponent - total time would still equate to 2hrs.

I shall ponder the "out of time = lose" aspect. I'm not quite sure how it will tie in with the overall time allotment and each player gets the same number of turns aspects. I would hate for player one to goad player two into another round knowing that they don't have enough time to finish their player turn.

What kinds of armies would need longer turns later in the game? This might help me understand the time distribution for various armies.

dejavu...

Culven wrote:(1) Limit the amount of time a player has per turn by providing a player-turn time limit, possible 15 minutes, allowing 4 game turns per game.

yeah i would want that, personally. an hour is an hour, however you split it - i see no reason to break it down per turn.

Culven wrote:(2) Provide each player with a "Time Allotment" (ex. each player has 60 minutes of play time). They could then use their time as they see fit (probably through the use of a Chess Clock).

thats what i would prefer (bet that was a suprise, huh? ).

Culven wrote:The issue with this is, What to do when one player runs out of time?

they cant make any more actions in their turns.

Culven wrote:If we allow the other player to continue play for as many additional turns as they have time for, then we penalize certain armies/players and reward those who can play a turn in a very short period of time.

as long as they knew what they were getting themselves in for up front, then i see no problem with this.

playing to a time limit is playing to a time limit - if players are relying on getting more than their fair share of the time then that is their problem.

to put it the other way: should a player with a fast paced army get less time to make decisions etc just because their opponent chose one that played more slowly? if the Horde player takes 20 mins for his turn, and the Elite player only needs 10, but decides to spend another 10 deliberating over his moves etc, then wouldnt his opponent call him on time wasting? and if they are both allowed the same amount of time, then really, thats the same as giving them an allotment for the game each.

Culven wrote:Neither option is a good choice, so we still have no idea of what we might do in the end.

i dont really see an issue with the second option, to be honest.

players can buy more dice (inc. different colours), they can make movement trays and measuring sticks, they can practice deploying and moving their armies, they can streamline their lists. they can play warm-up games to get themselves used to playing faster.

and if they still cant get a game finished in the time limit, they can either try a different army, change their tactics to maximise their chances of winning in fewer turns, or simply not enter.

whatever happens, they wont be penalising their opponents, who have no control over what other players bring or how long they take using it.

if you have to have a time limit in the first place, it should be fair, IMO. what if fast players took just as long as the slow ones? you would never finish a game! what you want is for everyone to strive to be a fast player, and for everyone to have time to play their games out to their true conclusion.

hope that helps

~ Tim

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:dejavu...

I know, I just wanted to provide this topic with its own thread so that we could expound upon the issue.

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:

Culven wrote:(2) Provide each player with a "Time Allotment" (ex. each player has 60 minutes of play time). They could then use their time as they see fit (probably through the use of a Chess Clock).

thats what i would prefer (bet that was a suprise, huh? ).

Oh, most definitely a surprise to me.

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:

Culven wrote:The issue with this is, What to do when one player runs out of time?

they can't make any more actions in their turns.

I don't like this because I don't like the idea that say a tyranid player, who is very experienced and efficient with their army, and can play a full player turn in 15 minutes will end up running out of time and having to endure 2 turns of doing nothing when facing an army that can play a turn in 10 minutes (like Grey Knights or even my Tau). This seems like an unfair disadvantage for certain armies when there may really be nothing that the player can do to speed up the game anymore (short of moving their nicely painted models by the handful). However, I don't like the slower player dictating the number of turns played either.

This leads me to the timed turns option which will ensure that each player has the same opportunity to react to their opponent's actions, but the cost would be that the slower players will not be able to complete their turns. This could even lead to penalizing the faster player if they have a combat oriented army as they may not be able to make attacks in the Assault Phase if their opponent runs out of time during their Shooting Phase.

So, I end up leaning back to the overall time limit and the need to accomodate running out of time. Maybe I need some research to determine player turn lengths for different armies and player skill levels. Once I have an idea of how long different turns might take, then I can how much of a discrepancy there might be between time limits and game turns and whether it will even be an issue once the "don't start a game turn if you can't finish it" part is taken into account.

