So, when player A has his time running the player B can waste time (rolling dice, checking ranges, thinking, whatever).
Easy, just tick the clock after you do anything that requires the opponent doing something. It is the point of having a clock, instead of recording whole game turns as it is implemented right now.
Or arguing a rule, getting a ref. Or, both players can now argue whos time should be running; who is the cause of the rules dispute.
This can be solved with proper rules. The referee decides what to do with the lost time. Split it (when the question is real) or add it to one player only.
Or anyone can tamper with the clocks; stop them, change the time, punch the clock so it runs for the other player, without players noticing. Or players can forget to punch the clock and have a lot of time wasted. After a few beers I seriously doubt that most players will remember the clocks when the game situation gets heated up, especially if they never played with chess clocks in the first place.
This can be solved using the cube timer I gave a link to in the previous post. Quite difficult to change the time or turn it from ref face to blue face without being noticed. Also, the fact that it is a giant cube lying on the table makes it more difficult to forget.
The thing is, if you cannot agree with your opponent on simple things, like unit movement, placing, number of dice hits or wounds; a chess clock just brings one more thing to the table players can argue about. And the ref won't get anything concrete from it, to help him out with a fair ruling.
Much more difficult to stall with a timer running. When you do something to try to gain time, your timer is running... if the rules are designed well enough.
I agree it needs to be practiced by both players, but we have a full year ahead of us. Some games are winning if you play 4 turns, and loosing if you play 6. If such a game does not end, the referee should have something to determine if both player were slow or if only one of them was. It will prevent a lot of arguments, I am sure of it.
As for sanctions; well, a player might get a penalty he doesn't deserve (more often it takes two to argue so it's both players fault), but it will help him in the long run. If he gets 1 bad opponent and 1 penalty, it will be light. But the cheater is the one that will have problems in each game; and as the tournament is running he will start getting heavy (multiple) penalties.
That will result in him not making problems for all his opponents, just some.
But that is the minor thing. The major thing is that cheaters will sooner or later run into another cheater. And then, if player A has already some penalties and the other does not; player B will do his thing and get a minor penalty at the end of the game. But the player A will get a red card or worse; even if in this case it wasn't his fault! So, that is the balancing factor. One should not cheat at all, because they might get cheated back later on and get burned!
This will never work. You won't be playing that player again, so why bother get a penalty for him getting one too? Unless maybe if the 1st penalty is "free". But then you behave only till the last game. I mean there is no solution which does not involve the judges judging.