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

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

5 hours ago, Ludvig said:

A player that I know has the experience to finish games in a timely manner but somehow ends up winning against another fast player by turn two or three would probably see me very interested in their next match.

Much Sister-charge, such fun, much wow. Win my Turn 2. 

5 hours ago, Ludvig said:

If this was actually a regular concern I might also look to chess clocks.

As of what I have seen around me, it is. One experience Henchman has told me that an average tournament game lasts around just 3 Turns, and that it's risky to plan to score late in the game. 

[Adran]

34 minutes ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

Much Sister-charge, such fun, much wow. Win my Turn 2. 

As of what I have seen around me, it is. One experience Henchman has told me that an average tournament game lasts around just 3 Turns, and that it's risky to plan to score late in the game. 

I don't think thats what Ludvig meant. In his exampel I think the 2 of them only got to turn 2 by the tiem time was called, not that one person was wiped out by the end of turn 2

Otehr people have different experiences, but I think in all my years I've not reached turn 4 once in a tournement game, and most of them probably finish with time to spare. I know that as more and more people on the UK scene play more and more I see a lot fewer games still going on at the end of time, but how much of that ids because they finished the last turn which wasn't turn 5 I don't know. 

14 hours ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

10-N, where N is the amount of VP your opponent has already scored. So if you are losing 3-6 and your opponent starts slowplaying because of seeing that you are going to score now (like if you have Undercover Entourage and are going to approach their deployment zone, and some other scheme is up to be revealed). Under normal rules, you would call a TO, and things would depend on TO's judgement. With chess clocks, however, all that your opponent would be able to achieve is running out of time, and you would win 10-6. 

If your opponent is so slow that you have barely done it out of turn 2, and they have just scored 2 points, yes, you would win 10-2 and give a lot of Diff, but if the game would continue against such an inexperienced dude, you are actually likely to win 10-2 anyway. 

 

personally I find Chess clocks in games don't really speed up the play until the last few minutes on the clock, , they just add alternative win conditions. I also don't like you're scorign idea. If I was going to offer scoring for games that finished early, I would allow the person with time left to claim the VPs they were physically capable of, which might not be enough to win in all cases, so runnign out of tiem would automatically mean you lose

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

3 minutes ago, Adran said:

personally I find Chess clocks in games don't really speed up the play until the last few minutes on the clock

It is so until you run out of time for the first time. And then for the second time. Then you start to learn to play quickly.

5 minutes ago, Adran said:

I also don't like you're scorign idea. If I was going to offer scoring for games that finished early, I would allow the person with time left to claim the VPs they were physically capable of, which might not be enough to win in all cases, so runnign out of tiem would automatically mean you lose

How would my opponent flip cards, cheat fate, declare defensive triggers, ability and aura use? What if I have a Scheme that requires me to kill enemy models? What if I have "Take one for the team", so enemy cannot kill that model anymore just because of no longer being capable to activate? 

Your idea is kind of the opposite of how it is used in chess. If your time runs out in chess, you lose no matter the other conditions, even if you have a winning position, even if you would checkmate next turn. The idea is to make players act fast enough for the clock not to matter at all. If you play as designed, this new "winning condition" wouldn't affect you. If you don't, it affects you. 

By the way, I have found an interesting thing: 

 Seems to be a good start in order to make rules of switching the clock. 

[Fetid Strumpet]

If you want clocks go ahead an use them. I feel very confident in saying they don't work well for Malifaux at large.

[Ludvig]

2 hours ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

Much Sister-charge, such fun, much wow. Win my Turn 2. 

I meant only getting to turn two before time ran out. I've seen games end very quickly, in my last event I had a reckoning game where some people had over an hour to spare from a two hour round including setup and stuff.

Quote

As of what I have seen around me, it is. One experience Henchman has told me that an average tournament game lasts around just 3 Turns, and that it's risky to plan to score late in the game. 

Maybe your club needs to lengthen the round times a bit. The first rounds usually tale thr most time, rounds four and five together can take about 15 minutes. People used to not take bodyguard because it started scoring on turn four but these days with gg you can get plenty of VP super early, even by round three you should be able to score about 6-7 points.

