I have recently put up an article on Dust-War.com and figured I would see what people thought. I have been mulling over how best to run a larger-scale tournament for Dust Warfare.

One thing I didn't mention in the article was the possible want to include a "Sideboard" or alternative list option. Something like a three platoon format, where one is the "main platoon", with two secondaries chosen before the players start (like Warmachine/Hordes).

Has anyone had any practical experience with Dust Warfare tourneys yet?

Interesting read. I'm in the early stages of developing a format myself, having TO'd a ton of events over the years.

Sorry for the multiple replies. My Internet modem wigged out just as I hit send, and these forums do very weird things with cut & paste text.

After thinking about it for a few days, I realized that death clocks won't work for Dust Warfare because games are scored at the end, not as they go like in Warmachine. For example, in Key Positions and Assassination both players would have no way to score Superiority Points because the objectives are only revealed at the end. The fact that these objectives require a definitive end to the game means that the clock can't be gamed; the game needs to end before it can be scored. I think that timed turns with a single or flexible extension would keep things moving along at a nice clip.

Also, I think that the battle builder and player placement of terrain are both important if you're going to do a single-list format. That gives players some agency to try to play to their lists' strengths.

wrkrparasite said:

I disagree with your assessment of Deathclock not working. If anything, it works better, and forces folks to take risks to get to the objectives in those scenarios. How do you propose the games end if they keep going on timed turns only, and folks have a few turns where they don't get to activate half their army. With Deathclock, the person whose clock runs out loses, period. Superiority points are awarded by units destroyed, and the winner gets full points as if they achieved the scenario win. The game ends in a timely manner, and folks get to have one or two important turns where the time really matters. It more closely mirrors a casual game without taking off the pressure to be decisive.

Battle-builder and terrain placement were included in my proposal, so I'm assuming that paragraph was in agreement with me.

Death clocks wont work because you can run your opponents time down with your reactions.

If the clocks are chess clocks, the ones which stop your time countdown and start the one of the opponent if you press the button, well, the solution is quite simple:

you turn, your time is running, you move, you are in a position wherein a reaction trigger happens, you ask your opponent "do you react, yes or no?", if your opponent says yes, you press your clock button and HIS time starts running, not yours, when he finished his reaction he has to press again to bring the time countdown back to you.

I promise, he will fast as lightning

btw, have you ever watched a quick chess tournament ? the guys hit the clocks like their lives depend on it.

You don't need chess clocks. Just set the round time to, say, 50 minutes, and when time runs out the player currently activating a unit must finish their activation. After that, the game is over. Also, ask players to play reasonably quickly, and maybe even deduct points for slow play.

Cannor said:

Which works if players aren't manipulative competitive a$$hats. Unfortunately, at tournaments, they are. Therefore, the TO has to make discretionary judgement calls. Nothing sucks the fun out of running a tournament more than DQing a guy for manipulating the clock. Reality is , you can only judge actions, not motives. I almost DQ'd a diabetic once who was taking long turns. Fortunately, as I started to question him, he snapped out of it, tested his blood sugar, and we got him some juice and he was okay.

Trust me, I've ran a lot of tournaments for a lot of games. Chess clocks are the best tool ever for keeping folks from manipulating the clock while still keeping game length reasonable so the trains (rounds) run on time.

Azrell said:

This is my stance on Death clocks as well. Thanks to the reaction system of this game you would be able to run down your opponents turns by reacting to things and even if your not actually reacting but going wait "hmmm I may want to react" then its still your opponents turn to act.

I think their are other more creative ways to encourage players to finish their games. Dust so far seems to be a nice system for simply being fast games so it isn't difficult in my opinion to encourage players to finish on time. I would simply state at the start of a tournament if players can not finish their games in the allotted time then neither player will receive points for it and then on top of it I would give incentive points to the players who do so even if a player is loosing if they finish their game on time they can at least get some points and feel good about it.

