Time / Round issues at events.

[AaronWilson]

Heya guys, this is a thread for the discussion of time at a event. I've noticed a trend in regards to "We only got to round 3, we would of won if we got to round 4" in discussion about games at events and how they affected the result. I my self had a solid example of this the other weekend where I went to a local one dayer, round 1 we played until round 4 until I had won on scenario mathemtically - no problem. 

Round 2, we were playing better part of valour and it was my opponents turn 3, he finished his turn and then 3-4 minutes into my turn 3 I was told that we had 15 minutes left. My opponent had not burned any of his objectives neither had I, as it was a cagey game with a fair bit of movement going on. So it left the game in a place where I could of just taking my turn, burned some at the end and won regardless. I spoke to my opponent about it, as it was I played a fast turn and burned one of his objectives (which was most likely going to happen anyway) and burned all mine, I said to my opponent look mate lets just say you've burned yours as it felt ****** to give him nothing just because of the time. 

In round 3, I was playing a daughters of khaine player who we only made it  to round 3 and it was called a draw, despite me being undoubtedly ahead and in a place to take a scenario win later on. As it stands I won the event on TPs anyhow but that's not the point.

All game I tried to play as fast as possible, I would say I would typically complete a whole turn in less then 25 mins or there or there about, less when I have less to think about, typically turn one - two are a bit longer as I'm thinking about Wyldwood placements, working out where I want to place models for a potential round spirit path movement and thinking where I will place my spells etc. 

Given that, a round is typically only two and a half hours, So on average If I play three 25 minute turns and my opponent does, that's our 150 minute time limit up. It seems to defeat the point of events and the game to a degree if we're not playing the whole 5 rounds, or at least given average round timers not realistically reaching past it.  

I know the easy solution is "play faster" but given just how many things we need to remember, apply & execute during a game 25 minutes a turn is fairly fast for most players as well. What do other people think? I also can appreciate there is so many hours in the day, so making rounds much longer doesn't really help out either. 

Do people think we should look at applying some sort of clock to the game, so at least people are playing to a equal time limit? Do people think we should player 1500, instead of 2K to enable rounds to end or are people fine with competitive games typically ending on round 3. 

[Hannibal]

1 hour ago, AaronWIlson said:

All game I tried to play as fast as possible, I would say I would typically complete a whole turn in less then 25 mins or there or there about, less when I have less to think about, typically turn one - two are a bit longer as I'm thinking about Wyldwood placements, working out where I want to place models for a potential round spirit path movement and thinking wh

Can´t say much about AoS, but I encountered similar problems in 40k and Warmachine tournaments many times. 2 times I was the looser of the game BECAUSE I played fast and my opponent didn´t just to give him one more turn! In every single case in which a master clock was used there was some disadvantage for at least one player. I have to say that I start to hate master clocks.

1 hour ago, AaronWIlson said:

I know the easy solution is "play faster" but given just how many things we need to remember, apply & execute during a game 25 minutes a turn is fairly fast for most players as well. What do other people think? I also can appreciate there is so many hours in the day, so making rounds much longer doesn't really help out either. 

One thing to remember: in almost any tabletop game at the current state there is a push towards crowded armies: lots and lots of bodies. Reason is that there is not enough attacks / time / whatever to remove all the bodies off the table. On the other hands this leads to extremely long turns if the player starts to roll every single die the rules permit. No matter if that weak shooting statistically does anything for the game; just roll your 100 dice, ask about the opposing stats several times, look at your own stats,... It just plays to the armies strengths: don´t give your opponent opportunities to remove your models.

And it even isn´t bad sportmanship, becuase why should you refuse to use your attacks or to move all your models?

Did you get it? The horde player does everything according to the rules but it´s bad for the game. And that´s not only a problem in AoS...

1 hour ago, AaronWIlson said:

Do people think we should look at applying some sort of clock to the game, so at least people are playing to a equal time limit? Do people think we should player 1500, instead of 2K to enable rounds to end or are people fine with competitive games typically ending on round 3. 

I think the only solution to this problem is some kind of time restriction, yes. In competetive settings it´s too easy to use time to your advantage (and to your opponents disadvantage – even to the level were both players stall the entire game). If YOUR time is 1 hour for example, army construction would reflect this.

[Dead Scribe]

In a tournament environment I have no problem with clocks being used.  Its kind of normal in a lot of other games I play.  Slow playing is a thing, and in competitive environments, slow playing on purpose is a tactic and its not a tactic that I feel is good for the game.

