quote:

---

Originally posted by IanB

I can tell you exactly where this example falls apart for me - taking 30 seconds on non-important activations seems very slow to me. That's 1 minute to move two fodder pieces on the first turn of a game? I can deal with a minute for a crucial move, but I expect non-important activations to go faster than you describe, personally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by elder_basilisk
Expecting the same speed when playing against (for instance) arcane ballista as quad helmed horror is ludicrous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tahjn

OK I have a quick question and I dont mean to hijack the thread or anything and the answer is probably slapping me in the face right now but, Do you go to points before time is called to determine who wins or are you supposed to go to time and then go to points unless the other player concedes. I kind of need to know because I ahve run into the situation before where my opponent hit 200pts right before my activation and declared him the winner when if I had had the chance to activate I would have wiped out the rest of his band(unless I rolled four 1's in a row which is not likely but possible.) If its in the floor rules just give me the section number.


Also around here there has been a massive inflow of new players so alot of my more recent games haven't gotten as many rounds because of the other player not being absolutely familiar with the rules. In this case I think a game that has to go to a certain number of rounds would be frustrating to someone trying to learn the game(there are enough rulings, erratas and idiosyncracies to the game and each individual mini to learn to frustrate most people as is.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dral

Tahn, it's first to 200, or whoever has the most points when time is called

---

quote:

---

3. One of the things that makes be VERY VERY ANGRY about the DDM community, especially the judges right now is the supposed "consensus" on what slow play is. Judges CLAIM that it doesn't matter the complexity of the board position when determining the amount of time a player has to make a move. As I have stated in other threads I believe this standard is ASSININE to the EXTREME. People that claim that it takes the same amount of time for every move make me wonder if they have ever played a game of DDM in thier lives. Certain moves take longer. Period. I am a fast player, some of my "less important" activations (NOT NESSICARILY FODDER... fodder moves can be important too!) can take me as little as 2-3 seconds to make because I had considered them on my opponent's turn reducing the time I had to think about the move. If a player was within the guidelines of the rules to take 20-30 seconds to move EVERY PIECE in my mind this would certainly be stalling or at the very least slow play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes

This is why I am in favor of Chess Clocks. They might have problems, but they are the fairest way considered so far to allocate the resource of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes

O2) DDM is different from Chess the turns are "interactive".

A2) This is not as large of an issue in practice as people claim it is in the abstract. It is usually VERY obvious which player "has priority" during a game.

Player 1 is moving a piece. (Player 1 has priority)
Player 2 is rolling a die. (Player 2 has priority)
Player 2 is writing damage on a card. (Player 2 has priority)
Player 1 asks a question of player 2 on player 2's turn (Player 1 has priority)

Some might say "but what if player 2 takes a long time to answer the question"? If this happens a judge can be called over and the clock can be stopped while player 2 answers the question, additionally, if player 2 on multiple occasions "takes too long" to answer the question that play can receive a warning or match loss under modified stalling rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes

In any sort of game there will be a certain threshold of money spent= better at the game. It happens all the time right now. The player that can afford to purchase multiple helmed horrors can elect to play that band, while a player that does not have the money to buy these figures has his or her options constrained. The advantage gained from practicing with a clock would be negligible if the player plays at a good rate anyway, the only players that chess clocks would hurt (i.e. the only players that would need to PRACTICE with the clock) are the ones that play too slowly anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felagund

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes

In regards to Dagni's proposal, how is that superior to the idea for round markers? It seems to me like both suggestions reach the same conclusion. One of them requires everybody to purchase chess clocks and serious changes to be made to the rules of the game, while the other doesn't.

---

Not at all. With the round markers, some people have advocated the suggestion that BOTH players get a Slow Play warning if the game has not reached a certain point by an hour. Other than the cost of the chess clock, I see the chess clock version as being in EVERY way superior. You have a penalty given to the one person who was slow. The only other solutions I've seen penalze both or neither.

Likewise, some of us think that serious changes NEED to be made to the rules of the game. However, I wouldn't characterize my suggestion as a serious rules change. My version would be actually quite simple to implement, and wouldn't have any adverse effect on a fast player who did NOT buy a chess clock.

[quote]Now let's say we're going with the optional chess clock variant. If somebody is repeatedly a slow player, odds are good that they haven't brought their own chess clock. So unless they're continuously facing people with chess clocks, these rules really don't do anything to address the situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes
3. One of the things that makes be VERY VERY ANGRY about the DDM community, especially the judges right now is the supposed "consensus" on what slow play is. Judges CLAIM that it doesn't matter the complexity of the board position when determining the amount of time a player has to make a move. As I have stated in other threads I believe this standard is ASSININE to the EXTREME. ...

To my chagrin the PROMINANT judges of the DDM community are coming down (at least on the forums) on the OPPOSITE side of this issue. These judges claim with the heralding of trumpets, bells, and whistles, that all activations should take the same amount of time and that the COMPLEXITY OF THE SITUATION DOESN'T MATTER.

---

quote:

---

43. Slow Play
Players must take their turns in a timely fashion regardless of the complexity of the play situation. Playing too slowly or stalling for time is not acceptable. If a judge determines that a player is playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni
That guideline could be as simple as a 6th round minimum. Generally the Slow Play warning would only be given to the player whose clock ran out, but, for example, if it's only round 4 and the other clock shows less than 2 minutes left, then it would be reasonable to give both players a Slow Play warning.

