King in the North

This topic contains 72 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Gareth 3 years, 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #17399
     Anonymous

      I guess an alert player would just hit the clock with 20 seconds or so left and play dice down anyway, so really the two are quite similar.

      In practice if this happens before turn 6 you’re surely bound to lose, unless you’re dominating completely, so there probably isn’t really much difference.

      If you run out in turn 6 (or 7 of course) I can see it might be preferable to count up at the end of that turn, although naturally your opponent should be allowed a chance of a turn 7. The “no mating material” clause in chess very rarely comes up, in practice if you run out of time you lose. It’s a slightly different game, there’s simply no way to play minus one player, whereas with Kings it’s not much different to the normal game.

      To borrow another idea from chess, I’ve often actually thought adding a certain amount of time for each turn might work better, something like 30 minutes + 4 for each turn. Surprisingly, not even all digital chess clocks can do this though, I don’t know how the apps measure up.

      #17402
       Anonymous
        Myriad wrote:
        I guess an alert player would just hit the clock with 20 seconds or so left and play dice down anyway, so really the two are quite similar.

        In practice if this happens before turn 6 you’re surely bound to lose, unless you’re dominating completely, so there probably isn’t really much difference.

        If you run out in turn 6 (or 7 of course) I can see it might be preferable to count up at the end of that turn, although naturally your opponent should be allowed a chance of a turn 7. The “no mating material” clause in chess very rarely comes up, in practice if you run out of time you lose. It’s a slightly different game, there’s simply no way to play minus one player, whereas with Kings it’s not much different to the normal game.

        To borrow another idea from chess, I’ve often actually thought adding a certain amount of time for each turn might work better, something like 30 minutes + 4 for each turn. Surprisingly, not even all digital chess clocks can do this though, I don’t know how the apps measure up.

        Often when time runs out there is mating material for the player who still has time. I have played games where either me or my opponent has run out of time and it was a draw due to no mating material. Also before the 1500 point tournament, I played against an undead army with one allied unit of Ogre horde and lots of flying and cavalry units. I deployed badly, and would have lost the game, but my opponent lost on time. I was told I won the game, but we decided to see what would have happened. Afterwards, I felt I won a game unfairly and a draw would have been fairer.

        My app does add a certain amount of time, so we never used it. It feels like a fair idea.

        #17403
         Anonymous

          It must be a good feeling to be able to consider having a viable fighting force by the end of the game :(

          [attachment=689]AgentSmith.png[/attachment]

          #17410
           Anonymous

            So last time I came we had 40 mins each to complete turns…..
            I still managed to complete all games in the 40 mins and I was playing with gobbos so I had a huge amount of units (although one game I had 10 or so seconds left but that was mainly because I did too much talking).
            I think 55 mins is perfectly adequate. And to echo Lord of Khemri, I will be only too happy to do a “pivot dance” with all my units if I still have something left on turn 6. I expect I’ll be long dead before then and propping up the rest of you in terms of table standings.
            This tournament will most likely be the first time I’ll have played Kings for months. I am looking forward to it and am completely unworried by the time for each game. People need to just go for it rather than thinking too much!
            I also want to home at a reasonable time.

            #17411
             Anonymous

              My understanding about the time limit is that, while the opponent does his thing on you and, unlike Warhammer, you can do nothing about it, you should be planning your next move, obviously taking into account the potential effects on your units under attack.
              Early on there won’t be many units in combat unless a Twilight Kin dragon plonks itself on you.
              Once the opponent’s turn has completed you should be in a state of readiness to move your units almost instantly.

              Can’t see much of a problem here.

              #17412
               Anonymous

                What I was trying to say in previous posts was that due to not playing as horde armies, I might not face the pressure some players face with the amount of units and attacks. But hearing its easily done with Goblins.
                That was how I manage to have way more time than my opponent in chess matches, thought of all possible moves.
                To summarize what my opinion is; a player who cannot play within the generous time limit shouldn’t win in the tournament.
                A player who could not possibly unless their opponent lost on time shouldn’t win either, in other words a draw. This could be done by finishing the game normally do decide if its a win or a draw for the player who still has time remaining. Alternative this could be done by being intelligent.

                E.G. Player A has 5 units (Cavalry, or anything else that can do a lot of damage) that can damage and maybe in tactical positions, with objectives… But lost on time. Player B only has one spearmen unit and maybe a charactor, positioned such that they would be destroyed by turn 6. One could surmise player B cannot win, nothing wrong with playing the game to find out, but its clear B cannot win and it would be a draw.

                Can anyone see this working?

                #17413
                 Anonymous
                  Mitchell wrote:
                  E.G. Player A has 5 units (Cavalry, or anything else that can do a lot of damage) that can damage and maybe in tactical positions, with objectives… But lost on time. Player B only has one spearmen unit and maybe a charactor, positioned such that they would be destroyed by turn 6. One could surmise player B cannot win, nothing wrong with playing the game to find out, but its clear B cannot win and it would be a draw.