[Adran]

3 hours ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

How would my opponent flip cards, cheat fate, declare defensive triggers, ability and aura use? What if I have a Scheme that requires me to kill enemy models? What if I have "Take one for the team", so enemy cannot kill that model anymore just because of no longer being capable to activate? 

Your idea is kind of the opposite of how it is used in chess. If your time runs out in chess, you lose no matter the other conditions, even if you have a winning position, even if you would checkmate next turn. The idea is to make players act fast enough for the clock not to matter at all. If you play as designed, this new "winning condition" wouldn't affect you. If you don't, it affects you. 

 

Chess is arbitrary. You run out of time, you lose. I really don't think that is an accurate or fair split for a game that is not as binary as chess. If I played well over 3 turns and have so far prevented you from scoring 5 of your possible points then I don't think that just because I used slightly more time than you (we could be talking seconds) I lose even if I have locked in more points that you could possibly score over the rest of the game. 

Malifaux has a set end point, chess doesn't. If you were to use chess clocks and each player was to use exactly their allotted time you ought to reach the end of turn 5 at exactly the time the round is called (which means that for a 2 hour round you would have to give each person slightly less than 1 hour each because the game does have things that happen during the gap between turns). 

If you have Take prisoner as a scheme and you have already killed the "prisoner", then  you shouldn't score any points for that scheme regardless of the time results. 

If you still have 2 models on the table that can score turf war, then its probably fair to say you score turf war points for each remaining turn, but if there are only 2 turns left, you would only score 2 extra turf war points because you can't go back and get the point from turns 2 and 3 that you missed. 

Ultimately, I am probably never going to play a game of Malifaux under chess clock, so all I am offering is suggestions for you if you want to try that. My suggestion in effect equivalent to allowing the person with time to still take turns to try and score the points, whilst the person who has run out of time, can do nothing to the board state to prevent those points (or score anymore of their own).  Feel free to try your own suggestions, after all you are the person who will be using them. 

 

 

 

[WWHSD]

47 minutes ago, Adran said:

Chess is arbitrary. You run out of time, you lose. I really don't think that is an accurate or fair split for a game that is not as binary as chess. If I played well over 3 turns and have so far prevented you from scoring 5 of your possible points then I don't think that just because I used slightly more time than you (we could be talking seconds) I lose even if I have locked in more points that you could possibly score over the rest of the game. 

Malifaux has a set end point, chess doesn't. If you were to use chess clocks and each player was to use exactly their allotted time you ought to reach the end of turn 5 at exactly the time the round is called (which means that for a 2 hour round you would have to give each person slightly less than 1 hour each because the game does have things that happen during the gap between turns). 

Chess is also very simple mechanically, with a clearly defined point at which the timer should cut over, and there is no time in the game that is neutral. There's also very little dispute over the rules or the exact position of a piece. 99% percent of the time used up in a chess game is from players deciding on their next move. Chess is is easy. Beating someone at chess is what's hard.

In Malifaux, execution of a decision can take longer than the decision itself did. One action can cause the clock to need to be flipped half a dozen times, there are things during an action that require both players to do something simultaneously, and there are time consuming periods of the game that shouldn't count against either player's time. There are sets of interactions in Malifaux that are complex enough to deal with as it is without having to add the burden of screwing with a clock. When there is a dispute over the rules, measurement or LoS, whose time do you take that off of? Either way you go, it can be gamed to run down the clock of an opponent.
 

[Rufess]

8 hours ago, Adran said:

My suggestion in effect equivalent to allowing the person with time to still take turns to try and score the points, whilst the person who has run out of time, can do nothing to the board state to prevent those points (or score anymore of their own).  Feel free to try your own suggestions, after all you are the person who will be using them. 

Maybe this would be the most fair way to play with chess clock instead of instantly death. The player who ran out of clock can finish the current action (not activation) and then immediately end the activation. The player can not active any model, nor take any action, nor cheating fate in the rest of the game. The player still have to flip in any opposite duel. Such that the player with time advantage can do whatever want to do.

However the time-over player may (arguable) still use soulstone and earn VP to represent the advantages he or she gained from the early game.