Culven wrote:I don't like this because I don't like the idea that say a tyranid player, who is very experienced and efficient with their army, and can play a full player turn in 15 minutes will end up running out of time and having to endure 2 turns of doing nothing when facing an army that can play a turn in 10 minutes (like Grey Knights or even my Tau). This seems like an unfair disadvantage for certain armies when there may really be nothing that the player can do to speed up the game anymore (short of moving their nicely painted models by the handful).

at the end of the day, if its supposed to be a 6 turn 2 hr game, then it should have 6 turns and take (up to) 2 hrs.

if a player cant play his 6 turns over those 2 hrs (and his opponent hasnt used more than his share of the time), then the problem is either the player/army or the time limit set by the organisers. if 2hrs isnt enough, then make it more. if games have to be finished in 2 hrs, then they should still be made up of the right number of turns (shouldnt they?).

players shouldnt be running out of time in the first place (at least not when their opponent cannot use more than their fair share of the time, and they knew how much time they would have when they entered their list).

if a player doesnt get their 6th turn because they took too long thats their fault, which is fair enough IMO. however, if their opponent doesnt get their 6th turn through no fault of their own, then that is unfair.

besides, what if 2 'slow' armies end up facing eachother?

if you have to cram x number of turns into y number of hours, then only armies and players that can do so should enter.

and if you dont have to play to such strict limits, then either increase the time allowed, or simply let everyone finish their games however long it takes while those that finish before them spectate/get drinks/chat/eat/paint models/whatever.

Culven wrote:This leads me to the timed turns option which will ensure that each player has the same opportunity to react to their opponent's actions, but the cost would be that the slower players will not be able to complete their turns.

just to clarify, would you be timing Player Turns or Game Turns?

Culven wrote:This could even lead to penalizing the faster player if they have a combat oriented army as they may not be able to make attacks in the Assault Phase if their opponent runs out of time during their Shooting Phase.

as i said in the other thread, i would handle this by having actions taken by your opponent not count against your clock (it would be paused while they make them). running out of time would mean that you dont get to make any actions (including attacks in CC) in your turn, but your opponent would still get to strike.

curiously, this would also allow a player that has made it into CC but then run out of time to still attack in his opponents turn, however (i hadnt considered that...).

Culven wrote:will even be an issue once the "don't start a game turn if you can't finish it" part is taken into account.

i dont like the sound of that. if its a 6 turn game and i havent used my share of the time allowed, then i shouldnt be forced to stop playing because my opponent took longer than he was supposed to - i would feel robbed if i lost a game simply because i wasnt allowed to play my next turn, where i might be able to take an objective etc.

this surely encourages people to drag their turns out once they get into a position to win if the game ends early, rather than encouraging everyone to play as quickly as they can...?

~ Tim

I find this topic funny (especially given how many folks here wetted ( ) themselves when my lot were asking who could play 1500 in an hour at the AoS weekend)
I'm not sure about the clock, I'm not sure about a strict time criteria.. You'd have kids hitting the clock button at "incorrect" times by "accident", (however if you had enough judges e.g. 1 per 4 or something (king said its only 1 per 10 tables max at the GT) then I guess this actually works better.. it symbolises a player has stopped touching his pieces he can't do anything more..but its going to need more discipline).

I don't like the idea of standing still for a couple of reasons, one being that tough armies can still objective hold e.g. a t5 army with vehicles and things sat on an objective stalling around the place is still viable. But another being the whole gameing aspect of it, in a harsh competition it is all about the game and tactical mastery, imagine you’ve spent ages assembling the perfectly ordered dual pincer with clear fallback and optimised model setup with good coherency..its take you XX long to get into position bring your guys from the back up..you’ve got your wave ready…and oh hang on..I can’t do what Alexander the Great did because someone is tutting at me.
Remember setting a time limit means people can go up to it, it might actually lead to slower games if not twinned with other measures. (i'd certainly use time tactically if you pinned down a figure- it legitimises and codifies time use)

I think some folks in tourney situation can have genuine reasons for taking so long (not just about model count) e.g. I choose you go first, I'm coming in from dawn of war, i decide to not set down much, you scout over to somewhere, some of my forces come on hurt you a bit but mostly play the shy VP\KP denial running game (a notorious tourny tactic which is a prime cause for the skimmer nerf- but they can still do it) and then as my landspeeders\ raptors \ teleporters etc turn up later and later in dispersed formation my game turn take 3 minutes, whilst I'm laughing at you chasing your tail and wasting you minutes trying to kill off 200 points of gribble until I turn up to contest objectives (and if the tie breaker is time I win there).I might even small talk whilst you take your long turns so you take longer= I winz.

