Unofficial Timed game solution

[CannonFodder]

I'm looking at running a couple tournaments in the new year and given we have a couple people who are not the fastest, and trying to bring in new players who will be slow. I thought of this as a possible way of balancing some issues with games that occur if a game does not go its full 6 rounds.

1) After normal time is called, all activation and turns continue normally, but only models unengaged may only take walk actions. engaged models skip their activation. If a model enters another models melee range they immediately stop their walk action and are considered engaged. If the activating model has longer melee range than other models and has not entered Their melee range, then they may finish their move action, but may not start a walk action if engaging another model.

2) charge action may be announced, and the model may move if full charge distance regardless of other models melee ranges, but it does not make an attack, and afterwards is considered engaged, and may not make any further actions.

3) Initiative flips occur normally, but no soul stones may be used.

4) If normal time is called before turn 5 starts, Announced Body guard is worth 1 VP point.

5) if you are engaging the target of deliver a message with a non-insignificant model at the end of turn 6, and have not delivered a message, then score 1 VP.

6) Supply wagon, moves like a normal model, and if engaged does not move at end of turn.

I realize everyone is going to say that people don't need more time but in MY LGS some of the newer players who I want to keep interested will need it. and playing for a day and not finishing a game is frustrating.

I would appreciate feedback on this.

Edited December 11, 2012 by CannonFodder

[Hateful Darkblack]

You got to be kidding on that, no way that is true.

You caught me! I'm kidding on that.

[nix]

I strongly recommend sticking to time limits and not changing the rules for what happens after time. The tournament round should stop when time is called. I am all for allowing more time in the rounds, and think the current (12/12/12) GG document needs an adjustment on the time scale.

With that said, if I comment on the OP question and the changes are going to be implemented per the original post, here is my thoughts.

My concern is that your only allowing movement and positioning based objectives to be scored. Your completely leaving out Slaughter, Contain Power, Escape and Survive, Grudge, Kill Protege, Assassinate, etc.

Your allowing the turns to continue with restricted actions, but only restricting specific actions. I would recommend allowing all models to continue to activate "as normal", but instead limit every model to 1AP. No (0) actions and no more than 1AP spent per activation. This will both speed up the final turns (after time is called) as well as allow models to still act in a limited fashion without arbitrarily blocking specific strategies/schemes.

Edited December 12, 2012 by nix

[Forar]

Limiting models to 1 AP seems like a fairly elegant solution. Movement is possible, and if you're just one hit away from killing their protege or containing their power (which sounds naughtier than intended...) you at least have a shot at it.

2) Determine when you want the round to end and, about 30-45 minutes before you want the round to end, call last turn. Whatever turn the players are currently on will be the last and hopefully they have enough time to finish it up, but no new turns can start after that point. This has the advantage of guaranteeing one player will not unfairly get more actions than another, but has the disadvantage of potentially depriving players of a turn they may have had time to play.

Calling the round 30-45 min from the end seems... problematic. If people are struggling to complete 6 rounds in 70 minutes, I doubt they'll get anywhere near 5 in 35 minutes. Coming from tournament experiences with Magic, they do something similar, but the rounds are matches of 3 games in 45 minutes (at the level I played at), and when time was called you played out 5 more turns (active player finished their current turn, so essentially each player had 3 turns to win the game). This seems like it would risk a game with slower crews and/or players having their game effectively called on turn 3, exacerbating the issue.

Now, obviously an average Malifaux game is going to take vastly longer than an average Magic game, but to use a similar approach it seems prudent to perhaps call it closer to 10 minutes (since the turns often go faster the later in the game it is, as models die and are removed, reducing both activations and options that can complicate matters) with X minutes to complete the current turn.

... and now I realize I'm likely trying to debate tournament specifics with someone who probably has orders of magnitude more Malifaux tournament experience than I, so note I'm working from other game experience, casual Malifaux game experience and conjecture based on the statements of players at the Gencon series of tournaments (casual and master alike). I stand behind my opinions, but respect that there may be subtleties or intricacies I'm missing here.