[Siegfried VII]

In the recent tournaments I organized I tried using a 3 hour per tournament round and 10-15 minute breaks in between and I must say that while the tournaments lasted a bit longer we almost eliminated the time problems and the vast majority of the games were fully played or at the very least had 4 turns played by both players.

Also we always leave a bit of time so that both players have played the same ammount of turns.

[Mayple]

Yeah. The only fights I've had that last longer than 3-4 rounds are friendly matched where we allow ourselves the time to finish. Otherwise, it always ends due to time, which is why my strategy and rule of thumb is to always secure a lead by round two. For reference, I usually finish my turns in 15-25 minutes, but my setup is a bit slower than normal. About 7-10 minutes. This has been true for both my Skaven and Goblin army.

Assuming regular play, and not two passive players not going for/contesting objectives, the game is usually determined by round 4. Time running out tends to solidify that. Play with that in mind and you will never be surprised. I often see players make major mistakes because they don't account for time running out and panic when the time starts reaching it's limit. Adjusting their strategy at that point is often too late.  I have consistently won events by playing aggressive in a bid to secure an early lead. Going for late leads rarely results in victories, and more often they get a "I would have won if.." comment. 

Just my two cents

On a related note; I'm starting to feel age of sigmar is more of a 4 turn game, with the option to play a 5th

[JonWebb]

Hey Aaron

I'm wondering if we dare port over death clock from WM as a trial. I've been thinking about a CoreHammer format (Hardcore for AoS). 

Now, I am not saying every  format/event would use such a draconian thing, and obviously AoS tends to push a higher model count that WM, but I do wonder if a 1-1.5 hr Deathclock might be something folks would try. 

Maybe at BonesCon (or whatever happens next) you and I should put out heads together and have a think. 

 

[SuperHappyTime]

On 9/28/2018 at 5:02 AM, AaronWIlson said:

Heya guys, this is a thread for the discussion of time at a event. I've noticed a trend in regards to "We only got to round 3, we would of won if we got to round 4" in discussion about games at events and how they affected the result. I my self had a solid example of this the other weekend where I went to a local one dayer, round 1 we played until round 4 until I had won on scenario mathemtically - no problem. 

Round 2, we were playing better part of valour and it was my opponents turn 3, he finished his turn and then 3-4 minutes into my turn 3 I was told that we had 15 minutes left. My opponent had not burned any of his objectives neither had I, as it was a cagey game with a fair bit of movement going on. So it left the game in a place where I could of just taking my turn, burned some at the end and won regardless. I spoke to my opponent about it, as it was I played a fast turn and burned one of his objectives (which was most likely going to happen anyway) and burned all mine, I said to my opponent look mate lets just say you've burned yours as it felt ****** to give him nothing just because of the time. 

In round 3, I was playing a daughters of khaine player who we only made it  to round 3 and it was called a draw, despite me being undoubtedly ahead and in a place to take a scenario win later on. As it stands I won the event on TPs anyhow but that's not the point.

All game I tried to play as fast as possible, I would say I would typically complete a whole turn in less then 25 mins or there or there about, less when I have less to think about, typically turn one - two are a bit longer as I'm thinking about Wyldwood placements, working out where I want to place models for a potential round spirit path movement and thinking where I will place my spells etc. 

Given that, a round is typically only two and a half hours, So on average If I play three 25 minute turns and my opponent does, that's our 150 minute time limit up. It seems to defeat the point of events and the game to a degree if we're not playing the whole 5 rounds, or at least given average round timers not realistically reaching past it.  

I know the easy solution is "play faster" but given just how many things we need to remember, apply & execute during a game 25 minutes a turn is fairly fast for most players as well. What do other people think? I also can appreciate there is so many hours in the day, so making rounds much longer doesn't really help out either. 

Do people think we should look at applying some sort of clock to the game, so at least people are playing to a equal time limit? Do people think we should player 1500, instead of 2K to enable rounds to end or are people fine with competitive games typically ending on round 3. 

150 minutes sounds like a stupidly short amount of time for a full game at 2000 points. My judgment is clouded by opponents who like to talk, set up very slowly, and usually take their sweet time setting things up

[Overread]

At events I think there are several things which can help speed up the pace of the game

1) More officials. If you look at many competitive sports and events you'll notice that over each competition there is a unique judge/official and at some there might be several. The idea here is that by having more officials it both discourages deceptive play (eg deliberate slow play) and also means that any contention/issue in the game can be resolved quicker. No waiting for the official or having to update them on what is going on etc.... OF course as most wargame events are not generating huge advertising revenue, even the big events are not rolling in cash to help appoint more officials of quality; still its one avenue to consider.

