Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[John Murphy]

And how, exactly, does this help prevent the kind of abuse you refer
to?

Players who purposely delay are _already_ hurting themselves (better
tourney score to lose 5-2 than 3-2, remember) so obviously that is
not going to motivate them. What it _will_ do, however, is _further_
penalize their opponents who are trying to finish the game up.

Nothing will change in any behavior except to add a further penalty
point into the stress level for the guy trying to finish - and the
attendant decrease in sportsmanship likely to result from that.

In short all it will do is make it _more_ of a problem, both in
scoring and atmosphere.

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "riderofrohan2001" <yaw@m...>
wrote:
>
> I agree with Mark in that 8 turns is a very reasonable number to
> expect players who know the rules to complete in 4 hours.
>
> I also happen to agree with the suggestion for the use of clocks.
>
> There is an obvious difference between new players who are
> struggling with the rules and experienced players who are delaying
> the game. Talking to someone elso, looking up rules, asking the
> judge questions that both players already know the answer to,
going
> to the bathroom when it is your turn to deploy, move, etc. These
> are examples of delay, pure and simple.
>
> One simple solution, though harsh, using 8 turns as a base would
be
> to take a point off both player's scores for each bound (or 2
> bounds) not completed in the alotted time.
>
> Most of the other games I play have a set number of turns that are
> to be completed and because of that factor, I do not remember a
game
> where I thought an opponent was stalling for advantage. This is
an
> unfortunate problem Warrior has at the tournament level, as there
is
> currently no mechanisms to prevent it. Confronting one's opponent
> is not something many of us want to have to do at the game table.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stone <mark@d...> wrote:
> > --- On April 16 John Murphy said: ---
> > >
> > > Some players are learning the rules. Saying they should not be
> > > playing in tournaments is ridiculous and Mark should be
ashamed
> of
> > > himself for making a statement like that. He's a bright man and
> > > knows better I am sure.
> > >
> >
> > Let me clarify.
> >
> > I assumed from the context of this thread that we were talking
> about the Cold
> > Wars team tournament, and it was in that context that I made my
> remarks. So I
> > will revise:
> >
> > At the NICT, and at the Cold Wars team tourney, if you are not
> reasonably sure
> > you can get through 8 bounds in 4 hours, then I have no problem
> with some sort
> > of penalty befalling you. These are _the_ big events, where the
> best and most
> > competitive players come out, and prompt play is both a courtesy
> and a
> > necessity.
> >
> > At any other tournament than these two, I agree that our
> priorities should be
> > recruitment and education. Slow play at a lower key event is
> frustrating, but
> > if it is indeed part of the learning experience for someone,
then
> of course we
> > should all understand and accomodate.
> >
> > And John, I apologize if you took my meaning to be anything
other
> than the
> > above.
> >
> >
> > -Mark Stone

[John Murphy]

I'd like to know the answer to the question posed -

Were there any games in the NICT or doubles where neither side scored
at least 3 points and the game got thru less than 8 (or 6, pick a
number) bounds in 4 hours?

In short, is there anyone who actualy admits to purposefully delaying
the game and if so why? Or are we just ascribing such behavior to
everyone else, without really knowing, out of our own antsy-ness?

Is there any hard data or evidence? Or simply anecdotes and vague
references?

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> This is one of those areas where Ewan and I disagree. I'm 100% opposed to the
> chess clock system until all reasonable alternatives have been explored.

<snip>

Mark's ideas seem fine, except that they lack any enforcement mechanism /
way to determine who has been using time, as well as any punitive side.
We get to the next round and have only played four bounds - what then? If
I claim that I've only used maybe 20 min, but my opponent claims we've
been moving at comparable speed?

So I think that there needs to be some measure of who is using the time,
and some way to allow those impacted by opponents' slow play to not be
harmed in tournament standing. I'm not wedded to clocks, but they *have*
been very well received in the couple of tournament settings I've seen
them introduced to (often with, as here, significant initial player
reservations).

[A couple of old Avalon Hill games, at the World Boardgaming
Championships, as it happens. Still in use today to basically universal
acclaim.]

[Ewan McNay]

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Mark Stone wrote:
> While this is an unfortunate issue when it arises, I hope we don't blow it out
> of proportion. Does this really come up all that often? Just out of
curiousity,
> was there anyone involved in a game at Cold Wars where:
> (a) The high scoring side scored less than 3 points, and
> (b) less than 6 bounds were played

CW the one slow (of four) game was a 3-3. H'Con the ridiculous NICT first
game was either a 2-0 or a 3-0 (I think the latter). Both proved to be
the margin of loss in the tournament vs. having the chance at a 5-point
win.