The above guideline could be more specific than a 6 round minimum. Obviously the goal would be EXACTLY what we've been talking about in this thread. If one player has taken more than 30 minutes, and it doesn't look like the game will reach a satisfactory resolution, that player is guilty of Slow Play.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni

Because and only because of the expected backlash of people who are strongly opposed to chess clocks, this measure won't 100% fix EVERY Slow Play problem by itself. That doesn't make it a bad rule.

---

quote:

---

Let's say you don't buy a chess clock, and don't practice with a chess clock. Under the proposed guidelines I suggested, do you think that this would adversely affect you somehow?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felagund

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagni

Because and only because of the expected backlash of people who are strongly opposed to chess clocks, this measure won't 100% fix EVERY Slow Play problem by itself. That doesn't make it a bad rule.

---

Nor does it make it a good rule. I'll ask again, how is this significantly better than the idea for round markers?

Your proposition is unnecessarily complicated, Dagni. Keep in mind that every game that is not finished by time will require a judge to come and analyze the situation, as one or both of the clocks will have run out. Compare this to a system in which judges can tell from across the room which matches they need to look over, at any point during the round. Now consider all the rules that must be added to regulate the use of chess clocks. None at all need to be added for the use of round markers, and at most, a sentence or two could be added to explain their use.

quote:

---

Let's say you don't buy a chess clock, and don't practice with a chess clock. Under the proposed guidelines I suggested, do you think that this would adversely affect you somehow?

---

Yes, I do. Somebody who is unpracticed with a chess clock is unlikely to remember to switch the time as soon as they are done with their activations. They are unlikely to remember to switch the time when their opponent is rolling dice on their turn. In short, they are going to suck up time on their clock that should've gone to the opponent. Managing time on the chess clock is a skill that can and will affect the outcome of the game. As it has nothing to do with the skill involved in little plastic monsters and heroes killing each other, I would prefer to avoid including it in DDM if at all possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SYB

I have a simpler solution. If some twit tried to pull a chess clock on me, I'd throw his precious chess clock out a second story window and hand him $40 and then play a REAL game of DDM.

-SYB

---

quote:

---

43. Slow Play
Players must take their turns in a timely fashion regardless of the complexity of the play situation. Playing too slowly or stalling for time is not acceptable. If a judge determines that a player is playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes

quote:

---

43. Slow Play
Players must take their turns in a timely fashion regardless of the complexity of the play situation. Playing too slowly or stalling for time is not acceptable. If a judge determines that a player is playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

---

The word timely is totally unclear. Timely for one game state might be different than timely for another game state. I think the SPIRIT of the rule is to mean that players cannot use a complex game-state to take an unlimited amount of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes
4. There is no advantage to chess clocks over round minimum

In my mind the difference is that one way (chess clocks) allows a player to take a large amount of time on specific individual moves without being penalized as long as he or she moves quickly on other moves essentially "banking" time for when it actually matters so he or she is not rushed by an arbitrary community limit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes
Basically, I understand that Chess Clocks are not a perfect solution, but I would much rather live in a world of chess clocks than in a world of imposed round minimums and arbitary limits on how long I have to make critical moves with my pieces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes
No one has given a REASON why 6 rounds is a better number than 5 or 7 for the minimum other than it "feels" right and 30 seconds per move average "seems" like it is the correct amount of time for a "reasonable" player to move in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kgradert13

Last time anything was brought up about points scored, people screamed about how it was unfair to new players because people would play to wipe them out instead of playing longer and teaching.

I don't mind the system at all, but I also don't think constructed tournaments (qualifiers, Opens, championships) are good places for new players to learn the game. They should be learning in the local events where people have less on the line and are more likely to be more friendly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shivan Darkeyes

I personally think the whole debate about "what to do about the time problem" is overblown and unnecessary. As long as judges don't begin to strictly enforce slow play standards I'm not concerned with time I think the current system is fine.

I am actually opposed to all the solutions explained in this thread so far because they penalize players that have no business being penalized in many cases.

"Oh no! The round went only 6 rounds... sounds like both players should get a match loss"

That is an awful standard. Games should be played to the fullest extent, if one player is stalling a judge should be called and the judge should be able to determine if the player is stalling or not. As long as players are aggressive about calling a judge when they feel the other player is stalling slow play shouldn't be an issue, and I have not found it to be an issue in any of the games I have played.

Players should not have an OBLIGATION to anyone besides their opponent to get a certain number of rounds in. If both players play slowly, then both players gave up the "right" to get a firm resolution of their game, that’s the way time constraints work in other games that don't use clocks.

---

quote:

---

Stricter timing standards that don't use clocks only open the potential for abuse and/or unfair judgments against players who are not slow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnolaum

And now for something completely different. What if tiebreakers were redesigned to give a benefit for a decisive win?

For instance:
3/points win
0/points loss/draw

First tiebreaker is: # of points scored by you against opponents
Second tiebreaker is: - # of points scored by opponents against you
Third tiebreaker is: # of points scored against opponents you have played
Forth Tiebreaker remains: Entry time into the tournament.

Reward decisive wins, and fix up a crappy tiebreaker system all at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Felagund

I'm okay with the round markers because I don't see it as a strict timing standard. It's merely an indicator. If the majority of games are on round 3-4, it doesn't mean that the judge is going to walk over to the table still on round 2 and immediately issue slow play warnings. It does mean that a judge should probably go over there and watch the game for a while, then make an informed decision if something needs to be done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kgradert13

People need to remember, the complexity of a situation does not warrant additional time.
A move is a move is a move.

---