2) Time clocks. Whilst we can debate how to best use them, their use in general can speed up the game and, again, discourage slow play. Many feel that they unfairly hit larger armies as they can take longer to organise and move and play out; however in general I think that so long as the clocks are used to ensure fair play and to speed up time they can help. One complicating aspect is that in wargames there is a lot of back and forth. It's not like chess where during your opponents turn you do nothing to change the game state. In a wargame you're at least going to be rolling for saves and removing models; perhaps using an ability; questioning a rule; confirming a distance etc.. So there's a lot more back and forth to confuse and complicate a time clock approach. 

3) Pre-event competitions. This is more about sifting players into skilled and less skilled. If you have events before the tournament day that establish some of the tiers that will play then you can, in theory, weed out or at least isolate the weaker players who are more likely to be slower players by default (this based on the assumption that more skilled players are at least more familiar with their own army and the flow of the game - though there will always be exceptions). Of course at a practical level this approach is not always possible, esp since many will only visit a club/event on the day of the event alone and won't be a regular at the event hosts club; or the event itself is drawing in a wide range of people from other clubs. 

[SwampHeart]

4 hours ago, JonWebb said:

I'm wondering if we dare port over death clock from WM as a trial. I've been thinking about a CoreHammer format (Hardcore for AoS). 

Now, I am not saying every  format/event would use such a draconian thing, and obviously AoS tends to push a higher model count that WM, but I do wonder if a 1-1.5 hr Deathclock might be something folks would try. 

I think one of the big issues to contend with when bringing over the WM deathclock is that in WM when its your turn its your turn. Your opponent doesn't act at all whereas in AoS both players take a variety of actions in their and their opponent's turn. Not to suggest a clock is a bad thing but I've seen the clock turned into another 'unit' if you will in 40k where players force their opponents to roll all of their dice with the intent of eating up more of their clock. 

[JonWebb]

2 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

I think one of the big issues to contend with when bringing over the WM deathclock is that in WM when its your turn its your turn. Your opponent doesn't act at all whereas in AoS both players take a variety of actions in their and their opponent's turn. Not to suggest a clock is a bad thing but I've seen the clock turned into another 'unit' if you will in 40k where players force their opponents to roll all of their dice with the intent of eating up more of their clock. 

In WM, if you have to do stuff on your opponent's turn (e.g. roll Tough saves, query a rule, call a judge) you ship the clock and it eats your time. 

So, it shouldn't have an impact. 

Its not a perfect fit, but I'm keen to explore the possibilities.  Not expecting everyone to think its a great idea (clocks have their place, but not for everything) but its one more tool to add to a TOs library of options). 

[SwampHeart]

8 minutes ago, JonWebb said:

In WM, if you have to do stuff on your opponent's turn (e.g. roll Tough saves, query a rule, call a judge) you ship the clock and it eats your time. 

So, it shouldn't have an impact. 

Its not a perfect fit, but I'm keen to explore the possibilities.  Not expecting everyone to think its a great idea (clocks have their place, but not for everything) but its one more tool to add to a TOs library of options). 

I think the difference is the number of dice you're rolling in your opponent's turn vs. the number of dice you roll during your opponent's turn in AoS. The issue is exactly the swapping of the clock - if I'm playing against an DoK player and he charges 30 Witch Elves into my 5 Liberators the 'correct' (in this sense the option that gives me the most advantage) option is to force him to roll all of his dice and eat up more of his clock even if we both know 30 Witches will remove 5 Liberators every time. I am weaponizing the clock to attempt to take total time away from him. Again I don't think clocks are bad but I think, in the wrong hands, they can create very negative play experiences. 

[JonWebb]

1 minute ago, SwampHeart said:

I think the difference is the number of dice you're rolling in your opponent's turn vs. the number of dice you roll during your opponent's turn in AoS. The issue is exactly the swapping of the clock - if I'm playing against an DoK player and he charges 30 Witch Elves into my 5 Liberators the 'correct' (in this sense the option that gives me the most advantage) option is to force him to roll all of his dice and eat up more of his clock even if we both know 30 Witches will remove 5 Liberators every time. I am weaponizing the clock to attempt to take total time away from him. Again I don't think clocks are bad but I think, in the wrong hands, they can create very negative play experiences. 