[Dereikt]

You'd need more of a penalty than that-at the very least enough bonus VPs to turn a loss into a draw and a narrow loss into a win. As noted above, the main point of introducing clocks would be to make players play within the time limit, which is an unfortunate reality of tournament games, and for that, you *need* a harsh penalty for timing out. Being unable to take any further actions is harsh if you time out early, but becomes a lot less of one in late turns-you can quite comfortable time out in turn 5, and that is something players should be trying to avoid. You can also comfortably time out if your opponent is also low on time, since they won't get to take the extra activations-if both players run out of time, you're back where you started with games going unfinished within the time limit.

If I can time out and still win, I'm not being trained to play within my time.

 

More significantly for Malifaux, however, it *also* requires that, as a player, I am *solely* responsible for the rate of play during my own turns, and that all I am doing during my opponent's turn is thinking. Chess would be a good example of a game designed this way, that therefore accomodate's chess clocks well. 'Kings of War' also works well with chess clocks because it is designed around these distinct turns-during my turn, I'm moving units, rolling all the dice, and my opponent is not. Malifaux fails spectacularly at it-not only does it have alternating activations which pass back and forth a lot more than a turn, I am responsible for the speed of play in multiples ways *during my opponent's activations*. I'm deciding whether to cheat fate, flipping cards, resolving abilities like explosive demise, sometimes even interrupting my opponent's activations to move models around. In short, both players are active pretty much simultaneously, and this is too much a part of the core gameplay to practically change, so a chess clock would fail.

[WWHSD]

43 minutes ago, Dereikt said:

 Being unable to take any further actions is harsh if you time out early, but becomes a lot less of one in late turns-you can quite comfortable time out in turn 5, and that is something players should be trying to avoid. You can also comfortably time out if your opponent is also low on time, since they won't get to take the extra activations-if both players run out of time, you're back where you started with games going unfinished within the time limit.

If I can time out and still win, I'm not being trained to play within my time.

If you are making into turn 5 before running out of time, you don’t really have a time problem. Especially, if your opponent still has time left on theory clock. Without the chess clock the game likely would have completed in the time alloted (or come close enough to be talked to completetion).

In the case of a player running out of time in the third turn and the other player being just about out of time as well, why are you rewarding someone that just got lucky enough that his opponent timed out first. That guy may very well have realized time was going to run out and just stopped playlng Malifaux and starting playing the clock. While his opponent was trying to score and stop him from scoring he was just moving as quickly as possible with no intention to score but only to make his opponent eat up time if they insisted on continuing to play Malifaux.

[Adran]

2 hours ago, Dereikt said:

You'd need more of a penalty than that-at the very least enough bonus VPs to turn a loss into a draw and a narrow loss into a win. As noted above, the main point of introducing clocks would be to make players play within the time limit, which is an unfortunate reality of tournament games, and for that, you *need* a harsh penalty for timing out. Being unable to take any further actions is harsh if you time out early, but becomes a lot less of one in late turns-you can quite comfortable time out in turn 5, and that is something players should be trying to avoid. You can also comfortably time out if your opponent is also low on time, since they won't get to take the extra activations-if both players run out of time, you're back where you started with games going unfinished within the time limit.

If I can time out and still win, I'm not being trained to play within my time.

I disagree. If running out of time becomes an auto loss, then you are making a huge difference to the game because nothing else in the game is auto win or lose. The purpose of the clock is to make sure people are playing in a timely manner. You seem to be forgetting the idea is to get the game played in a fixed time to allow another game to happen afterwards. If you run out of time in turn 5, then you have pretty much reached the objective of the clock. That will all but garentee that you get a full 5 turn game in the allowed slot. 

If you want people to play in the time, then you want to include discouragement for using too much time, but I feel as you get closer and closer to reaching the goal, you ought to suffer less and less. If everything goes to plan both players finish turn 5 by the end of the round. That may well mean they both have second sleft on their clock, but that has still met the aim. Outplaying your opponent, but taking 10 seconds longer than them should not be an automatic loss when you are 9-0 up on them. (Thats taking it to the extreme)

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

On 3/7/2018 at 8:09 PM, Adran said:

My suggestion in effect equivalent to allowing the person with time to still take turns to try and score the points, whilst the person who has run out of time, can do nothing to the board state to prevent those points (or score anymore of their own).

OK. So what if I have "Punish the weak" and need to kill your minions, but you have run out of time? Which time would you use to flip? 

