Wow. That is going way beyond what I had in mind. It would deffinatly encourage fast agerssive play. Sounds like fun.

A points penalty alone would change nothing. People would play slowly like they do now and be going for a 30-10 win (-20 points each in penalties) instead of a 50-30 win in the same 4-6 rounds.

What you call abuses in the system I call the way the game is played. Otherwise why worry about points at all?

Like it or not, agree or not, points is how a player wins, even in a kill-em-all format (as discussed previously, and yes I understand that is viewed as a "loophole" that will probably be changed).

At this point, I would compare the situation to the chicken and the egg concept.

Once again Bill, just because you don't agree in any way doesn't make the opposing viewpoint incorrect. Additionally, I think in this case you are wearing rose-colored glasses about the issue.

What if we changed the time limit, drop it from 60 minutes to 45. Force faster play by granting less time to begin with. I've spoken to a people who play in a shorter span, and those who play without a clock and it's amazing the difference in the two groups. And clearly based on this discussion those who play 60 minute rounds are a different batch as well. I play 45 minute rounds at my FLGS. To get 3 or 4 rounds in we don't have the time to play 60 minutes. There is one player I regularly go to time agianst, everyone else rarely does the game go to time. They get close sure, sometimes the round time is called is the detemining round even before the bell rings.

Just a though. I noticed in this thread somewhere in the past couple pages someone else made the smae point. He plays 30/35 minute games and never has a probelm finsihing when the game goes to 60.

I think guidelines are good way to increase the play pace of the slower players, but I don't agree that the guidelines call for 8 rounds of play. I agree with others that say for some judges, these guidlines will fast turn into hard and fast rules that need to be enforced. I agree that it is unfair for players to get an uneven amount of playing time in any game, but if both get about the same amount of time to move their pieces then I don't see how either one should be subjected to penalties. Playing to win by points is the format that DCI is currently set up to play. If a player could win automatically by eliminating the opponents' squad, then I believe your arguement would be more valid in regards that a player should start a match with eliminating the opponent's squad in mind instead of trying to win by points.

I'll try the measuring rounds played at our LGS as well, see how it turns out. (though we have PAX coming up, so there will not be tournaments that weekend). I have been using my authority as judge recently to grant extra rounds, and it does seem like games that are only getting 4-5 rounds, but end with lots of the main pieces still alive and in range of each other really benefit from that extra round. My players have definitely started not assuming they are just going to run until they win on time.

I guess it just comes down to how people want to play the game. I'm really hesitant to tell people who play the game to win by points that their way is wrong. It's a game. If we regulate a game so much that people aren't having fun, what good have we done?

Also, Kill 'em all was designed for 100 points. (Original GenCon point value).

This is really the issue at the LGS level (at least mine). There are a few players that will clean the clocks of the rest of us in short order if we do not carefully consider most of our moves. It is a sliding scale, and I think I fall somewhere in the middle in that it's the same situation for the newer (or very casual) players when facing me or another player of my skill level.

I realize I'm a slow player, but not the type that is dragging things out just to get a win on points. I'm always seeking ways to keep putting damage on, and hopefully eliminate some important tech which will blow the game open for me. I sacrifice pieces to do so. But I often don't see some of the key moves (for either side) quickly so I have to take more time with it. Below my skill level some players don't see the onslaught coming when it is right in front of them.

The best players are usually going to win anyway, so I feel that for a lot of us, any kind of hard limits (outside of time) would just take away the enjoyment of learning to put up a good fight against better opponents. We have to learn to play faster, yes - but play WELL at the same time. That's hard to do when you can only play a few times a month, and then when you do get to play, you see the core of your squad get annihilated because of hasty decisions. There isn't much fun in that.

That said, at the regional or national tourney level I think it is only fair to be a stricter about the issue - there is a higher standard to be met at such events. I would just ask that any DCI-wide changes take into consideration that there are a LOT of players who regularly have matches that go to time that aren't playing just to win on points - we are playing to play the BEST game we can muster up.

I have a nice long post about the disparity between those groups that I've been working on for awhile,but I'm waiting for the WotC forum to come back before posting it since I think it owuld do better over there.

What he said.

LOL

I know where you guys are coming from. We have the same issue at my LGS. Probably at least 60% of our games go to time there. Most of us are having a blast, and very few times does anyone actually complain about one person playing slow. Most of the time, the person playing slow ends up being the loser anyways.

In addition, we play 50 minute rounds at a maximum, simply because we're trying to squeeze in 4 rounds on most nights. So, usually, we play 50 minutes for 200 point games, 40 or 45 minutes for 150, and 30 minutes for 100 points. It's actually pretty interesting how much of a difference those 10 minutes make. 90% of the games that end when time is called, and the score is something like 40-30, if those games had 1-2 more rounds, the scores would usually be something more like 120-50 by the end of that next round or two. So, for our group, we usually don't fuss about the 'slow play' because it's already starting to be obvious who was going to win, and most of us can extrapolate what the next round or two would hold.

But....regardless of how much fun you might be having, with your super tight, brain-scratching games that go to time...don't you think you might have more fun if you played the games all the way to their conclusion? Wouldn't it be interesting to see if you really could come back after you lost that key commander?

These are the types of things in this thread that we've been trying to communicate. Many SWM are comfortable with the game as it is. Humans naturally resist change. But sit down with your friends, and agree that you're all going to try playing faster, even if it means making a few mistakes here and there. What we're suggesting is that you will probably have more fun overall in that scenario.

