Nope. Judges discretion.

As it should be.

there is not strict time limit as any hard limit would be certainly abusable in some way. It is up to each player to play at a pace that will allow for the completion of the game within the time limit.

This topic has been discussed many, many times before and essentially is the reason that we went to a 3-2 scoring system in the first place. When WOTC orginally ran the show back in the old days, it was reasonable (and an accepted tactic) to say kill a random piece to get up on points, then stall, keeping all your main pieces in the back, and using FREE pieces from lobot to get gambit. This led to the gambit change where the piece scoring gambit had to be worth 5 or more and the 3-2 scoring system to encourage engagement. I remember Dennis complaining one time about a game where his opp had 6 or 7 activations, made it to gambit rd 1 when Dennis couldn't and proceeded to stall out and won the game 15-10 when time was called and they had only played 3 rounds.

That being said, there are some match-ups that just will not complete in 1 hr unless 1 of the people just runs like crazy into the other squad to get killed. Some players play slower, some play faster, some are more familiar with maps, etc which all effect how much time each player takes to activate his or her squad. It is essentially up to each player to both maintain a steady speed of play and to make sure their opponent also maintains a steady speed of play to make sure that both players have an equal opportunity to win the game. In the past some obvious things that would indicate someone intentionally stalling would be (playing at different speeds through out the game, like playing really fast in the beginning and then much slower if they have the lead and time is running down, or vice versa, slow in the early game and then lightning quick if they are down on pts and time is getting near, or counting multiple different spots where characters can go then just spinning a mouse or ugg or some other irrelevant commander in the back).

In your example of being out and waiting on your opponent, they should be able to move all their non-relevant pieces pretty quickly (ie uggs, mice, random commanders, etc) and might take a little more time to measure to see if they have shots for their more important pieces. Lancer can take some time to count out and so can swap, but it is still up to the player playing the squad to be able to know their squad well enough to be able to complete most games. The generally accepted rule of the old days was that you should at a very, very minimum be able to complete 6 or more full rounds before time was up. I know at the NY regional there was an issue in 1 game where there were still in round 2 (or it might have been round 3) and the halfway point in time had been called. You should be well beyond "in round 3" when the 30 min marker is called in a 1 hr match.

There are exceptions to nearly every "rule" and it really comes down to game by game.

As a side note, it is to each players benefit to be trying to get a full win. At regionals as well as at Gencon the cut is often decided by who has completed games vs who has tied and gotten a 2pter. I have been to 2 regionals this season where someone went 3-1 but couldn't complete any games (so 6 pts) missed the top 4 cut, and I know from Gencon expereince that in the past 4-2 (12 pts) would nearly guarantee a top 8 while if you had even a single 2 pt victory you would have to hope and pray that your tiebreakers were strong enough. For instance in 2011 1 4-2 (11pts) made it in while 4 others missed the top 8.

It's not like that can't happen with any number of other ruling areas.


Except that our judges, are, yanno, competent. You make them sound like they're biased jerks, which is not the case.


Sure it is. When it's something that dosen't actually affect who kills what, etc, sure it is. No reason to make rules for every aspect of a match. "Roll your dice faster!"

There is no way we can write every single little instance into the floor rules. ESPECIALLY when it comes to "stalling". What one player feels is stalling, isn't to another player. That is why the judge is there. If you think your judge is stalling, call the judge over to observe. It is ultimately down to the judge, which, yes, can vary from judge to judge.

At some point, you have to trust, or at least listen to, the judge. They are the final authority in a tournament. So you must either take off your tin foil hat and suck it up or not play. And judges are human, mistakes can happen. There is no rules lawyering it away.

I honestly don't feel that there are any additional rules that you could apply to improve the situation. Slow play is something that will never go away.

Admittedly, slow play is still one of my biggest issues. I've been playing for almost two and a half years now and while its something I have improved on, I still need some work. I have found that the better I know my squad the faster I can play. My knowledge of the game has also helped.

The thing is, slow play primarily hurts the person playing slow. Provided a judge is called to enforce the issue. In my experience slow play is primarily due to a persons experience level (and sometimes just the way they play) rather than something nefarious. Obviously that isn't always the case but as long as you are playing fast and alert the judge promptly when something is amiss you will likely come out fine w/o getting screwed over most of the time. We are talking about competitive play though and certain individuals will always look for an edge whether on the up and up or not.

I can't see any other way to improve the situation without adding an unnecessary layer of rules that would likely do more harm than good.

I'm taking this to the general discussion thread

do you mean when you PLAY them or when you play AGAINST them? Either way you should get more than 4 or 5 rounds in. 6 rounds should be a very minimum and most players should be able to get 8+ rounds in without unusual circumstances. Lou and I played 11 rounds in Kokomo and still finished in around 45 minutes. In general, it doesn't matter how many activations a player has or whether they have activation control, they need to be able to play at a speed that ensures that they have a reasonable chance to complete a game. With activation control, it should actually go faster as normally players just spin their commanders until their opp is out (the normal point of act control) and then when it is only their activations left, should also be pretty quick because their opp cannot respond.

There are some instances where it just takes time to play out the matches.

And as far as counting/measuring, I think it is ok if you reasonably plan on using the piece, but measuring/counting with 6 different dudes, then just spinning a random ugo in the back could be considered stalling depending on the circumstances of the game.

@ Urbanjedi, I don't like playing them at all. Because to me they are a slower to play on each side. My opponent has to take into accont how I am going to react to his moves which takes him longer yadda yaddayadda