The other thing that I find happening is that people do not listen to the answer you give them when they ask.

I'm getting ready to call 10 minutes in a minute or so.
"Hey, how much time is left."
"The last thing I called was half-way."
"Ok, cool, so I have time to go grab a burger."

I don't tell them exactly how long the round will be.
I call "about half-way" somewhere within 5 minutes plus or minus.
I call "less than 10 minutes" anywhere between 10 and 5 left.
I call "time" and you can complete any action already called: otherwise you're done.

That and the conversation nbperp recommended should fix your problem. If it doesn't, a DQ is in order.

I've always been in favor of Chess Clocks. Each player has exactly 25 minutes of play for a match. When one player has used his or her 25 minutes of play he or she no longer gets to perform actions. This would be umbrella'd under the global 50-minute clock for the round, which is handled by the judge. So the round is 50 minutes long, but each player is strictly limited to 25 minutes (half) of the round time within his or her own game, and if he or she uses all 25 allotted minutes then he or she is no longer able to do anything, thus allowing the opponent to wail away on his or her figures for points until the round is over. I like this because it enforces the concept of a round time, but also enforces the idea that no player should monopolize the time in the round, which can happen in many circumstances.

-nihil

the problem with chess clocks is the cost. we are a small venue in a small town. but we have between 4-12 players at times. the clocks are 40 - 100 bucks each that's a big investment for the owner for a recent problem with a single player.

Besides the cost of chess clocks, it's also filled with questions and it skews what a competitive team is:

a) If I'm playing with a chess clock, I'm more likely to use a smaller force. Less decisions to make = faster play time. The person who wants to play a swarm army is at a huge disadvantage.

b) It's not all that clear if/when/who is really eating up the time. I roll to attack you and I hit. You've got 2 themed team probs left and, before you take the damage, you need to mentally review whether you're willing to put that second token on a character to force the reroll. I needed a 8 to hit, so it's a good chance I'll miss, but you'll push and... It's not unfair to give someone ten or fifteen seconds to make that kind of choice - should that decision be on MY clock? HeroClix is filled with these back and forth decision points.

I'm surprised by how against this idea everyone is.

We have ALWAYS used turn limits at our venue and it works really well. Used to do a 12 turn limit, but a few years ago reduced it to 10.

10-12 turns is generally plenty to finish a game. Turtling very rarely happens, as if you you turtle you'll likely just short yourself on points which will put you behind those who manage to wipe out their opponent. In fact I think limiting the turns forces people to go on the offensive.

On rare occassions, games go excessively long- usually only when two beginners are paired up and they are both trying to understand the game.

And on EXTREMELY rare occasions (I can remember two times that it happened in 10 years of tournaments) both players have just passed every turn, refusing to engage each other and had a very quick game.

I think it's a great system and a lot fairer than running purely to a timer.

At least it attempts to solve problems. I didn't claim it was perfect, now, did I? What's the other solution? Have a judge sit at each individual match and use his or her best judgement to nudge players to take an action, already? I think not.

As you said; "Heroclix is filled with these back and forth decision points." It's the nature of the game. It is, however, wrong for one player to, for any reason, have access to more of the allotted time in the round than another player, and I'm not even talking about reasons of dubious intent; I'm talking exactly about that guy who is just slow to plan, that girl who can't make up her mind regarding the pros and cons, that guy who made a mistake and is recalculating. I really don't care what a player is doing or how a player does it or why a player does it, but I do care if that player is eating into my fair share of the allotted round time.

Both players should be given the same opportunities within a round. We've all been there; "If I'd only had 2 more minutes I would have won that on points..." and the opponent was taking far more than his or her share of the clock. What is your solution to this problem, since it is, as you say, inherent to the nature of the game? Just let it slide, or try to correct the imbalance?

Seriously. I'm asking. What's your solution? Your previous post speaks to a local tournament scene where players actually have an opportunity to complain to a judge and have something done about it at a later date. How, exactly, does that work when applied to a player that isn't a regular player at your venue? How does that work when it is you who is travelling into unknown territory?

-nihil

And I've also been in matches where another player's slow play prevented him from winning. It goes both ways.
It works exactly the same. Whether it's a regular or a new player, the response to mentions of stalling should be exactly the same. If it's not, then there's a bigger problem.

It does change the dynamics, but I disagree that such a change is inherently bad. It's just different.

You're suggesting a global change to the standard system, one that's been discussed and debated repeatedly throughout the history of Wizkids games. And what I see it come to over and over is a change that creates at least as many problems as it solves. Creating an atmosphere where newer players or just plain slower players are punished is just one of the problems with your solution.
And aren't you the guy who complains that any house rule makes the game "not heroclix"?

At my venue, we call time and then everyone gets to finish their turn to make it an even amount of turns. The Venue Owner likes it this way. We have not had any issues with complaints about it. It is also listed on the Events System as a house rule.

I I don't necessarily agree with it. It does allow for players to change strategy to gain extra points. But, same goes for the player watching time "45 mins have gone by, time should be called soon, time to rush."

He is, but that doesn't mean he's behaving inconsistently here. He's campaigning for what he feels should be a change to the official rules, not saying he's going to house rule it.

Well if your opponent was slow (for what ever reason) and not stalling, then you could have made your actions faster and that would have given you your 2 extra mins.

Thank you, sir.

And I should say that I'm only one of "the guy(s)" who says that house rules make the game "not heroclix."

Again, yes. What the impaler said is true; I would like to see some sort of change to the way time is kept in the official rules of the game. My idea...is not perfect; none is. I do feel, however, that it at least tries to fix a problem in the system.

What's the story when a player comes to a venue and takes considerably more than his or her fair share of the allotted time in a round for the 1st round? His opponent may then complain to the judge, but that opponent has already been burned. What if the opponent speaks up during the round? Then the judge, what? Sits and watches the rest of the game? That takes the judge's attention away from the tournament, at large, and forces unnecessary supervision. I say "unnecessary" because under my system there would be no need for supervision of any kind relating to how long a player is taking with his or her actions. Make players their own keepers and there isn't need for these "problems" to exist in the first place.

-nihil

That is definitively a straw man argument. It doesn't speak to or refute my position; it creates a new one, which isn't valid to the discussion.

Why should a player be forced to play quickly just because his or her opponent is playing slowly? Both players should play as fast as they play, but there should be ramifications built into the tournament system that punish a player for taking more than half the round time. Each player should have equal opportunity to time in a round, so half each. When one player takes 2/3 of the time in the round to perform his or her actions, then, as you say, it forces the opponent to play "quickly" which is not, by nature, fair to that opponent.

-nihil