Shadow4ce said:

Totally in agreement on battle builder and terrain. Still not seeing death clock, though, so help me understand.

Unless I'm missing something (and I might be, so please let me know if I am), there are two potential outcomes on death clock:

1. Someone clocks out and loses, or
2. Someone tables their opponent.

Neither one of those outcomes take scenario objectives into consideration. There is zero incentive to pursue said objectives when the only way to win is to clock your opponent or kill everything on the board.

All that being said, this entire discussion will be rendered moot when FFG inevitably releases rules for running tournaments.

Death clock doesn't change scenario objectives at all. It just provides a finite, yet known, maximum amount of time you can use to make your moves/attacks over the course of a full game. If scenario has a 5 round limit and neither player times out, then the winner is determined by scenario rules. Which should happen 95% of the time (unless you're running a high-pressure tournament, or have a very short timeframe to complete it in and are setting unrealistical times).

death clock doesn't mean you play to the death (table your opponent), you still play the scenario as always. The reason it's called death clock is you lose if your clock runs out. I've only seen two types of players who allow it to happen…

1.) Players suffering from, "analysis paralysis" - Usually because they don't know the game or their units well enough, or occasionally, because their opponent really put them in a no-win situation.

2.) Players who have zero situational awareness and don't pay attention to their time.

Other than adding an additional lose condition (running out of time) Death Clock has zero effect on scenario objectives or turn limits. The best way to win is to attain your scenario objectives as always, just make sure you don't lolly gag in doing so.

Once typical average game lengths between experienced players are figured out, it's pretty rare to have someone clock out in a tournament who actually has a legitimate shot at winning it. Although, until the right time is found, there will definitely be growing pains. I'll run several, "For Fun" tournaments where all participants get equal awards before running a serious prize one, so I have a good handle on the right time to set the clocks at.

Reactions are going to be mighty interesting if folks forget to switch the clock to the reacting player and back, so that'll be illuminating. Denied made a valid point, but I think the rules handle it well in it not being sporting to give your opponent time to react, it's equally cheesy to hem and haw over whether you will or not when asked. If it becomes an issue, I'll implement clock pausing so it's obvious who's really debating a reaction and who is just messing with their opponent's time.

Shadow4ce said:

See, I told you that I needed some help. For some reason the Warmachine part of my brain made death clock and five rounds mutually exclusive. I am now onboard.

As far as reactions go, the active player declares activation or executes activation and as soon as there is an enemy unit eligible to react, the active player asks the responding player if he/she wants to react. If the answer is yes, you flip the clock over. If the responding player hems and haws, you flip the clock over.

wrkrparasite said:

Love this!

Yeah anytime someone is using up your time, flip the clock. They get to use their time instead.

Also I thought you set up terrain after the battle builder, so you could run a pregame timer for battle building and terrain set up, then after X time, have everyone start their Deathclocks. Starting the Deathclocks during Battle Builder and terrain set up is a little silly to me, but an overall timed set up sounds cool, then if people are running late, let them eat into their deathclock time.

ninjaray said:

I like this idea as well. It'll make determining appropriate DC time a quicker exercise as well, only having one variable (actual scenario play) to deal with.

I think terrain should be set up by the TO before the tournament to be fair and balanced. I know its part of the game to create strategic terrain placement, but I think that isn't needed and would just add time to an already long tournament day. The Battle Builder should be timed - simply to keep people from wasting time. I think 5-10min is plenty to get to an agreement, write the results (and objectives) and submit them to the TO.

When it comes to death clocks, I like the idea - as well as having a pause option (for asking about Reactions as well as useful bathroom breaks or whatever). What do you guys think about turn extensions like in Warmahordes?

Also, how long are the average 300AP games taking folks right now?

em_en_oh_pee said:

Leith Deathclock, turn extensions are built in. You need more Tim in turn 3, use it. Just don't leave yourself with 3 minutes for turns 4-5, lol.