Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I would like to get some input on this. There is no official rule as I can find. When a round ends in a tournament, how is this supposed to be handled. Is it stopped cold turkey or if the player who started the game is playing when time is called then the other player gets a turn. It came up recently at another tourney and every tourney I have been to has done the latter. This tourney, it was done the first way which cost a point here and there and may have caused a win to be a tie which would have changed the standings completely. A little help is needed for the elders on this one.

I was the host in question. There is no actual written rule and no one has until this tournament said anything about this unwritten rule. Seeing as it isn't written, this should be either written down or left to host's discretion.

Before I begin, let's be clear that whatever happened is in the past and cannot be changed. The rest of this discussion is for future considerations only. 

Ultimately, everything is up to the host's discretion, whether it is written or not. The Host Guide specifies 1 hour for each round of Type 1 play, but I have heard that even Natz shortens it to 45 minutes, due to overall time constraints. Additionally, the Host Guide gives very specific time limits for each phase, based on per card decision times. However, I doubt many (if any) hosts actually track such times.

With that said, I think the idea of having players finish their turn, and allow whoever did not go first in the game the last turn privilege is the best idea in the interest of fairness. Allowing one player to have more overall turns than their opponent(s) is allowing the chance for one additional rescue, which could ultimately decide the game (especially late in the game). This is especially concerning now that you cannot rescue your own Lost Soul cards. As a host, I would always try to err on the side of fairness.

I also think that having rounds end "cold turkey" may tempt players to stall in the waning minutes. Knowing that the game would not just end at the buzzer significantly alters game strategy in the closing moments.

I definitely think that there should be a written rule, though. I agree that Elder input, and eventually Rob's input, would be beneficial here.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on October 18, 2014, 06:41:22 PM

he Host Guide specifies 1 hour for each round of Type 1 play, but I have heard that even Natz shortens it to 45 minutes, due to overall time constraints. Additionally, the Host Guide gives very specific time limits for each phase, based on per card decision times. However, I doubt many (if any) hosts actually track such times.

On the first part, the recommended time per round there is actually including scheduled breaks and time needed to work out match-ups between rounds.  Type 1 2-Player games last 45 minutes at high-level tournaments, including Nationals, by default, with that extra time being a 'buffer' for games that run over time, set-up time between rounds, and so on such that each round actually ends up lasting an hour.  The second part is rarely enforced, but judges should be ready to respond if they receive complaints about stalling or taking too long on actions (even unintentionally).

On the issue at hand, I have never seen a tournament round 'end' at the buzzer as it were, or heard of that happening, and that is just not the equitable way to handle it for all players (for reasons pointed out above).  While there isn't anything explicitly written, there isn't anything that indicates players are not to be given the exact same number of turns, unless someone wins outright.  If you see that a game is closing in on time, tell the group that the next full round is the last one and that's usually sufficient.  If there is stalling, deal with it as above.

But ending in the middle of the rounds doesn't make sense.  I have also never seen anyone rule (including any elder at Nats) that all players are not given full rounds at time, so I'm not sure where that would have come from.

I agree with everything Dayne says here.

Because if you refuse to play fast enough to not time out you shouldn't get a chance to turn a tie into a win.

Cutting games off at a buzzer is patently unfair to the person or persons who may get robbed of a turn because they went later in a round. Giving some players an advantage by having an extra chance to draw cards and/or make a rescue attempt completely defeats any sense of fair competition. Furthermore, your quote above is based on the assumption that the person "refusing to play fast enough" is always the person who goes last. Even if timeouts were always caused by slow play (which isn't even close to being true), that's a completely baseless assumption.

My big issue is that I don't like those decks. I like people to play a deck that is either balanced or Offensive in nature. I'll send you a personal message YMT.

Most Important:
       Players should be given the same number of turns in a game.  Therefore if time runs out, then the current player should finish their turn and IF they went first, then their opponent should also be given one final turn.

Medium Important:
       How long rounds last is somewhat up to the host.  If you are running a small level tournament (local or district), then I think it would be fine for you to decide to give anywhere between 45-60 mins per round.  This would naturally be dictated more by how many people you had at your tournament, how many events you were running, and the experience level or ages of your players.
       If you are running a high level tournament (state or regional), then it is probably best to stick with the shorter 45 min time limit.  This is primarily because it will help your players to be more prepared for Nats, which always runs on a very short time limit.  In fact at Nats this year, there were even some rounds where the time limit was announced even BEFORE the 45 minutes were up because they didn't want people starting a round in the last minute or two.  I spoke against this at the time, but players should know ahead of time that this happens so that they can plan for it.

Least important:
       If a game is going to have both an offense and a defense, then it should be possible to play that game focusing on one or the other, or balancing both.  Naturally some people will most enjoy focusing on offense and having quick games (ie. Red).  Others will most enjoy focusing on defense and having more strategic games (ie. Josh Kopp).  Others will most enjoy balancing both (ie. most players these days).  We should all respect each others perspectives and not try to use time limits to eliminate them.

In MtG after time is called, each player gets three turns then the game ends (not in multi of course).