This isn't necessarily about what's right or wrong, or whether 4 rounds in an hour is OK. It's about getting back to what the spirit of the game was designed around: killing your opponent's squad. Regardless of what the DCI rules say, killing your opponent's squad was the first way, and only way at the beginning, of winning games. We'd just like to see things shift back towards that.

Actually Aaron the gambit was still in there [sticks tongue out]

So Bill are you saying when matches are at 200 pt squads they are going to be finished in an hour more often than not?

Whatever time rules that are decided they have to work for 100, 150 and 200 unless you make specifications for each squad size. Right now the only thing I've seen was Dennis mentioning adding more time to bigger squads.

Swinefeld is at our LGS and we see alot of matches among experienced players going to time. Him and I have actually never finished a game with all in the squad killed. Slow play doesn't have to be deliberate to stall the game. It can be studying your pieces trying to calculate what will happen. I feel like people who are cautious players are going to be penalized. I do see only getting to play 1/10 of a match as unfair though.

Fun is relative, though. My roommate, for instance, LOVES those close, tense, 40-35 games that comes down to tight positioning and careful shots. I'm really of the opinion that we should definitely do some more training of judges, but besides that, it needs to come down to a local judge and what he feels is the best way to handle it. I'll add extra rounds (or conveniently forget to call time if there is one activation left before the next round) often. That has helped change things.

But no change that makes the game less fun is worth it.

Be careful about what was "the intent". The intent was also for 100 point games, no gambit, and certain pieces to be legal.

You said it yourself later in the same post, but basically the better players win regardless. We see the same people winning the games that go to time as the games the complete within an hour when there's a big difference in skill. So why not play at a pace you can actually complete the game and be sure about who "really" won, particularly in games where skill levels are roughly even, rather than depend on low margin tiebreakers? Man, do people really find 46-40 games in any way satisfying win or lose? Anyone could have won that if you play 4 more rounds. That kind of score is virtually meaningless 9 times out of 10.

I don't generally see more time spent thinking resulting in better moves when you start looking at players who are aren't that experienced. All I see is a bigger hole being dug that is tougher and tougher to climb out of as the minutes drain away.

I'm not a fan of the 35 to 40 point games, I've played them, and won some and lost some, lamenting that "one more round."

Of interest is this is the one propossed change that is causign the most stir. And I perdicted it, whether in print or not IDK, but it is by far the msot difficult to ensure, to judge and defend against. It's hard to find a positive incentive not to do it, and negatives are the last thing any game needs. Especially when a portion of the community is already up in arms about a decision.

This is the one proposal I say gets dropped (for now). Let the judges use their best discretion, and as players we need to make an attitude adjustment, and be more willing to move quicker and call the judge when things are going too slow.

I say we focus on the proposals that we like and try to hash out the details. Actually have a progressive discussion.

Yup. I think Bill said as much a couple pages back.

And we're all pretty agreed that the most the actual floor rules will see on the topic is a sentence or two at most that gives a general impression that slow play is against the rules and the game is intended to be played to the victory conditions with no further detail about how to achieve that. The devil seems to be in the details, and that will remain judges discretion for a while.

Maybe we should just do away with Gambit altogether and go with the rule:

Games are limited to 60 minutes or less, though players are encouraged to complete the game in a shorter amount of time, if possible.

If a game goes to time, add up the total points based on characters defeated. (San Hill is worth 10 points, for example.) The person with the most points is the winner.

If a game goes 10 rounds without a character making an attack, taking damage, or rolling a save initiated by an enemy character's action, the game immediately ends at the end of the 10th round. For each character within 4 squares of the middle of the map, the controlling player scores 10 points.

A player who used Override 5 or more times in that 10-round period loses 50 points.

I finish 98% of all my 200 point games. Understand a lot of people are a little timid and are more careful when playing me. I think if you want to really learn how to play you have to play the game to a conclusion. There are so many lessons that are missed. I mean you are only getting a half understanding of the game. If you are consistently finishing games at 46-40 then you are missing a ton of tactics of finishing the game. Sometimes there are huge swings right at the end.

Honestly if I had the mindset of the 46-40 player I would have lost my Regionals when Gowk got disentigrated. Finishing the game successfully is just as important as getting a lead. I am afraid the longer this goes on with slow play the more players trying to learn this game are actually missing an important part of the game. I have seen this several times when really good players look really bad because they have gotten to the end of the game and I can tell we are in virgin territory. They really dont know how to finish the game and it becomes like I am playing a young child because this really good player is literally lost on what to do. I think that happened a little bit to spence (Bobab Fett who is the guy the big d'd my Gwok at the Regionals). I spread everything out and went got to 150 because the distance became to great for him. Literally when he Big d'd my Gowk he should have pulled his Gowk out and left me behind chasing him. He did not and it cost him.

I believe I was 7/8 for 200pts at Gencon of finishing the games before the time limit.

TBH, I think that you guys are approaching this in completely the wrong way. I don't see how you came to the conclusion that the intent of the game is to "finish" (i.e. reach the build total) in 60 minutes. This is, in fact, the only game where I have ever seen that comment about the "official tournament" rules, which is DCI in this case. In reality, most miniatures games also have at least 1 way to score points that doesn't involve killing pieces, and I'm of the opinion that it adds a tactical element to the game that would not otherwise be present. Then again, I've always been more interested in non-linear strategy than in linear strategy (one reason I only played chess casually). Heck, most miniatures games either don't have a notable time limit or else don't expect the players to finish within the time limit (and have more intricate rules for scoring when they don't).

So take that for what you think it's worth... just a different perspective from the norm, it would appear.