I will admit as someone new to tabletop miniatures games (only been into it for the past year, with Malifaux as my first), the idea of trying to cram a whole game (or as much of one as possible) in barely over an hour makes the idea of participating in even a casual tournament daunting.

[Justin]

Last turn is unlikely to be called right at the start of a turn. It is far more likely the turn is partially over, and just guarantees people don't start a brand new turn 5 minutes before time is called.

---------- Post added at 03:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:30 PM ----------

... and now I realize I'm likely trying to debate tournament specifics with someone who probably has orders of magnitude more Malifaux tournament experience than I, so note I'm working from other game experience, casual Malifaux game experience and conjecture based on the statements of players at the Gencon series of tournaments (casual and master alike). I stand behind my opinions, but respect that there may be subtleties or intricacies I'm missing here.

I will admit as someone new to tabletop miniatures games (only been into it for the past year, with Malifaux as my first), the idea of trying to cram a whole game (or as much of one as possible) in barely over an hour makes the idea of participating in even a casual tournament daunting.

Oh, I should probably respond to this too. I don't think appeal to authority is a very good argument, so don't worry about arguing with someone who has played Malifaux more. When people are right they are right, and when they are wrong they are wrong, regardless of experience. So, by all means, disagree with me.

[CannonFodder]

My concern is that your only allowing movement and positioning based objectives to be scored. Your completely leaving out Slaughter, Contain Power, Escape and Survive, Grudge, Kill Protege, Assassinate, etc.

Slaughter is actually completely balanced in a timed game. Since both side hadsame time to kill models. Contain power is about positioning as well as killing opponent master, so the revised rules would be OK. Escape and service would need work and would like to hear suggestions. Kill protoge and grudge I Was thinking would need to be like announced bodygaurd, but giving 1 VP instead seamed like it would lead to possible abuse.

I kinda like you idea of 1 AP per model, but I was hoping to eliminate all flips. the fact that if a model is engaged they are effectivly frozen locks a lot of models in place if both side have 4 models in play, half frozen, then each player only has 2 models to move with no flips. Should be done in 60 seconds. Admittedly it gives models like Johan nice little boost since it has a 3 inch melee and if placed right can road block a complete avenue, and lock 3 other models easily. The already placed models still count for where they are but allows the models dedicated to objective grabbing make it easily if there is no opposition.

PS... Thanks for offering constructive critism instead of saying its a bad idea.

[G. Footman]

so far i've only played a couple of Halflingspy's tournaments, just having a time limit seems fine enough without adding or taking away rules

[ravenborne]

If Malifaux is to be played to 6 turns, and give all Masters a decent chance at winning, rounds should be 2 hours. I really do not see the problem, 40k tournaments run that way all the time.

If that is till too long, perhaps tournament games should be limited to 4 turns. That way everyone knows going in they will never have more than 4 turns to develop a plan. Casual games can stay at 6 turns+ but we might as well just go ahead and be upfront that tournament games have a 4 turn limit.

[nilus]

If Malifaux is to be played to 6 turns, and give all Masters a decent chance at winning, rounds should be 2 hours. I really do not see the problem, 40k tournaments run that way all the time.

I don't agree with this one. I know there have been a vocal minority that rags on Gaining Grounds for not being enough time and I agree a time boost of maybe 10 to 15 minutes would be good, but the fact is I have ran a lot of tournaments and even in the current Gaining Grounds times many tables have finished a full 6 turns.

In all honesty the best way to get people to play faster and complete games in a set time frame is to plan better. Allow plenty of time for registration, write clear rules packs, give players a decent break between each round(and if you are doing more then three rounds give them a lunch break) and as the TO have your table assignment method organized and quick.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

Last turn is unlikely to be called right at the start of a turn. It is far more likely the turn is partially over, and just guarantees people don't start a brand new turn 5 minutes before time is called.