I think I’d prefer you over run= you can’t win, so the game can still be played (WAAC be damned) if you have a genuine style for the game that takes ages play it, but don’t expect to leave with 6 points for a win, possibly the points allocated for a draw could also take into account who has used up all their time so that stalling for a draw is not possible e.g a draw when one person has used all their time = X points for one, Y less for the one who used his whole time… and then as I said elsewhere exceptionall time wasting should be yellow carded on top if pushed to extremes in a game bumped up to red maybe. .(possibly after a person has been red carded any draw results based on that scenario get retrospectively bumped up to wins)

Tim, I think one of the issues is that most tournaments in which I have participated only had a time limit on the game. There were no requirements for the number of game turns other than "each player shall have the same number of player turns. So, if you can't play a full game turn in the time remaining, don't start one." Additionally, the fifth edition game length rules have been in effect, so assuming hat they players move the game along, it will still be a random length of 5-7 game turns.

I suppose that I could consider dictating the number of turns, rather than relying upon whatever is written in the mission rules. If I were to tell everyone that the game will be 6 game turns in two hours, and allow each player 1 hour of game time, this could address several issues. Not only will it keep players from stalling (intentially or not), but it will also give all players in the tournament the same number of turns (rather than the current situation where some may play two game turns whilst others manage the full seven) and it will also force some players to player better armies, rather than the swift armies which can quickly take objectives, but is too delicate to hold them. It would also ensure that players know just how long they have to enact their battle plans.

This may actually be the best way to handle it. With an unknown number of game turns, it would be difficult to balance the time, but with a set number of turns, it wouldn't be an issue.

More for me to ponder. Thanks for the insight, Tim.

With a set number of turns you encourage the last chance objective stealers without balancing the risk that 5th ed introduces to such situations in a tourney situation though
Your welcome

Gee, thanks KMB. Just what I need, one more thing to consider.

Maybe if I set it up so that there is time for 7 game turns, and then still use the random game length? Then players might need to budget their time more carefully...

Culven wrote:Gee, thanks KMB.

Your thanks are always most welcome. It makes me all warm and fuzzy when I know I've posted something you can understand

varience the game earlier?
2+ on turn 3, 3+ on turn 4 4+ on turn 5
It hurts some CC armies who might not want to spend 2 turns charging and have just started properly fighting..(in fact almost all units in such a tourney would have to be fast or gunline to have a chance of contesting flags in enemy territory in the 3rd turn and you'd very rarely see anyone take conventional reserves)

Or remove fixed turns

Or just accept that people who stall for time stagger the game for such ends anyway as it is and a morph that removes some of there control is better if not best.

Culven wrote:Maybe if I set it up so that there is time for 7 game turns, and then still use the random game length? Then players might need to budget their time more carefully...

that would get my vote.

~ Tim

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote:

Culven wrote:Maybe if I set it up so that there is time for 7 game turns, and then still use the random game length? Then players might need to budget their time more carefully...

that would get my vote.

~ Tim

I got into this discussion a little late, sorry, but I did read it all the way through. You have an interesting conundrum on your hands Culven, but maybe I can offer a little insight.

In high school, I played a few chess tournaments in chess club (yes, I was one of those ) and the chess clock was a constant companion. Along with the usual rules of the game was the additional one that when you ran out of time, you lost. No arguments accepted, that was the rule. When you were in competition, you had that time limit.

Now of course, in the opening moves, the clock was being hammered like a typewriter. Most openings are fast and furious. In the middle game, things slow down a bit. In the endgame, the pace picks up slightly as there are less pieces. But again, you have to be aware of the clock.

Using that kind of setup might be the best bet for your tournaments. If you try to set a limit on each turn, each one comes out to roughly 8.5 minutes (8.5 minutes times max 7 turns = 59.5 minutes). If I wish to put my entire force into reserve, I sit there looking at my opponent for 8 minutes. Plus, you need a judge to sit at each table timing each turn.

If, however, you give each player a maximum of 60 minutes of play time, they know that they have to plan on the game going 5, 6 or 7 turns and have to plan their play accordingly. I think you would also be able to tell them that if they run out of time, they lose. Period. Those are the rules of the tournament.

If you used chess clocks, then the turn could look like this;
Player 1 starts his clock, moves his units, shoots and determines hits. He now stops his clock and starts player 2's clock.
Player 2 allocates wounds, rolls for saves, takes casualties and removes models and starts player 1's clock.
This continues through the shooting phase. Then in the assault phase player 1 (on the clock) moves his models, then hits player 2's clock. Player 2 moves his models to react. Then hits player 1's clock. And so on.
Basically, any time a player finishes an action that requires a response from the other player, they hit the clock. The second player takes the appropriate action and hits the clock back to the first player.