Its a fair point. Though am I reading it right you are ok not having your opponent roll dice, instead relying on statistical averages? That's an interesting take  (not sarcastic! Genuinely curious to hear if this is widespread in the AoS scene. I've been gaming 24 years, played a decade of comp WM, but never played a GW tourney, so not encountered that). 

In WM, the only time you wouldn't roll is if something was impossible to fail/pass. Eg a KD caster is auto hit in melee, and the attack does enough damage to kill even on snake eyes. 

I can totally see that the amount of shipping would be way higher in AoS, so its going to be interesting to see if it does stick. Trouble is, talking to my mate who is hardcore 40K comp man, he tells me about slow play (or accusations there of) all the time, and the only way to truly police it is to make it on their clock. 

Or, we all stop trying to make the intangible madness of a War-game into a competitive event, but that spoils all the fun right? 

[SwampHeart]

7 minutes ago, JonWebb said:

Its a fair point. Though am I reading it right you are ok not having your opponent roll dice, instead relying on statistical averages? That's an interesting take  (not sarcastic! Genuinely curious to hear if this is widespread in the AoS scene. I've been gaming 24 years, played a decade of comp WM, but never played a GW tourney, so not encountered that). 

For the sake of time there are many times I've chosen to remove a unit without rolling dice and had my opponents do the game. It isn't necessarily relying on statistical averages so much as accumulated experiences. Now if those 5 liberators are holding an objective and I lose if they die? Yes I'm going to ask my opponent to roll it out but if its inconsequential to the course of the game I rarely do. Its honestly about trying to stick to the social contract of the game for me. 

 

9 minutes ago, JonWebb said:

I can totally see that the amount of shipping would be way higher in AoS, so its going to be interesting to see if it does stick. Trouble is, talking to my mate who is hardcore 40K comp man, he tells me about slow play (or accusations there of) all the time, and the only way to truly police it is to make it on their clock. 

Or, we all stop trying to make the intangible madness of a War-game into a competitive event, but that spoils all the fun right? 

Or lower points but that's about the least popular option you can find - many 40k tournaments are going to 3 hour rounds though as a result. Also I think its a major issue in 40k because 40k has completely lost its way with soft scores (a discussion for a different day but I strongly believe in paint and sports as important elements of any tournament). And as a result the 40k community has ever more strongly moved towards the attitude of 'a win is a win' and ignoring the idea that ultimately this is a social event. I say all this as a competitive 40k player who stepped away because of the direction the tournament scene was taking. 

[JonWebb]

13 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

For the sake of time there are many times I've chosen to remove a unit without rolling dice and had my opponents do the game. It isn't necessarily relying on statistical averages so much as accumulated experiences. Now if those 5 liberators are holding an objective and I lose if they die? Yes I'm going to ask my opponent to roll it out but if its inconsequential to the course of the game I rarely do. Its honestly about trying to stick to the social contract of the game for me. 

 

Or lower points but that's about the least popular option you can find - many 40k tournaments are going to 3 hour rounds though as a result. Also I think its a major issue in 40k because 40k has completely lost its way with soft scores (a discussion for a different day but I strongly believe in paint and sports as important elements of any tournament). And as a result the 40k community has ever more strongly moved towards the attitude of 'a win is a win' and ignoring the idea that ultimately this is a social event. I say all this as a competitive 40k player who stepped away because of the direction the tournament scene was taking. 

Very interesting on both points (BTW, I love talking about this sort of thing, and know tone/intent can be hard on line, so please don't think I am bring a nob if anything comes across funny). 

I can totally understand why such a social contract is a thing, it feels odd to me, I would roll everything out, but this is a game allegedly played for fun, so allowing that sort of play seems very sporting. Where I worry is when it gets weaponised. Lets say you allow this earlier in a game, has precedent been set? What happens if your opponent refused to allow it to you later on? Have you been robbed/cheated? No where does it say in the rules this is a valid action. 

With regard to soft scores, I loathe them. I say this as someone who is a pretty washed up comp guy, hell, I don't go to events at all these days (well, I do as I run them, or else to represent the company I work for... all my gaming is done in the comfort of my own home with my GF, so hopefully played entirely in the spirit of fun). Also, I say this as someone whose only real interest in attending events was painting/community anyway. Soft score always felt odd to me. A tournament is to find the player that wins all their games, then crown them king of the nerds right? Nothing is really on the line (prize support is nice to have, but I always told my players that its better for them to stay home and save the money to spend on prizes than attend an event if that's really the reason to come), so having an event resolved by a mate off (who bought the most friends to vote on painting/tactical sportsmenship etc) just feels off.