                  Can anyone see this working?

                  Nope.
                  This reads like a can of worms being opened. We play games using missions for a reason. If player A lost on time then he / she has lost by virtue of that being a condition of the game and I applaud player B for being a legend in terms of keeping that last unit alive whilst keeping an eye on the clock.

                  As far as I am concerned player B won, but player A destroyed loads of stuff but failed to do it quick enough irrespective of having objectives. All clauses of winning a game must be achieved in order to win!

                  #17287
                   Anonymous

                    What a lively discussion!

                    I think Carl’s proposed solution was already perfectly adequate. And if the time limits are so generous it shouldn’t really matter anyway.

                    #17414
                     Anonymous

                      Obviously one person’s experience cannot be invalidated by the experience of others, so something else must be at play here. Perhaps the majority have played war games for longer and so can think and execute their moves faster. Maybe there is a reluctance to changing the sudden death mechanic because it’s part of gaming tradition. Also I can well believe I’m just a slower player and this is why I struggle with time. Regardless I’m cool with whatever is decided and will fatten up my zombies and ghouls with the brains of your defeated warriors, clock or no clock.

                      Dave

                      #17415
                       Anonymous
                        Grimlock wrote:
                        Mitchell wrote:
                        E.G. Player A has 5 units (Cavalry, or anything else that can do a lot of damage) that can damage and maybe in tactical positions, with objectives… But lost on time. Player B only has one spearmen unit and maybe a charactor, positioned such that they would be destroyed by turn 6. One could surmise player B cannot win, nothing wrong with playing the game to find out, but its clear B cannot win and it would be a draw.

                        Can anyone see this working?

                        Nope.
                        This reads like a can of worms being opened. We play games using missions for a reason. If player A lost on time then he / she has lost by virtue of that being a condition of the game and I applaud player B for being a legend in terms of keeping that last unit alive whilst keeping an eye on the clock.

                        As far as I am concerned player B won, but player A destroyed loads of stuff but failed to do it quick enough irrespective of having objectives. All clauses of winning a game must be achieved in order to win!

                        In chess, no mating materials means a loss. Also in war games draws are perfectly possible. I did not mention the time on either players prior to the end of the game. Like in chess, I feel some positions shouldn’t be a win if a player is losing badly. If you run out its only a draw of a loss while the other player can only win or draw.

                        #17288
                         Anonymous

                          Ok all,

                          I did not realise quite the stir would happen! So my reasoning. The reason you can’t have auto loose in THIS tournament is because of the scoring system. Imagine;

                          The mission is pillage. Player A plays player B, they are both good players and play quickly, its a close game. They draw claiming 2 objectives markers each. In the meantime Player C is playing player D, they too are about to draw 2 all, player D however is too slow and runs out of time. Player C would then auto win with 6 points. The disproportionate difference between player C winning (6pts+2 bonus points) and A and B in their draw (2pts+1 bonus point) is unfair (particulary to players A and B!). Yes it may be fair to make player D score less but it is not fair for player A,B and C.

                          Having said all that, I am going to compromise a little by altering the rule slightly to instead of dice down and only orders are pivots to dice down and no orders at all. The perpetrator will auto score 0 bonus TP’s but they will still be able to hold objectives (earning TP’s from them) and will not auto rout. This should ensure games will not overrun.

                          I understand the difficulty of both the newbies and the experienced players and appreciate feedback from all of you. It is interesting to hear the opinions from both ends of the spectrum. I hope that you folks understand that my aim to make everyone happy is an almost impossible task and this is the compromise I have come to.

                          Because ultimately it’s all fun and games….until somebody looses an eye.

                          Carl

                          #17416
                           Anonymous

                            Would the other players time still continue to tick when one player runs out of time?

                            James

                            #17423
                             Anonymous
                              Mitchell wrote:
                              Would the other players time still continue to tick when one player runs out of time?

                              James

                              I’d certainly think so, the main point is that the games have to finish by a certain point after all. I guess the only question is whether if both clocks run down you stop and count up or just call it a tie :). Consistently the first I’d guess.

                              #17424
                               Anonymous

                                What myriad said is correct. If you still have time you can use it regardless of your opponent. If both players time out then they both score 0 bonus tps, but will score for objectives as described.

                                #17289
                                 Anonymous

                                  So I’ve decided not to play in the event as it is filling up and I want to keep better tabs on the rankings etc. And be available for rules questions.

                                  There is therefore now only 1 ticket left!

                                  Carl

                                Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 73 total)

                                You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

                                Get In Touch

                                We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

                                Sending

                                © 2020 York Garrison - Privacy Policy

                                or

                                Log in with your credentials

                                or    

                                Forgot your details?

                                or

                                Create Account