Everyone knows what I'm going to ask from the topic title. But I'll say it anyway.

Has anyone used a chess clock whilst playing Armada. And if not, what do people think of the idea. In case someone doesn't know how they function, it's a two-faced clock that counts down from whatever time limit you've set and there's a leaver on the top that you press to stop your own clock and begin your opponent's.

The concept is that you each have a set amount of time to complete all your moves (simple version) and if you run out of time you forfeit. As soon as you've made your move, or in the case of Armada, moves, you slam down the button and your opponent's clock is running. Then they do the same to you.

I think it would add some excitement to the game as well as keep a zippy pace. And it would deal with annoying chin-strokers (ACS) which are all too common.

Thoughts? How long do you think one should set it for different points values? You don't want people not having enough time to think at all, but you want things to be always in motion.

You'd set it for one standard game time divided by 12. An hour and a half, or something.

You'd set it for one standard game time divided by 12. An hour and a half, or something.

Ah, yes. I wasn't asking for help with the arithmetic as such. Though thank you.

I more was asking what sort of time people thought themselves. I don't know how good FFG's game length estimates actually are based on people's experiences. I also want to know what people think of the idea. I reckon it would be fun and it would be great for tournaments, also. Or do tournaments already use these? I've never played in one.

I like it, but good luck getting the acs to agree.

Or do tournaments already use these? I've never played in one.

No they don't. Because chess clocks don't work well in a asymmetrical game like Armada or X-Wing. In any given game it's very unlikely for both sides to have the same number of units on the table, and a chess clock effectively punishes someone for bringing a bigger list.

It's going to take more time to play though a turn with 4 Rebel ships and 4 Squadrons then it is 2 Imperial ships and 4 squadrons.

if you do chess clocks i would give each player half the round timer like its done in warmachine and hordes.

I dislike chess clocks for assymetrical games. If I run more squadrons or ships I am inherently at a disadvantage. That's not helping the game any. There's a 6 turn limit. That'll keep games plenty short.

I like the idea. Even considered it. But, as there is some "between-the-turns-bustling", I'd go for 7.5 minutes per player per turn. When the time is up, the player is finished for this turn and can't act until next. Yes, the one with more ships may be a bit in disadvantage compared to without the chess-clock, but this mitigates the advantage of having considerably more active time in the game than the other player.

I dislike chess clocks for assymetrical games. If I run more squadrons or ships I am inherently at a disadvantage. That's not helping the game any. There's a 6 turn limit. That'll keep games plenty short.

Its actually not a huge deal in warmachine and the difference can be 15model lists vs 60 model lists.

I do not see chess clocks being necessary as I have not seen or even heard of a round going to time. If the 2 players play regularly and are up on the rules, 300pt games are taking 60-90 minutes.

I prefer the WM style deathclock (chess clock) compared to, a timed turns format. Time turns is ok, but when the game starts and you have all your stuff, a turn timer may not be enough time to get everything done as smartly as you can. where if you have 60minutes, your turn 2 can take 20minutes and thats fine, you needed it.

I just dont want to see the time management abuse happen in this game as it does in other games.

I can't imagine anything turning me off more. I left WM/H because of it. Not because of the clock, but because I do not want to play in a group of gamers who collectively need one.

I had not considered that players with a lot of pieces would be at an inherent disadvantage. However, I don't think it would make too terrible a difference. I'm not proposing people being forced to complete moves at breakneck speed, I just think that it would keep a lively pace and make things feel nice and competitive and challenging. I think I will give it a try.

I wont be doing timing per-turn. I think that would be spectacularly lop-sided as different turns will have a different natural play length. Hence a chess-clock which provides a total time limit, not a timer that tracks an individual turn.

Hence a chess-clock which provides a total time limit, not a timer that tracks an individual turn.

Myself I don't use a chess clock for anything. But can you turn one off or pause it? Because in the planning phase both players are active, so either you have to pause the clock, or else someone gets the time counted against them.

Which would ripe for abuse by the player who isn't on the clock...

