Now that games are determined by objectives, how would competitive players feel about a best two out of three system?

When I played the "CCG that must not be named," players had ~hour to play the best 2 out of 3 hands to determine a victor.

Could something similar apply to MK?

Perhaps three 25-30 minute rounds against the same opponent?

Whaddya think?

no it would take too long even if it was 20 minutes but then you could get nothing done.

I'm not sure that would work. If you're thinking objectives and only giving someone 25 mins for three games - how would there really be any competition?

You would take an objective.
I would take an objective.

There would be 1 very short skirmish over the third objective...if it wasn't nabbed quickly and then just defended for the next 3 turns.

No, 50 mins is just about right for 300pt armies.

I'm basing my suggestion on actual playtesting of the 2.0 Gencon rules.

Players typically set up "kill zones" over objectives. Even Necro armies tend to find an easily defendable position and necro the same figures back over and over.

The game doesn't occur until the last 5-10 minutes anyway. These last few turns are when players are motivated to actually engage an claim/defend objectives.

So a typical 2.0 game goes something like this:

1) 5-10 minutes of positioning
2) 30 minutes of shuffling and necro'ing
3) 5-10 minutes of actually trying to be the guy standing on a token when time is called.

I'm simply suggesting:
a) cut out the boring middle section of the game in which there exists very little action.

b) reduce the "I beat the undefeated player because he rolled 6 straight critical misses...so I am now the undisputed CHAMP!" syndrome.

In effect, the random aspects can lend to the fun of the game without determining a world champ by a fluke string of dice rolls.

I agree with isabee on this one.

It'll be a 20 minutes positioning and then the final battle, but you could cut the first 20 or 30 minutes as isabee stated and replace them with 2 rounds of 20 minutes each, so a 1 hour battle would be compiled of 3 semi rounds with the same oponnent of 20 minutes each.

Also note WK's said the battles will be faster than the usual.

For tournament play, breaking it up would take WAY too long if you wanted to get anything done in gameplay. As for personal play, I don't like to play any sort of timed play unless time is an issue.

I appreciate the responses.

If you don't mind, please post how long "way too long" is exactly...and then some ideas of what time limits you feel would be reasonable.

Thanks
Rob

One 50-minute game generally tends to be just long enough for some serious gameplay to occur while being short enough to force players not to waste turns, actions, etc.. You just couldn't get the same gameplay experience making it shorter. The only armies you'd see would be based mostly around speed. Shorter games would be far too limiting, especially to someone like me who doesn't care much for timed games in the first place.

:) I understand some players take longer.

I can also appreciate that some do not like time restrictions. At my kitchen table, time is rarely a consideration.

But in tournaments, time is a staple of competitive play. If the winner is determined by who happens to hold the objective at the moment time elapses, does it matter whether we play for 35 minutes, 50 minutes, or 3 1/2 hours?

I'm actually suggesting we eliminate the "dead" areas of the match and squeeze more matches in = more fun playing! :D

This is hard to judge...I would really need to try several times and see the final rules to make any sort of an informed judgement. I do feel like often the game is decided long before the battle actually ends, and encouraging more aggressive play is a good thing.
However, I worry this would lead to serious stalling problems. I also worry that MDFs would really rule the game; even if its barely fighting back a MDF could be almost impossible to kill in a 20 minute time limit!

The time problem is very annoying speciaaly if your opponent as a watch and is playing with it....

I think in 2.0 the time limit should be 40 minutes and all tournies could go up to 5 rounds...

Mk should also include a time limit to each player turn, and a round time effect in the end...

Are you killing MDF's or are you controlling objectives?

Also consider there may be more terrain on the table in 2.0 = more hindrance for MDF's.

In addition, I'm thinking more along the lines of 30 minutes per match. If I can get cpm1972 to agree, we'll try some 30 minute matches this evening and let you know some results tomorrow.

I am more thinking you are parking an MDF on an objective and saying "go ahead, take it from me!" :)

The instant you give me a time limit in a game I'll make sure that I'll use the full 2 minutes of my turn if I'm in the lead. Just like they do in professional football when the team that's in the lead uses every last second before they have to snap the ball.

You might complain and whine, but if WK put that rule into effect you could bet money that players would definitely take advantage of it. The other side of the fence is how would you punish violators of the two minute per turn rule? make them lose points, award more time to the other person, a suitable punishment would have to be in effect or you'd see flagrant violations of it all time time.

Excellent thinking!

I'd let you have it while I took the other two objectives for the win. ;)

The scenario you describe illustrates my point. It would take you one turn (15-20 seconds) to move your Dragon to the token. You would pass the next turn.?.? (5-20 secs).

From there we wait 49 minutes until the last turn in which the Dragon player attempts to claim a second objective for the victory.
--------------------
Granted, this is over simplification ;)

But I don't want to trade a 1.0 kill a piece and wait out the clock environment for a 2.0 claim any objective and wait out the clock environment.