Um...that bold part is EXACTLY what should be happening.

If you want that, play chess, this however is not chess no matter how many people wear t-shirts proclaiming it is.

It is meant for all ages. You don't even have to be fans of the characters they make.

What you are suggesting will punish potentially good players. A new player sits down at a table and is now being rushed his very first game.

I hate the idea of chess clocks for clix, but saying, "If you want that, play chess," does nothing to help the discussion. You're dismissing his point without addressing it.


I think that norm's point earlier in the thread was a great argument against chess clocks--in Heroclix, unlike chess, there will be times that the player whose turn it is is waiting on the other player to make a decision. I don't think that the use of a chess clock with a strict limit of 25 minutes per player would adequately take that into account.

Well, the judge's job is to make sure games are being played smoothly and correctly, isn't it? If you are arguing that it's too hard for judges to watch every game and maintain that kind of fairness, I'd agree and point to my long-standing policy of "passive judging" being the only equitable solution. I think if a player feels that his opponent is taking too long, they SHOULD ask a judge over, just as they would if the player was trying to use CCE during a Charge or they thought short-clicking was going on.

Nor am I, however I disagree that it is wrong. Waaaaaaay back in the day, when the original Galactus came out, a local venue posted a 600 point event. It was known that some folks were going to bring the big G but not all of us had him yet. One strategy was to build a swarm team that would give you lots of positioning and such to try to take Galactus out. (Good idea, never executed well). The point is, the guys playing Galactus only needed about a minute for their turn. Move, attack, attack. "Who to target?" was perhaps the hardest choice that player had to make.

The swarm guys had so many decisions to make. How far apart to put this square from that squad. Who should push to attack. Etcetera. Those turns took on the order of about 3-5 minutes. There is no doubt that during those matches the Galactus player got no more than 20% of "the clock". Was that unfair?

And while that's an extreme case, it applies in modern age, too. If someone decides to play the 300 point Black Adam, he's going to need less time than the person who brings a 3-5 man army.

And this is reasonable. I agree. If it were me, I'd ask a judge to please keep an eye on things.

It's been a while since I've traveled and played somewhere new. I agree that for the new guy to speak up and complain is a difficult position as most would not. But I don't see chess clocks or an even splitting of time as a fair solution either. Between the two, the chess clocks creates a different playing experience for everyone. I think that's more of an unacceptable condition that the solution that enables a person to remedy his situation, he just needs to speak up.

I'm not dismissing it. I just don't see it as an issue.

You can have the Best Strategy Chess player loose in a game of chess with clocks.
You can have the Best Fast Chess player loose in a game without clocks.
All-in-all they are for chess.

I agree with Norm's points, as well I think that they hurt new players. A new player has enough to learn with all the different rules and powers, but to be rushed by a clock right in front of them rushing them.

We have a player that has been playing at my venue since the game started. He is a slow strategic player. No one wants to play him, and everyone makes jokes about it. Thankfully he is a good sport about it. But then we get a new player and one of the regulars say "I don't want to play him, he is as slow as...". Then that person doesn't want to come back. I yelled, at that player and told him that he was completely unfair and didn't even give the player a chance to learn the game.

I feel that putting a clock in a persons face does the same thing.

I don't call time intervals at my venue.

I call a "start" and I call a "time's up". My regular players know not to ask how much time is left, but when new people ask, I just tell them that I'll tell them when the match time is over.

A couple of thoughts....

First of all Turn Limit Games
Not a bad idea for a scenario or two, but as a regular thing not so good as it has its own set of flaws. In fact, there used to be some interesting scenarios in the rulebook that included a fixed number of turns.

Chess Clocks
Ideal, but impractical in a normal match. Online if programmed correctly they could work just fine, but the clock should be running based on who is supposed to be thinking not whose turn it is. That would never work in a straight up face-to-face match.

Announcing Time
Really I find this to be a bologna rule. The main justification for not guaranteeing a balanced number of turns is so one player doesn't gain an advantage of knowing when the game will end. There is ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE in announcing Time.
When the game is over call time and make that, that.

Asking how much time is left
A simple answer: WARNING Stalling - now play the game.

Another Idea I Like
Call time at roughly 40 minutes. Then the current player finishes his current. Then both players get exactly one more turn regardless of who went first. This insures nobody gets full advantage of last turn or full advantage of knowing the clock is almost over. Again, no system is perfect when time is a factor.

THE BEST ANSWER
Play builds and scenarios that can be completed in the time allotted and then have no time limit. That is only perfectly fair way.
Unfortunately, its not always practical so you will probably need some alternatives. Just choose the lesser of the weevils because all other systems have some imbalance.

Mix It Up
Another thing you can do is mix it up. Have some instant game over timed games, Have some games which guarantees a last turn for both players, Have some games at a fix turn count.

If you are a new player and you see something either wrong or potentially milking the system, why wouldn't you speak up? You don't have to be confrontational about things, but still, ask.
"Is this how you guys normally play?" That should be enough to open a dialogue and find a solution. If the "solution" goes against you and you're really, really unhappy with the call, then try to find somewhere else to play. If there are no other venues, try to get your opponents and Judge to see your side of things.

All else fails, do what I do: Bust their chops about it.

"So, this is, what, your 6th Nightcrawler kill box team in a row? Are you going for a personal record?"
"Do I have enough time to go grab a bite to eat, or will your turn be done in the next 20 minutes?"
"All your figures are pushed and you have no Free Actions to take. What are you really "thinking about" before you're done?"

But in a friendly kinda way. Really.

The venues I play it used to run turn limit games before (as I believe the tournament guidelines used to instruct) and now runs the suggested time limit games. I don't really have a problem with either way but think that the turn limit games are more balanced. Backing that thought are my observations that a time limit game makes the game more about the damage the heavy hitters over the turn limit game giving the lesser figs a chance to squeeze out a tactical victory by tying up the bricks and scoring points where they can and just trying to survive. I personally prefer the tactical games over the games of brute force.

Turn limit games would be a good way to reduce the impact of the Infinity Gauntlet as turns could not be wasted revving it up. As there would be fewer TPKs, bye round would be less painful (if the event gives a 0 point win for the byes). I also think that for new players TPK's can be far more demoralizing.

Fair enough, i missed that and read the post as supporting that solution as a local "fix".

While I'll grant that you're offering a solution, in my opinion it's a solution that creates more issues than it solves. It would make things different, but not better overall. The hostile environment it would create for the new or simply methodical player is enough of a reason for me to be opposed on it's own.

Barring a scenario situation HeroClix has never had turn limits as an official methodology, so if you played where that was done it was a house rule. The closest Wizkids has ever come was the "finish the cycle" rule instituted for Mage Knight. When time was called:
*If the 2nd player was active he finished his turn and the game ended.
*If the 1st player was active they finished their turn, the 2nd player got a turn, and the game ended.
It changed game play styles and was overall was not considered a positive change.