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. 

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

5 hours ago, Department said:

I disagree. If running out of time becomes an auto loss, then you are making a huge difference to the game because nothing else in the game is auto win or lose.

 

5 hours ago, Department said:

Outplaying your opponent, but taking 10 seconds longer than them should not be an automatic loss when you are 9-0 up on them. (Thats taking it to the extreme)

Agreed. That's why it seems fair to:

1) Still punish the one running out of time

2) Give the other player free VP. 

This will teach the slow player not to be slow 

[Ludvig]

15 minutes ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

 

Agreed. That's why it seems fair to:

1) Still punish the one running out of time

2) Give the other player free VP. 

This will teach the slow player not to be slow 

Lets say my opponent had take prisoner and take one for the team. The strat is whatever but I have scored every turn so far and my opponent hasn't scored. My model targeted for take prisoner is dead and I haven't touched his model that had take one for the team, I currently have eight secure vp and will get a ninth at the end of turn 5, my opponent has 0 VP. The game ends with two of my activations to spare on turn 5 which I could have just passed. My opponent has less than two minutes or something left. In your opinion I deserve to lose that game?

[Sklertic]

This is a bad idea. Time hasn't been a big issue at the tournaments I've played, and I can't recall ever seeing a big discussion about it on these forums, but that's not so relevant. 

Malifaux can be a pretty stressing game, and a chess clock would dramatically add to that. If someone is slow playing, you tell them to hurry up or contact the TO and work it out that way.

Some crews have a complex order of operations, and it would punish them more than a simpler crew, which isn't fair.

My two cents.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

OK. So what if I have "Punish the weak" and need to kill your minions, but you have run out of time? Which time would you use to flip? 

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. 

Then what problem does the chess clock solve?  Because you're claiming that it's not supposed to have any effect on the game.

As far as I can tell, all it does it create a complex mechanical system for arguing over whose time any particular event in the game is supposed to be charged against; all so that you don't have to involve the event organizer when when the game gets called due to time.

You might as well say "We've placed a bomb on each table.  If you fail to complete the game at the end of the designated period, the bomb will detonate, disqualifying both players."  (If you're squeamish, just make the bomb a noise maker.)

That, after all, also results in the elimination of slow players from the tournament without involving the event organizer.

But I'm still waiting for someone to make a post in the form "We played a few games with chess clocks to see which timing patterns would be effecttive.  And this is what we found:". 

[WWHSD]

2 hours ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

 

Agreed. That's why it seems fair to:

1) Still punish the one running out of time

2) Give the other player free VP. 

This will teach the slow player not to be slow 

But both players in the example are playing slow since they are both almost out of time. The player with a few seconds left on the clock has gone from getting blown out to winning by virtue of making a few quicker moves than his opponent (and with that sort of score differential has probably had many fewer activations to contend with). Why is one player punished while the other is rewarded?

[WWHSD]

53 minutes ago, solkan said:

But I'm still waiting for someone to make a post in the form "We played a few games with chess clocks to see which timing patterns would be effecttive.  And this is what we found:". 

The value that I see in running something like a chess clock or a stop watch is all for personal improvement and not something that needs to make it into a tournament. I know that I play too slowly. Using a timer to  keep track of how long I spend thinking about what I'm going to do could be useful as it can give me feedback as to whether the things I'm doing to speed up are helping or not. When just used as a data point It doesn't matter if how I decide to stop the clock is fair or equitable as long as I'm consistent in what I do.  

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

18 minutes ago, solkan said:

Then what problem does the chess clock solve?  Because you're claiming that it's not supposed to have any effect on the game.

The effect of the clock is players acting quickly. Quick enough for the clock not to matter for them, not impacting their results, like players in chess learn to play with chess clock and have problems when transitioning from uncontrolled games, but play well when getting used to time control. 

20 minutes ago, solkan said:

As far as I can tell, all it does it create a complex mechanical system for arguing over whose time any particular event in the game is supposed to be charged against; all so that you don't have to involve the event organizer when when the game gets called due to time.

There will be a protocol of when to switch. A switch will also announce your decision as a final one. 

