I understand the difference is stalling and turtling. If the opponent is moving his pieces defensively to hide and hopefully run the clock out instead of attacking, I get that. Especially if he is in the lead on points. Thats turtling.

But to sit and wait 2-3-4 minutes just to move 3 pieces on the board in my mind is stalling. But during the game I didnt think of it that way. All I wanted was for him to hurry up and move so I could go. Some of my actions were 5-10 seconds long, then I had to wait. I would do 1 action or clear. It doesnt take long to do those things.

I didn't keep track of his move time. Others did without my knowledge as I was told afterward. But I know the next time I play him (which will be at IG8) or anyone who does the slow thinking/moving tactics I will have a timer for his turns to show the judge it if I feel he is stalling.

I also didnt start this thread to cause an argument among us players/moderators. I'm hoping to get some ideas to help speed up turns to give to our judge.

Classy.

Hopefully that comment came with infraction points.

Why should he get infraction points? He has a player with slight mental retardation. He wasn't calling a player retarded as an insult.

As a judge what would you tell the guy stalling.

ie player B has a OMA and is based by player A's three figs.

Its B's turn and his fig is pretty far down the dial.
-A two min warning was called.
-Two mins later game was over and Player B still did not figure out who he wanted to hit.

needless to say player A was upset.

Player B did have three choice of guys to attack (or run away) and each option you could tell he was think through.

I let it play out and not saying anything but would there have been a better way?

After the match OMA did have 3 clix left so if player A did get a turn he could have KO, and won the match.

-As far as turns go player A went first.

Not to start a linguistic debate, but if the person actually has a developmental disability, he likely considers that terminology to be pejorative.

http://www.r-word.org/

Ahead of time with concerns about stalling if you are SURE that is what it is, is just like concerns about shorting damage taken if it seems to happen frequently: if it is known, something can be done. If not, you are going to be just stewing in it after the fact. Say something next time you are there if the same player is there at the beginning of the night, to the judge, in private, and let the judge proceed from there. During the night? Tougher, but can be done.

This is a good example that illustrates the complexities of the issue. I could see it going several ways. Ultimately, it would depend on who player B was and how they normally play. Some players I would feel it was deliberate. Others, I would think they were legitimately considering what to do. I have to admit, that it would also depend on who player A was. If it was someone who had a history of complaining when there was nothing to complain about, I would take them less seriously than a player who rarely or never complained.

As for what I would really do differently, I wouldn't call a two minute warning. That's just going to encourage stalling, even amongst those who wouldn't typically do it. I used to call a 10 minute warning and that was it.

Stalling is a problem, but it's subjective. Tough call for the judge.

As for people who "just play slow" -- my feeling is that the effect is the same, so the consequences ought to be, too. Plus, that 'defense' provides too much cover to the people who are doing it intentionally.

This was suggested and I think I might stop doing that.

As far as the matches player B finished the first two in less then 20 mins each.

Player A is a very relax player who is very easy going. So for him to say something meant he felt he was cheated.

And therein lies the problem.

If that was the situation, I would say it was stalling. However, if player A didn't call you over at the time, there isn't anything you can do retroactively. I would tell player A to call you over next time.

Also, 2 minutes doesn't have to be 2 minutes. I've never liked having such specific time limits to games; it makes it to easy for players to game the clock. Games should be around 50 minutes.

I don't see a problem with a judge making a judgment.

That's what judges are there to do.

So how would you address that problem? It just seems like it is subjective, so of course it is only stalling if the judge agrees.

The only way to take the subjectivity out of determining stalling is with strict time limits. However, that has it's own set of problems. It assumes that everyone has the same skills. The other problem is that your opponent can influence how long your turn takes.

Another problem I have with strict time limits is that is actually makes it easier to stall. I've never felt like I've played a face to face game where my opponent intentionally stalled, but it happens a lot in HCO because of the clock. Because players can see how much time they have, they take that much time whether they need it or not, especially at the end of a game.

There is always going to be subjectivity in the game. The fellowship prize is another example. I'm just not sure that taking the subjectivity out actually solves the problem?

In a competetive format it is perfectly reasonably to ask participants to play at a competitve level. I walked out of the last IG event after the first match because my opponent won by 60 points by overextending himself and knocking out my cheapest most vulnerable figure. I could have easily turned that match around if we had actually played heroclix but instead he examined every dial of every figure he had four times and checked the PAC on his Imac for ten minutes EVERY turn. As long as matches are timed, turns must be also. This is commmon sense. Otherwise the temptation to take an early lead and then kill the clock is too great. Everytime this happens to me I consider leaving the tourney scene for good.

Assuming that your judge follows the tournament rules, he shouldn't be allowing the iMac.

Now, that said, he could obviously use a printout to examine it for ten minutes.

In any event, if you feel your opponent is stalling, inform the judge. From your description, it would seem as if you'd have a good case to claim he was stalling.