so for every minute you spent more than the opponent your opponent gets 10 points? You might aswell say the slower person loses its what would happen 90% of the time.


Pointless. Its adds no reinforcement just more hassle. By what reason do you expect the time to go faster?



I'm not sure what your suggestion was other than play better and faster than them and watch them stall even more. You could call that my point 3.
In anycase, its all very well when your better than the player who is slow playing because your unlikely to lose because your unlikely to fall behind. What about the players who arn't that good, fall behind and are never given an opportunity to catch up because they get 10 minutes out of 50 to play. Not only do they lose but they have a totally unenjoyable experience to boot. Its crap like that that turns away players.

1) An average of 30-40 seconds per activation in the first round is not acceptable. See the issue people are trying to do, is figure out the longest time they generally need, and then allow for that. You might need 2 minutes on one particular activation in a game, well fine. But you certainly do not need more than 5-10 secs on so many others.

2)The first round of most games are all set up anyways. What in the world are you doing that you need to have 30 secs per activation for a 15-20 activation squad??? There is nothing that you can tell me takes that much time in the first two rounds of the game.

3) There is a significant difference between making a critical decision late in the game that requires more time and taking 30 secs to spin your commanders and ugos in place.

4) If it takes 20 minutes to complete a round legitimately, you should not be playing the squad you are running. This is important. We are discussing this issue for Championship style events, not as much for the lgs scene. If you have not spent the time and effort to prepare a squad that you can run in a reasonable amount of time, you should have that chance of success taken from you. I have no problem with giving someone an auto loss for doing this at a big event. Even if they are not doing it on purpose.

The question is who is it more unfair towards? Is it fair to allow a slow player to beat a better player because he uses tactics to prevent the game from going more than 4 rounds? Or in the case of the none intentional slow player, is it fair for the veteran to have to play to the style of the slow player? And finally, is it fair to penalize someone for playing slow? All three create bad feelings, all three can make negative experiences for the players involved. However, to me, people respond better to penalties than seeing the rules abused. So its a clear choice.

Penalize the slow player and they will get faster. Heck Lobo, that's really what you are suggesting anyways. Its what many of us veterans have already learned to do. I also have never lost to a slow player in a big tourney, but it definately affected my fun and the experience. That's why we keep talking about it. Set up penalties and guidelines ahead of time, and enforce them. If you know you only get 35 minutes, or 40 minutes of the hour, then you will adjust or have no one to blame but yourself.

Can someone else really abuse the situation by playing fast under this system? Well, lets see. Nickname and I play pretty darn fast. My typical activation lasts about 1-10 seconds. I can play a 200pt game in under 30 minutes against other fast players. I honestly dont see how anyone could reasonably go faster than I can and still maintain the high level of play. And even if someone could, then we are rewarding the better player with the win anyways, rather than someone abusing the clock. Do you honestly think that a lesser player could learn to play fast and well enough to really abuse it?

I would love to be guaranteed 20 minutes of play because I often dont get that as is. It would often mean 2-4 additional rounds of play.

And finally I turn to specific examples. Xiffan and Lou from Gencon. Both very good players, and both ousted by the slow style of play at Gencon. Lou played Crubls, and if you played him with it and played a full game, you would have trouble. The problem he ran into was the notorious slow player from Gencon 06. He of course had reinforcements and Lou had to eat through those to score any points, so Lou was down slightly with about 15 minutes left. But with one more round, he easily wins. Do you think Lou got to play one more round? Nope, his opponent took 15 minutes (he outactivated) spinning figs and checking los, moving each fig until time ran out. Lou was not really watching the clock, so he wasnt sure it was stalling. And once the game ended, he decided to be a good sport and not report the guy. Its the reason Moses and LS gave him the sportsmanship award if you remember that.