So, yeah, it both happens and is very relevant.

e

I think we may be slipping away from the point here.

If there's no time limits, slowness of play isn't a big issue, but you
simply can't run a tournament that way.

And in a game with a time limit half of the time for the game belongs
to each player. Thats a key element of fair play and sportsmanship.
If a player takes one second more, whatever the reason, he's stealing
his opponent's time.

With all respect to John and Mark's opinion that the issue is less
important at small tournaments, I have to disagree. Big or small
tournament, a player who is playing slowly is a problem. People come
to tournaments to compete, and have a reasonable expectation of
getting a fair game. This is not unreasonable on their part.

In the case of the new slow player the judges can assign a "coach" to
move them along quickly, and ensure any rules questions are answered
promptly. I've done this as a tourney organizer, and its been done
for me as a new player. It works, and it solves a small element of
the problem.

But the chronically and deliberately slow are another problem, and one
that clearly exists from the anecdotes related in this thread. But
what concerns me as a player who enjoys tournaments a great deal is
Ewan's earlier comment:

>I've asked umpires - Scott, in particular - for help, and it's been
>explicitly stated that there's no mechanism to make folks play at any
>given speed.

And thats a big problem. Even if only a fraction of the players are
chronically or deliberately slow, there should be a mechanism for
dealing with them. What that is is another question...

Clocking games does ensure fairness as the clock is completely
impartial. But it also removes an element of trust from a game, which
I won't discount as important to friendly play.

Community action is another solution. It doesn't solve the problem
immediately, but players who are required to shape up or ship out
will do one or the other, and benefit the community whichever they
choose. But somebody has to be willing to be the tough guy, and its
also been my experience that this can be unevenly applied due to the
popularity, experience, or what not of the offender.

Active judging is another option. When the judge stops by each table
he should find out what bound players are on, and if play is moving to
slowly he can apply some external pressure to speed things along.

A friendlier option is to allow a player to request that their game be
referreed if a problem develops, or even if they perceive that they
may be a problem.

These latter options combined with clear statements by the organizers
as to expectations for sportsmanship and speed of play do require
slightly heavier staffing of tournaments, but it's been my experience
that this is never a bad thing. As a tournament organizer I've found
that the success and friendliness of a tournament is directly related
to how often someone stops by and sees how things are going.

Have fun!
Cole

[Charles Yaw]

> I'd like to know the answer to the question posed -
>
> Were there any games in the NICT or doubles where neither side
scored
> at least 3 points and the game got thru less than 8 (or 6, pick a
> number) bounds in 4 hours?

John,

I think "three" is the wrong number. If you are playing to try to win
the tournament "five" is the magic number. And yes, I had a game that
was less than "five" that was played to four rounds....

BTW, I enjoyed the doubles game Jon and I played against you. The
game went multiple rounds, with both sides moving quickly, working to
ququickly resovle problems and thus was able to get to a bound for a
decision. If either side had used delaying tactics, then we would
most likely have played to a 2-2 tie, not what I am ever in a game
for. Even though luck took a nasty turn (from my point of view) on
the last turn, the game was satisfying in that there was a
conclusion. All games should be played enough bounds to offer such a
chance to both players.

I once "lost" a game to a player who killed a couple of my light
infantry units and then went into a major stall. Boring.

One other thing. Jon Cleaves pointed out that he sometimes inter
mixes commands. I play often against Jon and I know this works.
However, in doubles, unless you are willing to let your partner move
your command, it can slow the game way down waiting for the "partner"
to roll the dice or move a unit. If you are playing doubles with
someone, you should being willing to let them assist your moves to
speed up the game.

Charles

>
>
> In short, is there anyone who actualy admits to purposefully
delaying
> the game and if so why? Or are we just ascribing such behavior to
> everyone else, without really knowing, out of our own antsy-ness?
>
> Is there any hard data or evidence? Or simply anecdotes and vague
> references?

