Death Clock - Balancing a system without Points

[9breaker]

I posted this on Warseer before, figured I would post it here too.

Had an interesting thought of a balancing mechanic for AoS in competitive play. Rather than playing to a given point limit, games are set up based on time.
NOTE: I am not saying this is THE definitive solution. There are problems with it, but its worth thinking about. I haven't tested this but felt it was an interesting approach that might be worth discussing.

For those of you not familiar, the Death Clock is a mechanic used in Privateer Press competitive scene, where both players are alotted a certain amount of time for the entire game... say 60 minutes. This requires a chess clock (or mobile app). During a player's turn, they can spend as much time as they want, but the time is deducted from their total time. Games will play out normally (with scenarios etc) but with the added threat that if your time runs out, you lose the game. I believe there is a minimum amount of time that has to be spent during your turn.

You would comp it further with limitations on Hero models, monster models, number of duplicate warscrolls, Max number of wounds per warscroll, remove sudden death rules..

Some benefits of this system:
- Players have to govern their own list building. Sure you can technically drop your whole collection down... but if you spend 45 minutes with your first turn, you are in serious threat of timing yourself out. The army has to be large enough to accomplish its goals in scenario, but not so large that you are fumbling for time or so small that you risk being tabled. This is based on how well you know the game and make decisions quickly, and puts a little more skill into the list building aspect.

- It puts a check on summoning more units, as the more guys you bring on, the more time you will eat up. Time required to cast the spell, and deploying 30 models, and then having to move those 30 models the next turn will eat up a significant chunk of time.

Some obvious problems with this sort of system:
- It punishes horde style armies. But I would argue that this is true in any timed tournament environment. This problem could be addressed in 2 ways - 1) remove the Sudden Death rule 2) awarding additional time (but not too much time) to players with larger armies. For example, in a 60 minute death clock game, if Player A's army is 1/3 or larger than Player B's army, then Player A gets an additional 10 minutes. This is a small bonus that does not tip the balance in favor of the horde army (ie the army is 1/3 larger but the player only gets 1/6 more time).

- This system does nothing to address internal balances between units. One way around this would be with some limitations to duplicates of warscrolls taken. Aside from this, I'm not sure you can address these issues. Stormvermin will be better than clanrats without points to balance them out.

Thoughts?

[Auticus]

This does not stop someone from breaking the system and showing up with a force that is totally skewed and busted.

While I like the idea of clocks in general in public events (I use them), I don't think that a clock will stop someone from breaking the game. It does stop people from sandbagging though, which is a "tactic" that I deplore.

[nsc]

"sandbagging" as I understand it (in the fighting game community) means purposefully playing worse than you actually are to then later play at your full potential and surprise people.

Slow play (from magic infractions) are when a player deliberately plays slowly in order to run out the time in a round to win an advantage by time stall, which as you have mentioned auticus, is a terrible way to claim a victory and ruins the game by limiting how much the opponent gets to play.

However, what 9breaker is suggesting, is each player having their own clock, and when you run out of time you lose, similar to chess, magic online, or some other game systems.

In general I love the clock as an idea for keeping things fast paced and reducing time spent analyzing potential plays, however in casual play this seems counter intuitive since many people like to relax and chat about non-game related things (sometimes in private gaming sessions some beverages are consumed which further slow down gameplay). For this reason I don't expect people will be too happy about a chess-clock where running out of time means you lose the game. Sure tournament players are used to time limits, but not "you lose" kind of time limits.

[Auticus]

"sandbagging" as I understand it (in the fighting game community) means purposefully playing worse than you actually are to then later play at your full potential and surprise people.

Slow play (from magic infractions) are when a player deliberately plays slowly in order to run out the time in a round to win an advantage by time stall, which as you have mentioned auticus, is a terrible way to claim a victory and ruins the game by limiting how much the opponent gets to play.

However, what 9breaker is suggesting, is each player having their own clock, and when you run out of time you lose, similar to chess, magic online, or some other game systems.

In general I love the clock as an idea for keeping things fast paced and reducing time spent analyzing potential plays, however in casual play this seems counter intuitive since many people like to relax and chat about non-game related things (sometimes in private gaming sessions some beverages are consumed which further slow down gameplay). For this reason I don't expect people will be too happy about a chess-clock where running out of time means you lose the game. Sure tournament players are used to time limits, but not "you lose" kind of time limits.

Sandbagging as I know it from tournaments is scoring as many points as you can quickly and then sitting on the clock and playing purposely slow to drain the clock out and win on points.

[9breaker]

Sandbagging as I know it from tournaments is scoring as many points as you can quickly and then sitting on the clock and playing purposely slow to drain the clock out and win on points.

Death clock timers are used in the Warmachine and Hordes tournaments, and works as how nsc summarized it. Purposely playing slow would only be to your own detriment. I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

My point is to use time as a balancing mechanic in lieu of a point value system. Not to address broken interactions that could come up between individual units. That can be addressed by through means (erratas, faqs, comp system).

And again, meant for tournament/competitive play and could also be used as a means for a quick pick-up game at the LGS. If you are looking for a more chill, and slower pace casual game with friends, then simply agree on the forces that each side brings.

Losing does seem like a harsh punishment, but in tournament play, I think it works. In this sort of system, the time keeps the player honest and focused on the game. If you lose due to timing out, it sucks, but it is no one's fault but your own. Skilled players should be able to play within the agreed upon limits.

[Auticus]

I was saying that I think that clocks solve the sandbagging issue in regards to players willfully playing slow.

[40kGamer]

Sandbagging as I know it from tournaments is scoring as many points as you can quickly and then sitting on the clock and playing purposely slow to drain the clock out and win on points.

