Why does Henchman Hardcore format prohibit summoning and adding remaining Soulstones to your cache?

[Adran]

14 hours ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

The point is that you should play quickly, and chess clock punishes you for playing slowly. Again, ideally you should play fast enough for the clock not to affect any of you at all. 

I see several ways to solve the problem. 

1. If Player 1 runs out of time, Player 2 wins 10-0.
2. As I have suggested before -- if Player 1 has scored N points and run out of time, Player 2 wins 10-N.
3. If Player 1 runs out of time, Player 1 keeps their current score, and Player 2 reveals all their schemes. Player 2 gains points for the strategy and for all the schemes they have if it is theoretically possible to score for those schemes. The exact conditions are to be defined by the TO. 
4. If Player 1 runs out of time, Player 2 can use the remainder of their time to continue the play. Player 1 doesn't flip or declare anything and is consider to have flipped Black Joker each time they would flip.  
5. If player 1 runs out of time, they can no longer score this Round. The game continues normally otherwise, and the clock is still switched normally, albeit Player 1 no longer spends time (as they have no time) and scores for nothing. If the Round time runs out because of that, Player 2 scores for every Scheme and Strategy if it would be theoretically possible to score for that. 

I would personally choose 1 or 2. 4 would be OK, but 3 and 5 don't seem to punish the player who has run out of time strongly enough. 

If you want my advice,

1 and 2 do not fit the Malifaux game of gradual VP scoring and offer rewards to players for not achieving the actual aims of the game. 

3 and 4 are roughly the same. 4 is probably fairer, but will take longer to do. If you want, you could still give the timed out player a hand, and the ability to cheat in duels and score points, they can only pass as a activation.  ( Your objection to 3 probably sums up out differences the greatest, you fell it doesn't punish running out of time enough, I feel it rewards good play with the time you have had and is still potentially a hefty punishment for running out of time, but does not automatically make you lose

5 works if you actually take the chess clock to the same sort of use that you do in chess (or at least when I used to play competitive chess we did, we had a time to get so many moves, and if you managed that you got more time), and split the hour each player has into five 12 slots, so as you end a turn, you move your clock back 12 minutes, and each turn where you run out of time you don't score that turn. 

 

I think our disagreement is we are trying to achieve 2 different things. I don't want time to be the defining factor of the game, what i do want is for both players to enjoy the game as much as possible. For me the more the game is like a normal malifaux game, the better it would be for both players. 

If the problem is your games aren't getting to turn 5 (or even 4) then I think the use of chess clocks will hinder for quite a long time (I think playing a game of Malifaux on a clock will take you longer to do your activation's that without if you aren't deliberately playing slow). Unless you do use your draconian punishments,  and then expect to see most games for a while end when 1 player runs out of time, meaning that what matters in the early game is doing things fast, not doing what earns you VPs. . If your problem is that 1 or 2 players in a large event are using time to win by planning on scoring points early and deny an end game then any ought to work. 

 

Try and see what works for you and your local players. 

And whilst this should make no difference to you, I would be prepared to play in events that wanted to use a chess clock, but I wouldn't play in events that made the clock a win condition (so your method 1 and 2). 

[santaclaws01]

13 hours ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

The point is that if you, for example, took 4 times more time for your activations than your enemy, it could have resulted in your opponent not having enough time to score. Even if you didn't score too, it is frustrating to finish the game 2-1 at the end of Turn 2 just because we run out of time. Someone who delays a game for any reason has to be punished just because the even schedule limits us. 

If the game is only on turn 2 at time call then someone is slow playing. A TO shouldn't need a chess clock to figure that out or to figure out who is slow playing. And you as an opponent to the slow player should actually be saying something about it instead of just sulking silently.

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

9 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

If the game is only on turn 2 at time call then someone is slow playing.

Henchmen around my area (just like many people in this thread) don't consider it punishable just to take a lot of time to take your actions. It is only considered slow playing if you suddenly start to take ten times more time to think, or need 10 minutes to find a model in your case for summoning, etc. 