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Okay, I thought this was going to personal mail and it ended up here. I
appologize to all involved and am most embarrased that my private email ended up
in this forum. I would appreciate if all parties would end this flame here and
now. It has been difficult enough for those of you that know me to maintain my
silence on this issue.

kw




---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Murphy]

Yeah, sorry about all this. I just get a bit of a reaction to the
whole "power gamer" thing in principle - though, oddly, my experience
playing the supposed type over the table has been fine despite what
they modestly joke about themselves. (in fact I have to admit actually
the _worst_ instance of sportsmanship I can think of at Lancaster is -
and I really hate to admit it - my own, towards the end of last year's
NICT, though it had nothing to do with stalling)

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> Ok, we need to kill off this part of the thread.

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 17/04/2005 14:00:00 GMT Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

I'd like to know the answer to the question posed -

Were there any games in the NICT or doubles where neither side scored
at least 3 points and the game got thru less than 8 (or 6, pick a
number) bounds in 4 hours?

In short, is there anyone who actualy admits to purposefully delaying
the game and if so why? Or are we just ascribing such behavior to
everyone else, without really knowing, out of our own antsy-ness?

Is there any hard data or evidence? Or simply anecdotes and vague
references?






Its pretty obvious that the time limits need extending. If i ever do get to
run a UK tourney i will aim for longer games than you guys in the US.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Mark Mallard]

In a message dated 20/04/2005 15:30:09 GMT Standard Time,
ewan.mcnay@... writes:

Jon and I agree here. We used (UK) to run 7th comps at 1600 with 2.5 hour
rounds, and rarely not get a complete result.




Yes i was there many times at Derby, it resulted in rushed games and
dissatifaction and worse from those less used to the current rule interps.

I was merely agreeing that there is lttle you can do to make people play
faster without causing agro, so the logical step is to either increase time or
decrease points. Penalising slower players is not an option without using
clocks.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

Please no, Mark. The current four hours is already positively glacial! Longer
and three rounds would tkae more than a day to complete! lol

J

-----Original Message-----
From: markmallard7@...
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:02:43 EDT
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re:Speed of Play (was Turns)




In a message dated 17/04/2005 14:00:00 GMT Standard Time,
jjmurphy@... writes:

I'd like to know the answer to the question posed -

Were there any games in the NICT or doubles where neither side scored
at least 3 points and the game got thru less than 8 (or 6, pick a
number) bounds in 4 hours?

In short, is there anyone who actualy admits to purposefully delaying
the game and if so why? Or are we just ascribing such behavior to
everyone else, without really knowing, out of our own antsy-ness?

Is there any hard data or evidence? Or simply anecdotes and vague
references?






Its pretty obvious that the time limits need extending. If i ever do get to
run a UK tourney i will aim for longer games than you guys in the US.

mark mallard


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Ewan McNay]

Jon and I agree here. We used (UK) to run 7th comps at 1600 with 2.5 hour
rounds, and rarely not get a complete result.

JonCleaves@... wrote:

> Please no, Mark. The current four hours is already positively glacial!
Longer and three rounds would tkae more than a day to complete! lol
>
> J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: markmallard7@...
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 10:02:43 EDT
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re:Speed of Play (was Turns)
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 17/04/2005 14:00:00 GMT Standard Time,
> jjmurphy@... writes:
>
> I'd like to know the answer to the question posed -
>
> Were there any games in the NICT or doubles where neither side scored
> at least 3 points and the game got thru less than 8 (or 6, pick a
> number) bounds in 4 hours?
>
> In short, is there anyone who actualy admits to purposefully delaying
> the game and if so why? Or are we just ascribing such behavior to
> everyone else, without really knowing, out of our own antsy-ness?
>
> Is there any hard data or evidence? Or simply anecdotes and vague
> references?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Its pretty obvious that the time limits need extending. If i ever do get to
> run a UK tourney i will aim for longer games than you guys in the US.
>
> mark mallard
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[scott holder]

> Jon and I agree here. We used (UK) to run 7th comps at 1600 with
2.5 hour
> rounds, and rarely not get a complete result.

There is no player movement here to extend the length of time in
games. Ugh, 4 hours is *bad* enough. One reason I prefer the mini
format is because it's 3 hours long.

scott

[scott holder]

> Yes i was there many times at Derby, it resulted in rushed games
and dissatifaction and worse from those less used to the current
rule interps. I was merely agreeing that there is lttle you can do
to make people play faster without causing agro, so the logical
step is to either increase time or decrease points. Penalising
slower players is not an option without using clocks.

