Game length and design

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Could be true yes. I'm in favor of fair play, even in tournaments so I guess it should be enough to manage a game ... but I read the "buy time" strategy was a thing at ETC...

    I think part of this is because of the importance of secondary objectives that are not so secondary .. +3-3 is huge !

    Btw, is there a thread about that ? Where the objectives are discussed ?
  • Easy. If reactive player needs time to take a decision about charge reaction or dispell, the active player pressespresses/clicks the timer and time counts against the reactive player.
    If I need 5 minutes to decide if I hold or flee, these 5 minutes will be deducted from my time, reducing my total time available for my 6 turns.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • Scorbol wrote:

    Could be true yes. I'm in favor of fair play, even in tournaments so I guess it should be enough to manage a game ... but I read the "buy time" strategy was a thing at ETC...

    I think part of this is because of the importance of secondary objectives that are not so secondary .. +3-3 is huge !

    Btw, is there a thread about that ? Where the objectives are discussed ?
    Well someone probably stalled a bit, but if the same person does not finish their game they will be punished in the next ETC, atleast if I'm there again.

    Most of the time both players accuse the other of being the staller, then it's hard for us to do anything ^^
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
  • Scorbol wrote:

    Could be true yes. I'm in favor of fair play, even in tournaments so I guess it should be enough to manage a game ... but I read the "buy time" strategy was a thing at ETC...

    I think part of this is because of the importance of secondary objectives that are not so secondary .. +3-3 is huge !

    Btw, is there a thread about that ? Where the objectives are discussed ?
    It has been discussed, currently the bonus will remain +3 until further notice.
    The objectives are a good way of countering gunlines, avoidance, and other lists that try to force a draw/small win.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    Easy. If reactive player needs time to take a decision about charge reaction or dispell, the active player pressespresses/clicks the timer and time counts against the reactive player.
    If I need 5 minutes to decide if I hold or flee, these 5 minutes will be deducted from my time, reducing my total time available for my 6 turns.
    Sure, bit it's gonna be alot of switching on that clock. Not sure it really works, and not really suitable to make it a BRB rule either IMO.
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
  • I understand it's hard to implement, but doing nothing at all and relying on players' good faith, sportsmanship, call ot what you want, is not solving anything either.
    We can ask some playtesters to use it in a couple of games or rounds to see how and if it works, then we can ask some TO to use it in some small tournaments, and if there is positive feedback, we can begin discussing more seriously.
    If not, the ball drops again to the refs(at least on etc), to make calls and give penalties.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • The clock is a great idea. And is what the game should tend in the future, if it wants to be a competitive game. Games thought with the competitive mindset already can be played with clock and have 0 time stalling issues.

    However in 9th quite a lot of rules have to be tweaked for it to be used more easily. As the game is it now its just not practical.

    Just a list of things on top of my head, that need clock swapping:

    Charge reactions
    Dispels
    Armour Saves (at magic, shooting and close combat )
    Ward Saves ( yes because after AS you need to switch for MW and then switch again for Ward save )
    Close combat ( bouncing all around at each ini step )
    Post combat reforms

    I know that it will be a long and tedious travel, but people have to evolve and not be afraid of changing things to construct a better game. We are used to a way of doing things, but its not necessary the best or optimal way.
    Visit our blog, The Gates of Kislev!
  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    Easy. If reactive player needs time to take a decision about charge reaction or dispell, the active player pressespresses/clicks the timer and time counts against the reactive player.
    If I need 5 minutes to decide if I hold or flee, these 5 minutes will be deducted from my time, reducing my total time available for my 6 turns.
    Sure, this is not so difficult to implement, also bearing the fact that so many people have tablets and there are free chess-clocks apps that work very well.

    On the other hand, if a clock is used, it means that one needs to implement clear rules on who gets time deducted when:
    - Players check things, like line of sight, distances, rules, and so on (and also when refs are called at the table because no agreement can be found)
    - Players ask questions (what is blabla doing).
    - Players make jokes ^^
    ETC team Switzerland,
    Empire player years 2008-2010, 2013-2015
    Captain & Empire player 2016
    Spokeperson & Goblins player 2017
  • Dim wrote:

    More intuitive = easier to remember = less time used reading the rules

    Last example I have in mind: A banshee, cannot stand and shoot, but suppose I am a beginner trying to find out if I can or not.

    Most probably the first thing I will do is to go under the description of the weapon, and see if it says "cannot stand and shoot" or "Reload".
    In order to realize that I can't do it, I have to reread the Undead special rule, which is the one that prevent me to shoot. This is in another document. It would be more beginner friendly to have that rule (and the Unstable rule probably) recalled in the Vampire Covenant book, or a friendly reminder that it is not possible!

    Other example of non intuitive rules: Normal combat rules allow me to do a post combat reform under some conditions, but building combat rules don't, (for the attacker). Is this really needed? Building combat should be as close as possible to normal combat.
    Yes, the rules need to be a bit more redundant, to make them more convenient to use. IMO.
  • I didn't want to throw a stone in the lake here (french translated expression here).


    I thought that time management could be an issue when you play against dishonest players. The clock seamed to be a good idea but when thinking about it, when does the active player uses/stops his time regarding the reactive player ?

    Ie : Active player starts magic phase. Clocks starts.

    Active player chooses spell and throw some dice. Clock stops, reactive player starts clock to dispell attempt, clock stops when roll is done...

    I think it's too complicated, just thinking of the amount of reactions in the game makes it impossible...

    Unless you agree on using the active player clock on his turn until the reactive player needs thinking and uses his time ?