Its an economy of scale. It rarely happens in a small tournament but the more tables you have going the more likely one will be ending a turn right at last turn is called. Usually as a TO I tell them to start up that last turn in that case.

[sharpobjects]

One of main reasons I'm trying this is because the preferred day for a malifaux tournament is sunday and the LGS store opens officially at 1, but I've learned that if they open at 1:30 its early for them. So I would need to expect to start around 2PM, and most people want to leave around 7. so extending the time might be a little hard.

Also even at Gencon against other experienced players, time was a factor. 25 SS at 70 min we ran out, and I was only brought one crew I knew very well (Ophelia). I played one guy who ended up third and he even admitted that if time was not a factor I would have won.

A registration period from 1:30pm - 2pm and start at 2pm with 90 min rounds at 25 stone crews is more than enough time. That is an extra 20 min above your 70 min round experience at GenCon. This allows for a 10-15 min break after round 1 and 2 and end the tournament by 7pm. Give or take 15 min.

IMO it is better to find the right time length for the rounds and size of the game than to make up rules for the final turn.

[ravenborne]

Just because some people can finish in 90 minutes does not mean most players with most crews can. I think only highly experienced players can play a game to six turns with slower Masters. It really punishes new players.

But then, I have not run nearly as many events as you nilus. And I am also talking about 30 or 35 SS games.

I just honestly feel the short time limits shift the meta too strongly. Its one of the reasons I have gone to leagues over tournaments in my area.

Edited December 13, 2012 by ravenborne

[mythicFOX]

IMO it is better to find the right time length for the rounds and size of the game than to make up rules for the final turn.

Ultimately this has to be the answer. If players aren't finishing their games in the allotted ammount of time then the problem must be with one (or more) of three things: the time limit, the game size or the speed players play at. None of these is a problem with the rules of Malifaux.

Fix the problem, don't change the rules of the game. The game is balanced for six turns, let's try to have six turns a round.

[Adran]

That proves my point. You just implied that playing the game normally, is stacking the deck against newer players.

I feel that you should preserve the rules of the game despite popular opinion.

Example: Last week I was playing against one of my newer players(started in August), he had never played against me and had received most of his experience from demo games with the other Henchman in my area, casual games with his brother, and other players in our group. After explaining how line of sight worked multiple times and informing him that he can ask me questions whenever he feels the need, before he makes a decision, he tried to target something with more than 3 inches of obscuring terrain between the shooter and the target. After he measured and I told him what happens, I explained that the action fails and he does not get to use the AP to walk instead and then shoot, a failed action equals a wasted AP. The look on his face clearly stated that this had never happened to him before, he was not yet expected to follow one of the most basic parameters of the game. 4 months in, hadn't thought of the repercussions of what was just explained to him, and its not his fault, no one actually held him to the rules because he was a new player.

I cannot express the distaste I feel towards the sentiment of making it fair for new players and the above situation. There is no making it fair for new players, your making it easier, when you make it easy for them, you stunt their growth. Have some faith in your players, encourage them to ask as many questions as they want, and tell them they can learn, but it will take some time to get all the information because there is a lot of it. The number one thing that will attract people is a bunch of players having fun, not Malifaux easy mode.

.

Not wanting to get off topic too far, but you were wrong in this example. He is allowed to check if he has line of sight at any time, so shouldn't have wasted an action point on trying something that was not possible. If I were in the other players shoes I would have said I was targeting what ever he tried to to explain that I was going to see if I can see him to demonstrate that I wasn't premeasuring range. But when I worked out I couldn't see him, I haven't spent an action point.

Not sure from your example if it was one model in obscuring terrain, or a clump in between the two.

If it was a case of a model being out of range then I would do what you had done, unless it was a demo game in which case I'd explain what should happen, but allow them to do something else.