I was at Derby once. The 2.5 hour time limit for 1600 point games
was, imnsho, insane. And don't get me wrong, I'm not a slow player--
in fact, during all of my games at Derby, I was the one in all of my
opponents faces, forcing the battle--and these were all Brits who
presumably were more familiar with the pacing of a 2.5 hour game
than I was. One way the Derby organizers could have such a
draconian round length was having preset terrain. Lemme ammend
that, "preset terrain" at Derby meant, usually, one small piece
tossed in as an apparent afterthought. Most games were played on a
billiard table, or something close to it. No wonder all the
Belgians showed up with Mongols:( But that also meant that both
players weren't slowed down when dealing with terrain issues.
Personally, I found the setting bland and hence, never tried
to "force" the issue back here.

There's always a balance in concocting format, nobody knows that
better than moi. And no system is perfect by any stretch. I feel
that the current system of 1600pt/4 hour rounds, 1200pt/3 hour
rounds on "full size" tables is probably the best balancing act we
can do when selecting our own terrain. If we cut down table size,
sure, cutting round length is something to be looked at. We've
experimented in KC with the 2.5 hour Mini on a 4x4 (15mm) or 6x4
(25mm) table since we've gone to playing the Mini on "full size"
tables the last couple of years in order to provide more room so
that some armies that you never see become viable. The 2.5 hour
rounds on "smaller" tables seems to work but again, you need to be
hustling along.

Extending round length is a *total* non issue here in the States.
My experience is that chronic slow players "expand" to fill the
vacuum, for example, if a chronic slow player gets in 4 bounds in a
4 hour game, he's probably only gonna get 4 bounds in a 4.5 hour
game and so on. That's been my experience in the early days of TOG
and twiddling with format, hence the settling on 1600/4 hour and
1200/3 hour. Again not perfect, doesn't satisfy everyone but then
*no* format will.

scott

[Ewan McNay]

Scott - from the umpire's p.o.v., is there anything that the player can do
to try to get games to move faster?

In the extreme, where your opponent claims sudden diahorrea and vanishes
for 3 hours.. any remedy? {I know, Pepto-Bismol..}

irobot00 wrote:

>
>>Yes i was there many times at Derby, it resulted in rushed games
>
> and dissatifaction and worse from those less used to the current
> rule interps. I was merely agreeing that there is lttle you can do
> to make people play faster without causing agro, so the logical
> step is to either increase time or decrease points. Penalising
> slower players is not an option without using clocks.
>
> I was at Derby once. The 2.5 hour time limit for 1600 point games
> was, imnsho, insane. And don't get me wrong, I'm not a slow player--
> in fact, during all of my games at Derby, I was the one in all of my
> opponents faces, forcing the battle--and these were all Brits who
> presumably were more familiar with the pacing of a 2.5 hour game
> than I was. One way the Derby organizers could have such a
> draconian round length was having preset terrain. Lemme ammend
> that, "preset terrain" at Derby meant, usually, one small piece
> tossed in as an apparent afterthought. Most games were played on a
> billiard table, or something close to it. No wonder all the
> Belgians showed up with Mongols:( But that also meant that both
> players weren't slowed down when dealing with terrain issues.
> Personally, I found the setting bland and hence, never tried
> to "force" the issue back here.
>
> There's always a balance in concocting format, nobody knows that
> better than moi. And no system is perfect by any stretch. I feel
> that the current system of 1600pt/4 hour rounds, 1200pt/3 hour
> rounds on "full size" tables is probably the best balancing act we
> can do when selecting our own terrain. If we cut down table size,
> sure, cutting round length is something to be looked at. We've
> experimented in KC with the 2.5 hour Mini on a 4x4 (15mm) or 6x4
> (25mm) table since we've gone to playing the Mini on "full size"
> tables the last couple of years in order to provide more room so
> that some armies that you never see become viable. The 2.5 hour
> rounds on "smaller" tables seems to work but again, you need to be
> hustling along.
>
> Extending round length is a *total* non issue here in the States.
> My experience is that chronic slow players "expand" to fill the
> vacuum, for example, if a chronic slow player gets in 4 bounds in a
> 4 hour game, he's probably only gonna get 4 bounds in a 4.5 hour
> game and so on. That's been my experience in the early days of TOG
> and twiddling with format, hence the settling on 1600/4 hour and
> 1200/3 hour. Again not perfect, doesn't satisfy everyone but then
> *no* format will.
>
> scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>