    I don't think the game need more complication actually...

    @KeyserSoze : Is there a thread about the secondary objectives ? I would like to see what's said there... I had bad experiences several times when a single standard bearer (last survivor) managed to score objectives. Maybe it's just bad luck but it happened at least 3 times in tourney... so this +3 / -3 was harsh for 1 model !!

    Don't get me wrong, I love objectives, much more depth in the game from the list building to the deployment and even through the game !
  • on the topic of clock and tournament. I agree that it should be tested, for good and bad. I do believe however that it will be a good thing.

    @Scorbol The clock is a known factor in the game called warmachine :) There the non-active player has to record damage in his own time e.g.

    I agree that it makes things more complicated, but it will bring with it a fairer and more balanced game since the game is meant to be 6 turns.

    Somethings needs to be done in order to ensure 6 whole turns in a tournament scene such as ETC. What about trying with 2000p instead of 2500p as the standard for tournaments?
  • Scorbol wrote:

    I didn't want to throw a stone in the lake here (french translated expression here).


    I thought that time management could be an issue when you play against dishonest players. The clock seamed to be a good idea but when thinking about it, when does the active player uses/stops his time regarding the reactive player ?

    Ie : Active player starts magic phase. Clocks starts.

    Active player chooses spell and throw some dice. Clock stops, reactive player starts clock to dispell attempt, clock stops when roll is done...

    I think it's too complicated, just thinking of the amount of reactions in the game makes it impossible...

    Unless you agree on using the active player clock on his turn until the reactive player needs thinking and uses his time ?

    I don't think the game need more complication actually...

    @KeyserSoze : Is there a thread about the secondary objectives ? I would like to see what's said there... I had bad experiences several times when a single standard bearer (last survivor) managed to score objectives. Maybe it's just bad luck but it happened at least 3 times in tourney... so this +3 / -3 was harsh for 1 model !!

    Don't get me wrong, I love objectives, much more depth in the game from the list building to the deployment and even through the game !
    I think the best way to solve this problem is to make secondary objectives more incremental: not only +3-3 but more something along the line:

    Center objective = difference between number of flags in 6" of center, with max 3
    Breakthrough objective = difference between number of flags on opposite zone with max 3
    Kill the flag objective = difference between number of marked flags left on the table (3 selected flags)
    Secure target objective = difference between number of objectives controlled *2 with max 3

    It is true that objectives get a bit less important because opponent is less likely to give you a big penalty if you are not playing the scenario, but at least luckily killing a standard / saving a standard at the end of a tight game only means a 1 pt difference, which is more acceptable than a +3-3 difference.
    ETC team Switzerland,
    Empire player years 2008-2010, 2013-2015
    Captain & Empire player 2016
    Spokeperson & Goblins player 2017
  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    That's why, Dim, we need to bring it on an experimental stage to find loopholes and abuses.
    If we find too many of them and/or sone unsolvable ones, we drop the plan.
    Agreed. I think it would be interesting to try, just starting to actively think about it ^^. A good question is also: what happens if one player runs out of time? 20-0? BP penalty?
    ETC team Switzerland,
    Empire player years 2008-2010, 2013-2015
    Captain & Empire player 2016
    Spokeperson & Goblins player 2017
  • Let's not go off topic here, that's why I asked if there was a thread about scenario ...

    I think there are some things to say/ suggest about objectives as you did !

    @Hallvard, yes I know that they use it in warmachine, but as I never played the game, I don't know how much actions the reactive player has.

    Seems to me that in 9th there is a lot and it could complicate stuff a lot !

    Reactive player thinks how much dice he has to use for dispell

    Active player : "please turn your clock on"

    - "no it's ok I use 3 dice", -"yeah but you use 3 min of my 90" ... etc etc

    Hope it stays a fun game while being competitive...
  • I agree wit lawngnome, you discussed timing it, and I instantly thought chess clock, it has two seperate clocks that alternate ticking when the active player hits a button it could easily be incorporated into a tournament. anytime you are no longer making the decisions, you hit the button, reactive player does there thing and hits the button, so on and so forth, it then keeps track of the total time each player spent making decisions. If the game doesn't end, you can then easily identify which player was slowing down the game.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Yes, the issue of a player not turning on his clock can't happen using chess clocks. If you have ever watched a chess game with a clock, you know it is very straightforward.
    -Active player declares a charge, hits the clock (time starts running for the reactive player).
    -Reactive player declares (and solves, if not holding) the charge reaction, hits the clock (time runs for the active player again).

    An additional rule to make it fluid might be that the reactive player can forego his reaction before the active player ends the action. This is not chess, where each one is forced to move in turn.
    -Active player casts a spell; reactive player has no dispelling dice or scrolls/dispelling items. Time goes on for the active player. The same if the reactive player decides to not dispell while the dice are still rolling.

    For referee consultation, there could be an independent clock. When discussing the rule, they stop the normal clocks and call the referee, starting the special clock. Time spent in the special clock is added to the player that was wrong. If neither of them was right, or if the rules were unclear, this time is divided equally.

    Players can ask questions to each other or make measurements freely as long as they dont pause the game. If so, time runs for the player that is asking for the clarification or measurement.

    I'm sure there are situations I didn't think about yet

    Also remember that it would be a strictly tournament rule. It doesn't make normal games more complicated. Even in a tournament, it can be ruled that the game goes on without a deadline (within reason, but imagine having a whole afternoon and evening to play a game).
    I'm not a native English speaker, but I'd like to go on learning, so I'd appreciate grammar corrections.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Nirnel ().