The deal was, Lou didnt want to play that game of manipulating the time. He was clearly the better player, and shouldnt have to rely on calling a judge who probably cannot do anything anyways about it. He shouldnt have to play the game Mel's way either, just to win. Xiffan can tell her own story, but I remember her also saying similar events happened to her, although I believe it was not in the Champ.

I do not find this to match what I experienced at Gencon. I found that most of the deliberately slow players were quite skilled. (Perhaps they percieved themselves to be inferior, but all of them I witness showed strong understanding of tactics.) And all but one of them fell into the category of "playing too slowly to complete a game in 60 minutes" rather than "stalling".

I saw much of the same thing. And complaints about it were usually when the game was on the line and the losing player wanted an extra round.

How did you get 10 points per minute from that?

I'm not saying you guys don't have valid points. I think you do. I 100% agree with the majority of them. However, every single game is different. Like I talked about earlier in the thread, the only game I really heard any fuss about with slow play was the one between Engineer and my friend James. Both Karl and I watched the entire rest of the game after Eric requested Karl to watch things (my game was done extremely fast that round, IIRC). Neither person was playing slow at all in our opinions. They both got about the same amount of time. The perception was there that James might've been playing slow, but he had 1/2 as many activations as Eric, so it made sense that he might be allowed to take a little bit longer time per activation.

I definitely agree that it can be a problem. I just don't see the addition of a chess clock, or some penalization for using too much time as being the answer.

Until I start losing games on a consistent basis because of someone else's slow playing (even if it's just tactical playing, not stalling), I'm not going to feel like anything needs to change.



This is exactly what I was addressing earlier. You don't cater to the slow player at all. Bill, you and I both know we are capable of playing fast games. Against a slow player, the faster you play, the more it puts them on the defensive, and it psychologically reinforces that fact that they need to be careful about everything they do. It makes you look supremely confident because of how quickly you move and execute your actions. That alone has been enough edge in any of my games to keep the slow player from winning.

And I am often quite quick to tell people after the game if I felt like they were playing too slowly. Oftentimes I'll say something like "Do you mind if I give you some advice? If you learn to play a little quicker, you would have had a much better chance at winning this game. A couple more rounds and you might've had me beat." It's worked with a couple of our locals.



I see where you guys are coming from with this, and I guess it's a feeling of "If you can't cut the mustard with the big dogs, then you shouldn't show up." And I will agree on some level, that discouraging less-skilled players from entering the Championships might make things more enjoyable overall for the more highly skilled players.



I definitely don't want to slight Lou at all, because he's a great guy, and I really enjoyed hanging out with him and what-not at GenCon, but my assessment of that situation: he didnt' want to win badly enough. If you know right from the start that you're playing against someone who has been accused (multiple-times at that) of playing slow at past events, and you want to have a shot at winning the Championships, then by all means you keep an eye on the clock, and you don't let your opponent intentionally stall like that. Every single game I ran a clock on my watch, so that I could personally keep track of things. If you're serious about winning, then you pay VERY close attention to things like how much time is left, how many more rounds you might get to play, whether you need to go for big kills or just a few extra points just before the timer runs out, etc. I mean, Lou definitely deserved the Sportsmanship award (and not just for that one incident either), and it's not a bad thing to be a person like that. I just think that if I were in his situation, after about 5 minutes of not activating things fast enough, I would have called over the judge, and not felt 'unsportsman' about doing that at all.

No slight taken. And Lou was never upset about the situation either. He felt what he did was right, and that how he played the game was more important than winning that one game against you know who. My point in bringing it up is that he should not have too. And Jim and Karl should not have to arbitrarily decide to make someone lose a game for slow play. They should have established rules for dealing with it that they can follow.

As far as discouraging lesser players from playing in the champ with a clock, I am not intending it that way. Rather, that if you know the rules ahead of time, and still cannot follow them, then I have no problem with you losing automatically.