Now, does that mean I think models should be unpainted and players should be tools? No, far from it. I think sportsmanship, painting, best hat, etc etc should all be rewarded where possible by an event, but entirely as stand alone prizes. I travelled to numerous PP events across the globe, with groups of players all who had their own "thing" they were gunning for. 

Now, I know from the last 24 years of wargaming, that GW events tend to favour someone who can do a bit of everything, and I am not saying all events should be one style, so having a mix can only be a good thing. I'm all for people doing what they want (as long as no one gets hurt along the way). Just interesting having come from GW, to PP and now back to GW, having the baggage (and some of it is baggage, trust me), from PP and looking at how to apply it to GW is fun. 

At present, this is all a thought exercise for me (and like I say, its fun to talk to other gamers to see their interpretation, both personally and professionally), but Aaron is running some AoS for me at my upcoming convention, and I'm thinking of dipping my toes into running some AoS stuff in future. So, if I go all in and end up running an event no one in the community is interested in attending, jokes on me right? 

I guess the interesting thing for me, is while I can see the "win is a win" thing can be very negative, and I would like to think most folks who have played me would not accuse me of being TFG, I still prefer to adhere to the letter of the rules (or else, why are we even playing). Side example, I recently played a 500 pt game with my GF, and she was being tabled (Nurgle Demons vs Stormcast). I took her down to just her Herald, without losing a single model... game over right? That herald then proceed to wipe out my entire force solo. Ok, extreme example (I was laughing my butt off) but it does show why dicing it out does matter. 

Sorry, got a bit verbose there, I do that

Intersted to hear your thoughts on any of the above  

[SwampHeart]

14 minutes ago, JonWebb said:

I can totally understand why such a social contract is a thing, it feels odd to me, I would roll everything out, but this is a game allegedly played for fun, so allowing that sort of play seems very sporting. Where I worry is when it gets weaponised. Lets say you allow this earlier in a game, has precedent been set? What happens if your opponent refused to allow it to you later on? Have you been robbed/cheated? No where does it say in the rules this is a valid action. 

I don't find it to be any more likely to be weaponized than the clock. And honestly if you don't allow it that's fine - it isn't about some consistent standard of 'we always do it this way' its about being conscience of the time left in the round, the impact of a combat etc. If my opponent and I are moving along fine time wise most of the time I roll everything out because its fun. The only time I really see this done or do it myself is if its an inconsequential combat that won't really change the course of the game. And ultimately if my opponent wants to roll everything out that's how we'll do it. I personally don't have time issues either way because I bring pre-colored dice pools and do several other things to speed up my play. 

 

16 minutes ago, JonWebb said:

With regard to soft scores, I loathe them. I say this as someone who is a pretty washed up comp guy, hell, I don't go to events at all these days Also, I say this as someone whose only real interest in attending events was painting/community anyway. Soft score always felt odd to me. A tournament is to find the player that wins all their games, then crown them king of the nerds right? Nothing is really on the line (prize support is nice to have, but I always told my players that its better for them to stay home and save the money to spend on prizes than attend an event if that's really the reason to come), so having an event resolved by a mate off (who bought the most friends to vote on painting/tactical sportsmenship etc) just feels off.

That's why you need to have a good and consistent sportsmanship and painting system. A good soft score system means that those scores can impact your ability to podium only after games have been decided (i.e. not some kind of crazy 33/33/33 split). But I also view tournaments as a social opportunity, you're asking anywhere from 10-200 people to spend 10-20 hours over the course of a weekend playing a game. Being a good steward of the hobby is just as important as winning your games. Additionally that's why Best General used to be a thing - there's an award for the guy who just wants to win and doesn't care about the rest of the hobby. Soft Scores are of significant importance in keeping this a 'gentlemen's' (gender not withstanding) hobby. Without soft scores we've seen the direction events go (40k 'Ardboyz, the current 40k tournament scene, etc), and it isn't a direction I'd like to see the hobby go. 

 

22 minutes ago, JonWebb said:

I guess the interesting thing for me, is while I can see the "win is a win" thing can be very negative, and I would like to think most folks who have played me would not accuse me of being TFG, I still prefer to adhere to the letter of the rules (or else, why are we even playing).