 

21 minutes ago, solkan said:

You might as well say "We've placed a bomb on each table.  If you fail to complete the game at the end of the designated period, the bomb will detonate, disqualifying both players."  (If you're squeamish, just make the bomb a noise maker.)

This "bomb" is the TO coming and telling you to end the round. But it doesn't work if your opponent takes an eternity to summon a model (choose the right one, do the flips, look for the model in the case, look for the card...), and then complains that you took an extra 30 seconds thinking about your next activation. 

1 hour ago, solkan said:

That, after all, also results in the elimination of slow players from the tournament without involving the event organizer.

 

That's exactly what I want. Slow players have to play faster or lose the tournament. 

 

1 hour ago, solkan said:

But I'm still waiting for someone to make a post in the form "We played a few games with chess clocks to see which timing patterns would be effecttive.  And this is what we found:". 

The first step will be to make an exact dueling protocol when to run the time. The most problematic moment is the time between the Turns (shuffling the deck etc.). I suppose that there should be a given amount of time for both players to do it and both clocks have to be stopped. If you take longer than required to shuffle the deck, your clock starts to run. 

41 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

But both players in the example are playing slow since they are both almost out of time. The player with a few seconds left on the clock has gone from getting blown out to winning by virtue of making a few quicker moves than his opponent (and with that sort of score differential has probably had many fewer activations to contend with). Why is one player punished while the other is rewarded?

Again -- learn to play quicker and you won't face such a situation at all. 

And, by the way, I consider the score differential an extremely bad tie-breaker; at least an a lot worse than Buchholtz system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchholz_system). 

2 hours ago, Sklertic said:

Time hasn't been a big issue at the tournaments I've played, and I can't recall ever seeing a big discussion about it on these forums

In my area (Moscow) it is a big issue, though. 

 

2 hours ago, Sklertic said:

Malifaux can be a pretty stressing game, and a chess clock would dramatically add to that.

Indeed.

2 hours ago, Sklertic said:

If someone is slow playing, you tell them to hurry up or contact the TO and work it out that way.

How would you work out if your opponent is just a noob, not someone who intentionally delays the game, but this still means that you can't score because you are out of time? 

 

2 hours ago, Sklertic said:

Some crews have a complex order of operations, and it would punish them more than a simpler crew, which isn't fair.

That's fair. If you pick a crew that is harder to manage, that's your responsibility  to manage it in time. 

 

3 hours ago, Ludvig said:

Lets say my opponent had take prisoner and take one for the team. The strat is whatever but I have scored every turn so far and my opponent hasn't scored. My model targeted for take prisoner is dead and I haven't touched his model that had take one for the team, I currently have eight secure vp and will get a ninth at the end of turn 5, my opponent has 0 VP. The game ends with two of my activations to spare on turn 5 which I could have just passed. My opponent has less than two minutes or something left. In your opinion I deserve to lose that game?

If you play chess and your next turn would be checkmate, but you run out of time, you would still lose. 

One way that I have suggested is to make a Henchman rule out the situation, or at least make you keep your current VP. But the intent is that you just shouldn't normally be running out of time. You should be able to complete your part of the turn quickly enough. 

Again, to all of you -- if you play quickly enough, you will have no problems under the chess clock. If your opponents also play quickly enough, you won't suffer either. But if someone is very slow, they are punished. That's how it should work, and the only thing to find out is the value of the punishment. 

[WWHSD]

1 minute ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

The effect of the clock is players acting quickly. Quick enough for the clock not to matter for them, not impacting their results, like players in chess learn to play with chess clock and have problems when transitioning from uncontrolled games, but play well when getting used to time control. 

...

Again, to all of you -- if you play quickly enough, you will have no problems under the chess clock. If your opponents also play quickly enough, you won't suffer either. But if someone is very slow, they are punished. That's how it should work, and the only thing to find out is the value of the punishment. 

What's the harm in allowing a game that's slated to last 2 hours run the full two hours instead of cutting the game short and awarding the win to the player that used less time.

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

2 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

What's the harm in allowing a game that's slated to last 2 hours run the full two hours instead of cutting the game short and awarding the win to the player that used less time.

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. 

We have to either play friendly games with unlimited time or admit that the time is limited and adjust to the limits. 

[WWHSD]

19 minutes 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. 