Now, I have spent a lot of effort arguing for a clock, that I dont really ever think will happen. Nor am I sure it would really enhance the fun of SWMs all that much anyways. It would sure help in certain situations, and there is no doubt in my mind that its more fair than the current rules. But the logistics seem very difficult. I dont know how 2 judges could cover 45-50 games at once to ensure proper use of the clock, what happens when someone hits the wrong side, forgets to punch it, guy deliberately hits the wrong one, malfunctioning clock, etc. But it sure would be fun to try it and watch the slow players speed up a great deal!

no, no, no !!!!

The second that someone does this is when I am sure I will be uttering the phrase "Judging WAS fun. You know they would have the cheap little clocks that break every 1/10 times you use them. The fun you would have would be watching a 300lb man with apparently a large butt that bumps into people as he judges try to fix 25 clocks in an hour..... not fun, for anyone.

havn't a clue. reading too fast most likely

no I read too fast realized how ridiculous what I had suggested was and quickly edited, most likely just as you hit the "quote" Button

LOL. Karl, I can only imagine how much of a pain that would be. Honestly though, having 3 or 4 more judges around the room would probably be a big help this coming year. Actually, if there are 50 games going on, 5 judges would be awesome. Then, you just assign a judge to an area, and they keep an eye on 10 or so games. It should be pretty simple with that number of games to identify when after 20-30 minutes, it doesn't look like much has happened in a game. At that time, you can ask the players what round they are in, and encourage them to play faster. Hover over them if necessary for a little while.

This would also allow for a judge to be very close by when people ask for rule questions. If your 'area judge' is busy at the moment, then you'll just have to either come to an agreement between you and your opponent, or wait for the judge.

The funny thing is, in the end, I don't really care if a way to avoid slow-play is introduced or not. I'll learn to play however the rules say we have to play.

More judges would be nice, but I wouldn't count on that. That's just more product that has to be doled out at the end, so it's not likely to happen.

Since DCI or Wotc hasn't come out and definitively said what stalling is there is really no way to call it out or enforce it as far as I can tell.

To a person who is behind in a game stalling might be the same amount of time his opponent took at the beginning of the game to move his pieces. It depends on the circumstances of the game.

I played a game with Engineer a few weeks ago that was based off of whomever made the first mistake lost. So in that instance you have to review where each piece is and what it can potentially do. I was playing an Ozzel squad. He'd move 2 figs I'd have to try and deduce what he was doing. Once I figured it out I'd burn an ugnaught to make him continue to move.

Careful Play and slow playing are two different things. Even if they do come close to the same amount of time taken. I will not play faster at the request of an opponent in a close game so that they can get another round in that might potentially beat me on a crazy roll or capitalizing on an advantage they just received. There's no reason to do that. They may call what you are doing "slow play" but there's no reason to play faster.

Now, taking 10 minutes to set up is ludicrous and I'd have to say that player was lacking in their knowledge of the game. It's rude to take that long on something that should almost be decided once map and side are known.

1. A chess clock is a poor idea. Not only would everyone playing DCI need to have a chess clock now, but it doesn't really mean anything. DCI and Wotc do not have a definitive number or unit of time a person needs to take for a Phase, Turn, or Round. So to measure time like that is pointless. If a player is taking an abnormal amount of time then you should call whomever is running the tournament over and discuss it then and issue a warning.

2. What should be pushed for is a number that states, "anything over X amount of time for X phase, turn, round is considered stalling"

I honestly feel that's the closest we can get to defining stalling, but at the same time that would change how squads are built and force people into unneeded (in my opinion) mistakes at crucial parts of the game where you need some time to think.

The problem with this solution is it promotes players to take their full alloted time to ponder a move (think NFL draft or spelling bee (can you use it in a sentence!?)). An... overly competitive... person could still take the 30 activation San/Ozzel squad and use their alloted time to make the game last only a few rounds.