However, even if you are just a nooby, it shouldn't mean that you have the right to delay a tournament game, and chess clock is there to show you that. 

[Fetid Strumpet]

No. A chess clock creates more problems then the one it’s intended to solve.

Games not finishing in time as a big problem is a symptom of the game itself not being designed to finish in a standard time allotment. This has always been a problem from version 1 to version 2. In many other games while some players don’t finish their games in time it isn’t anywhere near as common as it has been for Malifaux. That consistency in players not finishing as an issue means enough time for the average player of Malifaux to finish is not being allocated. That’s a system problem not a player problem because you can’t tell all your players of all skill levels, “finish this incredibly complex game that has never been given sufficient time per round in this amount of time or we will punish you” because that is counter to what an organized event is proported to do, which is to grow the community. Maybe at a masters level event you could expect that but at an open event you are going to get people of all skill levels and if the make the event overly complex or punishing to them you’re going to actively discourage people from playing. That’s issue 1.

Issue 2 is that as has been stated before Malifaux’s integrated turns and player interaction offer too many places in the game where play decisions change whose theoretical time it is. I’ve seen players try to use a chess clock and it becomes a game of constantly tapping out and it is forgotten about constantly. As said Malifaux is an incredibly complicated game and trying to remember all the rules is challenging even before you’ve had a long day of games. Add in constantly trying to remember when to tap your clock and then being punished when you don’t remember and again you have another problem that drives any but the most competitively minded people from your game, and those people generally don’t need the clock. So the proported solution fixed the problem by discouraging people from playing in the first place.

Issue 3 is once you introduce a clock you do not just theoretically try to speed the players up. You’ve just introduced a new victory condition and thus changed the game. Every single miniatures game I’ve seen played that uses clocks has universally had the element where some players will game the clock instead of playing the game to win. There are tactical articles written and podcast advice given on why you should do something because of how if affects the opponent’s clock and runs it down trough multiple decison points you continually force them to take. Malifaux wasn’t designed to take that element into account. Which is in essence exactly the one of the problems you are trying to solve, people intentionally slow playing to win by running out the round time. 

So in my experience and opinion chess clocks in Malifaux do not solve any of the issues you are trying to solve. They don’t provide a simple and unobtrusive solution to inexperienced players to play faster, and in fact actively discourages their participation, and all it does for intentional slow players is change the tactics they utilize to game the system.

If they work for you and your group, that’s great, but I don’t feel they are a better solution to the problem you are trying to solve than just giving the players more time.

[Dereikt]

Issue 3 is exactly the reason why clocks only really work within the context of strictly defined turns, because so long as you aren't taking any actions on your opponent's time, it's only possible to lose through the clock, and not to win by it. In Kings of War, however fast or slow I play, it only affects my own clock-I can still only win by time if my opponent is playing slowly or, in other words, if he loses by time. In malifaux, I'm pretty sure I *can* actively deplete my opponent's clock, and in quite simple ways, most significantly through an opposed dual. If my opponent attacks me, we both flip a card at the same time, so there's no opportunity to flip the clock to my side. I don't flip cards at a consistent rate, and I can certainly take an important few extra seconds when I'm tired to read the card, add up the relevant defensive stat, and reach a total.

That is time coming out of my opponent's clock from my slow play, as part of a common mechanic, in some cases without even requiring a deliberate effort on my part.

Also, in any timing protocol where part of my actions uses my opponent's time, I can take those actions specifically to deplete my opponent's clock. I could, for example, attack a model with a wind gamin-that's four attacks, each of which will partly deplete my opponent's time in an unavoidable manner.  I could also use actions like Flare on Kaeris to force an opponent to take multiple simple duels. In both cases, these are things I might be tempted to do regardless of whether they are useful actions in their own right.

That's two reasons why a chess clock wouldn't work properly in a game like malifaux which was designed not only without a chess clock in mind, but in many ways entirely contrary to the inclusion of one, and that's without having thought particularly hard about them.