If my opponent is so impatient that he brings a chess clock to a match I'm finding a new opponent.

The Tournament Organiser is your friend. If you feel your opponent is being deliberately slow say something.

No

I understand the idea. I have a tendency to get locked into an thought spiral and might take a while to commit. The cost of a clock is problematic. And with only rounds I don't think it is an issue unless you want to get the game done in less than 2 hours

I dislike chess clocks for assymetrical games. If I run more squadrons or ships I am inherently at a disadvantage. That's not helping the game any. There's a 6 turn limit. That'll keep games plenty short.

So someone with more units should get to use up more of the shared time that's used now?

We use them in warmachine tournaments a fair bit. And yeah, it means "dude spam" players have to move a bit quicker, but it seems to work out.

The only reason i'd use them for armada is if you are finding, in your local scene, that players are failing to finish games on time or that people are stalling in late turns to get draws. And then only if talking to them doesn't resolve the situation.

Even then only in a tournament setting where it's explicitly stated in the tournament pack.

Oh, and don't worry about real clocks. There are many chess clock apps on phones and tablets. I've found that most players who can buy into the system also have a cell phone.

Myself I don't use a chess clock for anything. But can you turn one off or pause it? Because in the planning phase both players are active, so either you have to pause the clock, or else someone gets the time counted against them.

Which would ripe for abuse by the player who isn't on the clock...

In Warmachine, where I use them a fair bit, you can pause to do a rules question or to talk to the TO for a ruling. You can also swap over when the other player is making a decision. If they spend 2 minutes deciding what defence tokens to use, that should come out of their time.

If you are using a chess clock or app, its really easy to flick over for those moments.

We use them in warmachine tournaments a fair bit. And yeah, it means "dude spam" players have to move a bit quicker, but it seems to work out.

The only reason i'd use them for armada is if you are finding, in your local scene, that players are failing to finish games on time or that people are stalling in late turns to get draws. And then only if talking to them doesn't resolve the situation.

Even then only in a tournament setting where it's explicitly stated in the tournament pack.

Oh, and don't worry about real clocks. There are many chess clock apps on phones and tablets. I've found that most players who can buy into the system also have a cell phone.

I'm on the fence on this one. Armada and X-Wing really shouldn't need timed rounds but there is the issue that some players, not many, just waste sooooooooo much time making decisions it hurts. The thing that makes it more painful a lot of times is that those players also tend to go with their first thought to begin with but spend too much time looking hard at the table trying to see if there is a better angle or what not. (And a lot of those times that 5 minutes they took to make a move ends up being pointless because the move they made was a bad one anyways.)

But some players that are new need more time to remember the rules and understand how the models will move around each other. Yet more often than not it is someone who has been playing a while over thinking and second guessing.

Best solution I have used when running Flames of War was to give both players in an unfinished game a warning. Then should either of those players come up and get a second warning all their games that timed out retrospectively become losses.

I dislike chess clocks for assymetrical games. If I run more squadrons or ships I am inherently at a disadvantage. That's not helping the game any. There's a 6 turn limit. That'll keep games plenty short.

So someone with more units should get to use up more of the shared time that's used now?

Yes.

I still believe it is more determined by the player's skill and confidence is those skills that determines how fast a game can be played.

In Malifuax I was at a tournament with my Gremlin army (in Malifuax Gremlins are the crazy high number miniatures with a lot of crazy abilities that work off other models.) which is considered the Slow crew to play. I got paired up with another Gremlin player for one of my later games. We both knew our lists and their abilities and played with confidence while laughing ourselves to tears for most of the game. We were the first game to finish and we finished a half an hour before the next game finished.

Knowing your fleet and being confident in your abilities will get you to that speed that will see your games running smoothly and fun for both of you.

I think for practice and fun games it would be good so to say. It can help you to get faster, think faster, plan moves better, and execute faster.

Overall though like others have said be ready for opponents to pass on using it.

Then should either of those players come up and get a second warning all their games that timed out retrospectively become losses.

There's already rules in place to deal with a game that ends due to time. There's really no reason to make up new ones.