That's why I really like the chess clock idea as the best solution. Each player gets 30 or 35 minutes to divide as they will. Time runs out, game over. This works really well in Magic Online, but since that's a computer program that does the chess clock thing for you, rather than add the extra item and complication, I don't know if it is appropriate for tabletop competition.

this is the best answer i've heard against having a chess clock. It does disadvantage a swarm squad more than a fewer activations squad becasue you have more pieces to move. However, gambit scoring already does that becasue as one of your many activations fall your opponent racks up points and if you slow play the game your likely to fall behind.

Essentially , if you run a high activation squad you should learn to play faster for your own sakes and others. Its like when people bring high activations squads, play them very conservatively and then complain of time limits as they were behind on points but probably in the lead strategically.
The bottle neck is essentially when your opponent has tapped all his figs and you are left with all the rest to go. You have no reason to hesitate or delay in this situation, you have all the advantage of knowing there will be no movement until the next initiative and you should set up your strikes fairly easily.
Activation advantage is so large that its unfair to further hamper your opponent by taking up more than your share of the game clock.

So i'd say it is not pointless to measure time just because someone is running a lot of activations or San Hill. You CHOOSE to take a swarm squad, so you should make the adjustments of your playstyle to play within the limits set by tournament.



If anything, THIS is pointless. Your pushed for time so you call over a judge to discuss adding more delay and the guy gets a finger wagged at him, your game becomes hostle with no real settlement, just more time wasting.

Depends on how early in the game you make a fuss about it. Also, you can wait until you've just finished your own turn, and while the opponent is beginning their turn, you start signalling for the judge. If the opponent tries to stop and wait, just tell them to go ahead, you wanted to ask the Judge a question. At that point, the only disruption to the game is to take 15 seconds to ask "Hey, can you keep an eye on things. I feel my opponent is purposefully stalling." etc. Really shouldn't take THAT much time, as long as you do it early enough in the game.

Judges have the discretion to add an addional round to the game after time expires. I think they should use this more liberally than they do in cases of slow play regardless of whether it's percieved to be intentional or not.

I think there should be a minumum number of rounds that must be completed before a game can end. (A chess clock would simply help clearly define which player is preventing the minumum number of rounds from being completed.) If you are unable to play your desired squad at the speed required to finish a game in 60 minutes then you should choose a different squad or speed up.

I think a chess clock as a general tool will never happen, but if the judge had one to place out upon request at the 30 minute point of a game when slow play appears to be an issue, and it doesn't appear a set minimum number of rounds will be completed, I think that would be a general improvement.

Players should be aware they need to play perhaps 6 rounds minimum in an hour and they might be penalized in some way if they're incapable of doing so.

That's not a bad idea NickName. People are supposed to be keeping track of their gambit anyways, so it should be easy for a judge to know how many rounds a game has gone.

I'm not exactly sure the best way to do it, as you wouldn't want to penalize a player who is just unfortunately matched up against a staller/slow-player. But, you could just do something where if you haven't reached Round 6 by when 60 minutes is up, both players get a warning. 2nd time you get a warning for the same thing, you get an automatic loss (double-loss if both players have been warned before). 3rd time you get a warning you are DQ'd from the tournament.

Now, like I said, that probably wouldn't work either, as it penalizes people even if they are trying to play fast, and just happen to be up against a tough opponent.

As a perfect example of the RIGHT way to handle all of this....the guy at GenCon that ran the Ewok Swarm....Even against my San Hill squad (classic scapegoat for stalling stories) I'm sure we played at least 6 rounds. Don't have the sheets handy, but I recorded gambit/kills/etc. on a scoring sheet. We played pretty darn fast. He never really had to stop to say "Oh shoot, which ones did I activate already?!" even when he had 25 some ewoks. He had a beautiful system to keep track of every one of them. Now, we didn't completely finish our game, but came pretty close. He had killed Aurra, and had Boba down pretty low, and I had wiped out a fair number of the little furballs.

Most other people with 'swarm' style squads that had trouble finishing their games probably didn't have half the number of activations he did.

what was his system?