Now the timing system is going to at least guide build strategy? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult: I'm trying to discuss your suggestions reasonably. I'm not seeing where this makes thing better.

If we pause the individual clock to ask questions etc and then end the round based on the judge's clock, what did we gain? And I'm still not seeing how this addresses time used on your turn by your opponent. It seems to me that when you look at this (and most all other clock ideas) you find it doesn't really fix much, making more issues than it resolves.

This reminds me of a discussion on fellowship that came up yesterday. I think the underlying problem in addressing stalling, and really making any subjective decision in the game, is whether you trust your judge.

If you trust your judge, you are willing to call them over when you feel somebody is stalling. You will be satisfied by what judge decides, even if it doesn't go your way. At the very least, you'll ask the judge to watch the player in the future. Even though there are problems with having the judge make the call since it is subjective, you prefer it over the problems created by timers. If you trust judge, the subjective ruling is an acceptable solution to the problem.

If you don't trust your judge, you want a more objective way to address stalling. Even if you acknowledge the problems a timer may create, you prefer that over the subjective ruling the judge would make. You don't trust the judge, so you can never be happy with the subjective ruling the judge would make.

WK appears to have taken the stance that they trust all judges. They allow the judge to make subjective decisions all the time, including awarding prizes.

I've been lucky and have never had a judge that I didn't trust. I know bad judges are out there and I would probably change my tune if I had to deal with one, but until that time, I prefer having the judge make these subjective calls be the solution when these types of things come up.

The use of chess clocks has been suggested repeatedly and I've never seen an application of them that would work.

It works in chess because chess has a very limited set of actions available at any given time, and executing any one of those actions requires no action by the opponent. The only reason for a turn in chess to take more than a couple of seconds is because the player is strategizing.

In HeroClix, there are lots of things that contribute to how long a turn takes, many of them beyond a player's control. Many actions do require some sort of interaction or decision to be made by an opponent. And it really does nothing to stop the problem of stalling. Suddenly a player doesn't have to stall for 50 minutes. They only have to stall enough to run out your 20 minutes.

1 minute per turn is not enough time. Someone may just clear and be done in few seconds, Or, they may have to figure out a complex perplex, TK, running shot.

If they guy has to work at the store while playing, I don't think you can say time working is stalling.

Well, in that case, he really shouldn't be participating in a tournament with timed matches.

If he's not playing in a tournament, then make allowances, stop the timer, or just don't worry about timing it.

1 min or less has always been the norm for. more than likely less than 30 second regardless of build total. but i do understand people have there own preferences

Along with this, has anyone who is advocating for clocks ever used them? What was your experience?

My only experience with clocks is in HCO, and I hate it. It's a necessary evil, since there is no judge to turn to. However, I've experienced more stalling on HCO than I ever have face to face. I've had players use all of their actions and then letting their turn timer run down, especially at the end of a game. I've had players with one character that has two action tokens allow their turn timer to run all the way down.

The timers end up legitimizing stalling as a valid tactic instead of discouraging it. I've seen players justify it on the forums that the since the clocks are part of the game and there is no penalty for stalling, it is perfectly acceptable to play the clock, which is the nice way of saying "stalling." For those that hate turtling (a legal yet often frustrating tactic), you would hate the clocks.

Let me give you an example of what would happen at Worlds if chess timers were introduced. Each player has 22.5 minutes, as suggested by a previous poster. Player A is playing more quickly than player B. With 10 minutes left, Player A is up on points and has 11 minutes on his clock to his opponent's 9 minutes. Player A has no reason to end his final turn.

That's not how I want my games to go. I'd much rather call the judge over and have the judge determine if my opponent is stalling.

Ok, I am going to try one more time to explain what I'm thinking here. Also, I know we are just trying to talk about this. Here it goes,

As the judge, you get everyone paired up for you event, the players get their figures and maps set up. Your clock (the judge master clock) is set to 45 mins and each player sets their side of the chess clock to 22.5 mins (adding up in a perfect world to 45 mins and should run out at the same time as the judge clock as long as it's not paused). You as the judge say "begin" and start your clock (45 min and is never paused times the round). As soon as you say "begin" the player who has the first turn of their match starts their individual player clock (22.5 minuets and is paused if there is a rules question and that is it unless they are inexperienced and need help. Players click the clock over to the opponents clock to turn off their timer and start their opponents when they are done with their turn) and begins their turn. 10 minuets into the judge clock one of the players starts stalling taking 5 minuets a turn and are already 6 minuets into their individual clock with their opponent taking only 2 minuets per turn and 4 minuets into their individual clock. (17 mins into the judge clock, one player has used 11 mins of ther time and the other has used 6 mins. 24 mins into the judge clock one player has used 16 mins and the other has used 8 mins. 31 mins into the judges clock one player has used 21 mins and the other 10 mins. 34 mins into the judge clock one player is out of time and loses because of it and the other has used 12 mins of their clock and won because they have time left. This is if you have two players that ask no questions of the judge). Same example but players have a question. 10 mins into the judge clock one player has a question and pauses their clock but is 5 minuets into their clock. Takes the judge 3 minuets to answer the question and the player restarts their clock. (now 13 mins into judge clock and each player has used 5 mins of their individual clocks). Each player takes 2 mins per turn. Judge clock is at 17 mins each player has used 7 mins. Judge clock at 21 mins each player has used 9 mins. Judge clock at 25 mins, each player has used 11 mins. Players ask another question that takes 5 mins to answer but paused their clock. Judge clock now at 30 mins and each player has still only used 11 mins. Judge clock at 34 mins players clocks at 13 mins each. Judge clock at 38 mins, players clocks at 15 mins each. Judge clock at 42 mins, players clocks at 17 mins each. 45 mins on judge clock round ends, players total points to determine winner even though they each have used only 18.5 mins each of their 22.5 mins.

I know this is long but I hope it helps clear this up.

No matter what rules you come up with people are always going to come up with what could be considered less than honorable way of winning.

Paragraphs, people, paragraphs.

I know, but it's hard on my iPad to get things to come out how I want them format wise.

Which is a problem because...?

The true solution to all of this however is to just not time rounds at all, just play until one player has figures and one does not. Other than that, people will always find a way to take advantage of a clock no matter how hard you try, even with a judges help.

I agree with this.

At World's? Probably not a problem. I would expect the best players to all be able to play quickly.

At my local venue? Big problem. Why should the new player be forced to play faster? How about the 10 year old? How about the mentally challenged player? These players are going to get frustrated and quit if they can't even finish their turns.

The focus of tournament play is not always to determine the best player. At a local level, being part of a community is often the bigger draw. Part of that is creating an inviting atmosphere. Timers work for players at a particular skill level, but not everyone should be held to that level.

I believe WK knows this. That's why they created the fellowship prize. I have a hard time accepting the belief that "tournaments are only for winning" when half the prizes are awarded to people just for being nice. I've played with lots of players who never ever won a tournament but kept coming because the game was still fun for them. Punishing them for slow play would not be fun and you will lose those players. To me, that undermines some of the goals of organized play.