I think you're misinterpreting my position here (the internet does that sometimes though). I play technical and precise games that follow the letter of the rules and I play the game to win. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - what I do take issue with is the very idea of weaponizing a time clock. At that point you're no longer winning because of your skill in the game but because of your ability to manipulate the outside constraints of the environment. Slow play is just as unforgivable - you can have a very competitive game that doesn't encourage negative game play. That's why I support soft scores and can see issues with hard clock management. There is nothing wrong with writing a hard list and playing it well but I think the minute you move to win the game on the basis of unclear intent or using a method that robs your opponent of the chance to play the game (in the context of denying him turns) then you've moved into a place where you're engaging in behavior that is destructive to the community at large.  

[amysrevenge]

1 hour ago, SwampHeart said:

 if I'm playing against an DoK player and he charges 30 Witch Elves into my 5 Liberators the 'correct' (in this sense the option that gives me the most advantage) option is to force him to roll all of his dice and eat up more of his clock even if we both know 30 Witches will remove 5 Liberators every time. I am weaponizing the clock to attempt to take total time away from him. Again I don't think clocks are bad but I think, in the wrong hands, they can create very negative play experiences. 

In this scenario, on the DoK player's turn, whose clock is being eaten while the SC player is rolling (and rerolling 1s don't forget) the saves on those Liberators?  Does the clock switch and then switch back for the saves?  And then if one survives into the Battleshock phase, whose clock is being eaten while the SC player is working out the modified Bravery of that Liberator still standing, and then figuring out when he rolls a 3 if the last one runs away or not?

[SwampHeart]

5 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

In this scenario, on the DoK player's turn, whose clock is being eaten while the SC player is rolling (and rerolling 1s don't forget) the saves on those Liberators?  Does the clock switch and then switch back for the saves?

Oh it is certainly the SCE player but even then he's using up far less of his allotted time - also you don't HAVE to re-roll 1s, you CAN. So if I was attempting to take as much of my opponent's time and minimize my own I'd choose not to.  Most time clock systems I am aware of - the clock is switched to the player who is rolling (so the DoK would roll to hit and wound, swap to SCE who'd then roll to save, back to DoK player). 

[amysrevenge]

So the clock switches every time someone new has to do something?  Not just at the end of each player turn, but rather many times within each turn.  My clock is on, I'm casting a spell, roll my dice, switch the clock to you while you decide whether or not to unbind, then switch back to me, etc.

[SwampHeart]

42 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

So the clock switches every time someone new has to do something?  Not just at the end of each player turn, but rather many times within each turn.  My clock is on, I'm casting a spell, roll my dice, switch the clock to you while you decide whether or not to unbind, then switch back to me, etc.

That is correct. Atleast in every system I have seen. 

[Future]

3 hours ago, amysrevenge said:

So the clock switches every time someone new has to do something?  Not just at the end of each player turn, but rather many times within each turn.  My clock is on, I'm casting a spell, roll my dice, switch the clock to you while you decide whether or not to unbind, then switch back to me, etc.

Yes. This is how the ITC 40k scene has been doing it. I say that with caution because largely there is push back to not use clocks at all but some events have adopted them as a beta. I saw a video on this a few months back that created a lot of drama but I kind of agree with the authors take on this with horde armies. 

 

The reason I think the video is relevant here is because it will be the very next conversation after people decided clocks should be used - 

 

[Marc Wilson]

Additional layers of rules and bookkeeping have doubtless gnawed away at game time. 2.5 hours is  a WFB limitation and hasn’t been seriously challenged since. You only have to start 15 minutes earlier, cut lunch from 1 hour to 45 minutes (plenty of time) and finish 15 minutes later and you have 2.75 hour games - which is a more fitting time considering the bloat. Some tournaments have done that already - SCGT for one.

For my tournaments, I am introducing the concept of a tick box;  ‘unsatisfactory conclusion’ - too many of these and you could be penalised. This doesn’t specify five turns and doesn’t rule out concessions. Agreed concessions are satisfactory conclusions. Finishing the game on uneven turns or before a probable swing of VPs would be an unsatisfactory conclusion. You would need more than one unsatisfactory conclusion to come up on the radar for obvious reasons. 

There is of course a distinction for intentional slow play for tactical advantage - that’s always cheating.

I agree TOs can shave minutes from rounds by prompt starts, clear instruction, frequent time calls, pre rolling terrain, publishing lists in advance, publishing scenarios in advance and awarding everyone low-bar points for starting on time - those should save you 10% of game time, or 15 minutes, of dicking around at the start.

 

[Future]

I think length of a game and clocks are two different conversations. How long a game should be is definitely important. A clock is to ensure that each players gets an equal slice of that time and one player taking 12 minute rounds doesn't lose to time in turn 2-3 because the other player was taking 30+ minute rounds (although unintentionally).