I hope I'm explaining my thoughts correctly and it doesn't sound more complicated than it is. Now a couple of items to consider;
You would need a few chess clocks, and they aren't cheap.
The tournament sheet would have to be very specific about the use of the clocks and the penalty for running out of time.
You might want to play test a few games at different points with the clock to see if it would work.

I hope this helps out with the problem, and doesn't present any new ones. As always, feel free to disregard any or all portions of this post, which will self destruct in 5 seconds.

TW

timewizard wrote:If you used chess clocks, then the turn could look like this;
Player 1 starts his clock, moves his units, shoots and determines hits. He now stops his clock and starts player 2's clock.
Player 2 allocates wounds, rolls for saves, takes casualties and removes models and starts player 1's clock.
This continues through the shooting phase. Then in the assault phase player 1 (on the clock) moves his models, then hits player 2's clock. Player 2 moves his models to react. Then hits player 1's clock. And so on.
Basically, any time a player finishes an action that requires a response from the other player, they hit the clock. The second player takes the appropriate action and hits the clock back to the first player.

I recognise your pattern, and it does make most sense without crippling tactics (e.g. one side having to shoot everything and overkill without knowing whose saved what)
But I still see a flaw in clocks with so many pieces in play

So me vs mr6 on our FOC lists a single shooting phase would have

player A moves units (6 minutes or so)
player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A shoots
Player B saves hits clock
Player A Announces that he's finished shooting at unit X "could you please take a leadership test"
Player B "but that happens at the end of the phase.. oh never mind .. I can't argue on my time", takes test passes
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A shoots
Player B saves clicks clock
Player A "no that was a pinning weapon and you took wounds take test" click
Player b " ok then "takes test fails pinned.
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A takes psychic test passes, works out method\style target
Player A shoots
Player B saves- but doesn't know about rule X which he now has to be reminded of at one or the other stage of the clock.
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A is that tank going to get a 4+ or a 5+
Player B I reckon you can only see the offset side which gives me a 3+
Player nonsence we'll say a 4+ then eh?
Player B Ok then
Player A shoots
Player B saves
player A I've finished shooting at unit take a test
Player B no, I did that once to humour you
Player A go on,
Player B No
Player A Look just take the test
Player B Look the rules state its at the end of the phase.. that will save me 23 seconds and its how its done.
Click Clock stop for referee break...

Player A shoots+ grumbles
Player B saves
Player A how many are under this template
Player B- did you need to click my clock for that???? 4! FFS
Player A shoots
Player B saves
PLayer A take the test
Player B No we've been through this
Player A- but this is a Pinning test
Player B oh sorry I got distracted.takes test passes.
Player A no its at minus 1 you fail- pinned (player B does not have his clock clicked as no action on his part required)
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A shoots
Player B I've gone to ground
Player A so what
Player B saves
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player A shoots
Player B saves
Player B takes the leadership test from clock click 30. fails and runs backwards a bit.
And then we'd move onto the assualt phase (and eldary movement phase.)

Now I know there is a lot happening there (we can play that scenario out very quickly and calmly nowadays).. but just like writing it all out, using the clock 50+ times (I think I put 60 clicks in for good measure above) in one phase- your only going to have clock vets be able to accurately keep up with that.And it will add time in itself for everyone else.(yes I know 60 minutes is 60 minutes and can't be stretched.. but as an organisor your taking their time- its as if you've allocated the first 5 minutes must be the handshake- then the next 10 minutes must be scrutiny of lists and wyswyg discussion- leaving 1hr45 for the game.
You'll be seen as the bad guy in this scenario... its just too pedantic (I can't think of a better word..maybe bureucratic?)

EDIT my wife read the above and said it was a fair and true representation of the 30year old gamers she knew

killmaimburn wrote:You'll be seen as the bad guy in this scenario... its just too pedantic (I can't think of a better word..maybe bureucratic?)

how about then, as a simpler alternative, you let your clock run for your whole player turn - including enemy actions - and your opponent does the same, so hopefully it balances out. you could add a "no stalling" rule for if it feels like someone is taking too long to allocate wounds etc in your turn (hopefully the threat of being penalised will be enough for you to never actually do it, especially if judges hover around watching people).

not as accurate or finely balanced, but certainly more workable in a to-and-fro game like 40K.

thoughts?

cheers

~ Tim