We have to either play friendly games with unlimited time or admit that the time is limited and adjust to the limits. 

But you're treating a game that is clearly decided and makes it into the 5th round and can have the remaining VP talked out the same way that you're treating the 2-1 game that is called at the end of round 2. 

What happens if you run out of time in the 6th, 7th, or later rounds  if the flips dictate that the game doesn't end at round 5? 

[Baskakov_Dmitriy]

3 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

What happens if you run out of time in the 6th, 7th, or later rounds  if the flips dictate that the game doesn't end at round 5?

Actually, I would probably cut the rule about the flips out and just consider the game to be finished when Turn 5 ends -- for many reasons. But even in that case -- play faster. Learn to have spare time. Learn quick decision making. Prepare better. 

4 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

But you're treating a game that is clearly decided and makes it into the 5th round and can have the remaining VP talked out the same way that you're treating the 2-1 game that is called at the end of round 2.

Again -- one of the possibilities is just to use TO judgement to determine the outcomes, considering that the faster player has scored everything that is theoretically possible to score. And again, learn to play faster and such things wouldn't happen to you because even if your opponent runs out of time, you don't. 

[WWHSD]

9 minutes ago, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

Again -- one of the possibilities is just to use TO judgement to determine the outcomes, considering that the faster player has scored everything that is theoretically possible to score. And again, learn to play faster and such things wouldn't happen to you because even if your opponent runs out of time, you don't. 

Just because one player has time left doesn't mean that they were the faster player. If they've had a couple of models paralyzed or unable to do anything more useful than just eat up activations then having time left on the clock isn't through any virtue of theirs it's because they got rolled and their opponent didn't leave them with much to do.  

There's enough little fiddly bits in Malifaux that get screwed up regularly by players. Having to manage complicated clock switching procedures (which by itself adds to the time it takes to do anything) and worry about your opponent playing the clock game against you as well as Malifaux seems like it's  more trouble than it's worth.

[Clement]

On 3/6/2018 at 2:16 AM, Baskakov_Dmitriy said:

 

1. Your turn, your clock runs. You choose a model to activate and declare an action and its target. You ask your opponent if he agrees that it's possible or if there are defensive abilities to be announced, and switch the clock.
2. If your opponent considers the action legal, they have to announce Df or Wp and cover. They don't have to announce things like Hard to Kill or incorporeal -- if you want to read your opponent's cards, you have to spend your own time for that. So, if your opponent switches the clock back, it means that they agree and allow you to proceed. They cannot argue that the action wasn't possible after they switch now.
3. You decide if you proceed with the action as announced. If you don't, you return to step 1. If you do, you declare Soulstone use and flip a card for your attack, there is no way back after you flip.
4. Your opponent flips for defense and determines the duel winner. If they have lost the duel, they decide if they cheat fate. If they have won, they just switch the clock back.
5. You decide if you cheat fate and switch the clock. 
6. If your opponent won the original duel, they can cheat fate now.
7. You declare one trigger.
8. Your opponent declares one trigger. 
9. You determine success and flip for the damage if applicable.
10. Your opponent decides to use a Soulstone for prevention and flips and they do.  

That's a lot of switches, but comparable to such amount in quick chess. If we make the clock clickable really fast, things should go OK. 

As others have said, if you feel like this is something worth investigating, by all means give it a shot.  If it turns out to be a good thing you can bring back your results and others can give it a spin, no harm in experimenting.

Off the top of my head, the thing I'm really worried about is how many switches you'd be talking about per game.  If we assume you're running a crew of 7 models and a master, let's assume you're looking at about 1-2 opposed duels (or at least trips through that chart), per model, per turn, with 2 for the master (yes, it varies with crew, turn number, etc, but we're just guessing here).  That would mean that in a turn you go through 21 "flip sequences" for the normal models on both sides and 4 for the masters.

So by your chart, that's 250ish "flip the clock" events per turn (of course more on early turns, less on later turns).  That feels really hard to keep up with.  You may discover with a few plays of this that some of this could be condensed or something, but you'd need to play-test to find that out.

The only other chess clock using games I play (Warmachine and Guild Ball) both get around this because their dual sequence for hitting something is generally "check a few numbers, roll dice" with a few odd things thrown in.

 

By all means, try it out.