That's my understanding as well and it really pisses me off when someone does this.

[9breaker]

My apologies, I misread your comment.

[Ben_S]

Without any other composition restrictions, surely this will encourage 'elite' forces made up largely of heroes and monsters.

[Reldane]

My concern would be that it would put anybody off from attempting to play Skaven or Goblins, just as much as saying that one Skaven slave is worth the same as a Phoenix Guard.

[Mr Mystery]

Surely whomever goes first is at a massive disadvantage, as they could run out of time before their opponent has had a chance to?

It's an interesting approach, but I'm just not sure it's at all practical. The game's design isn't for time constrained play, so introducing it may not work all that well.

[9breaker]

Surely whomever goes first is at a massive disadvantage, as they could run out of time before their opponent has had a chance to?

It's an interesting approach, but I'm just not sure it's at all practical. The game's design isn't for time constrained play, so introducing it may not work all that well.

I would argue that most games were not designed with time constraints in mind, but most tournament scenes enforce a time constraint to the game anyways. I feel that the death clock model is better, as it discourages underhanded tactics (like the issue with "sandbagging" brought up earlier), and highlights the skill of the player to make good decisions in a quick and timely manner.

As for the disadvantages of going first, that would depend on the force that you bring and your deployment strategy. The point of using the death clock is that each side should deploy with the time limit and scenario in mind.

Of course a comp system is needed such as limiting the number of heroes/monsters, duplicate warscrolls, limiting the number of wounds per unit. Discouraging skaven and goblin players is certainly a legit concern though. What we need is for GW to add a keyword "Horde" to certain units. This way we can adjust the comp rules so that these units can be fielded with larger number of wounds (so if the normal limit is say 20 wounds, you up the limit to 30-40 wounds for horde units).

[nsc]

"Kingston comp" does this "horde" comp that you're mentioning.

What you do is you look at the warscroll, and if a unit has a "regimental bonus" for having X models, you're allowed max X+10 for that unit.

For example Clanrats have +1 to wound rolls if they have 20 or more models. If the unit has more than 30 models you can add 1 to their hit and wound rolls, as such they can take a maximum of 40 models in a single unit.

[odinsgrandson]

Without any other composition restrictions, surely this will encourage 'elite' forces made up largely of heroes and monsters.


My concern would be that it would put anybody off from attempting to play Skaven or Goblins, just as much as saying that one Skaven slave is worth the same as a Phoenix Guard.



Definitely true. Horde forces are definitely discouraged by this- but that's kind of true fro the whole system, isn't it?

The OP suggested including hero and monster limits as well (so you aren't up against nothing but dragons and greater demons).


Surely whomever goes first is at a massive disadvantage, as they could run out of time before their opponent has had a chance to?

It's an interesting approach, but I'm just not sure it's at all practical. The game's design isn't for time constrained play, so introducing it may not work all that well.

The first turn tends to be the fastest one, and lends itself its own advantage. I doubt that'll make such a big difference (it doesn't seem to put players at a disadvantage in Chess or Warmachine/Hordes).

I actually think this game does want a time constraint- the game has rules for ending early because one of the players has something else to do- AND it is the only way for the disadvantage of summoning to come up.

[nsc]

Horde forces are definitely discouraged by this- but that's kind of true fro the whole system, isn't it?
Well, no, if you have one big unit, which you can then put mystic shield on, you're getting +1 armour, you can use inspiring presence to make this huge unit immune to battleshock, if you use another power you still get +1 bravery per every 10 models, and most importantly models (and therefore units) can divide their attacks against any model in range, so units aren't limited to attacking the same target. This means that if you're going first or even second in a combat round, when you activate this unit, you'll do a load of damage.

Example, player A controls units 1, 2 and 3, they're 10 gors each. Player B controls unit zeta, it's 30 gors. Player A activates unit 1 and kills 3 gors, player B activates unit zeta and kills 10 gors from units 2 and 3.
Hordes of models offer a very strong alpha strike potential at the start of the combat round, they're more resistant to battle-shock and they can be buffed defensively more easily (also more efficiently).


I actually think this game does want a time constraint- the game has rules for ending early because one of the players has something else to do- AND it is the only way for the disadvantage of summoning to come up.

Could be true, the warhammer world event has a time constraint after all.

[Mr Mystery]

All games have some kind of time constraint - unless you're lucky enough to not only have room for a gaming board and scenery collection, but the reasonable option of leaving a game set up overnight/over the week.

But Tournaments bring a much tighter timescale to things, opening up slow play as an actual tactic.

So small scale games - whether by point restriction or the games inherent design (hello X-Wing!) work better if you've got perhaps a couple of hours or less to crack through it. But 1,750 points of 40k? Some army builds, if not some armies, are unnaturally handicapped there.

Good example for 8th Ed? Goblins. I love Gobbos me. You can fit a heck of a lot into 1,750 points, and a decent variety. But....if you've got a strict time limit, many of those options lose their appeal, adding a restriction to the sort of force you might want to field. And you may find yourself limited to the point where you just can't play the army in your preferred, well practiced manner. Me? I love my daft stuff. Give me Fanatics and Squigs running all over the shop. Give me multiple 30ish strong units of Gobbos so I can squeeze more in at the price of riskier Animosity issues. Played right, I can completely cover my unit's flanks, because there's no chance to squeeze between my units to get them - and your Deathstar unit, if it's not careful, may face two, perhaps three units of worth Fanatics getting in the way when you charge, with the very real risk of them inflicting horrific damage.

Except....that many random rolls slows down the game. Tournament style time restrictions can quickly render that force a poor experience for both.

[Xaric]

I like this idea :)