Author Topic: Rules against slow play (Read 3954 times)

Master KChief · « **on:** March 05, 2013, 01:07:35 PM »

Are there any actual rules in place for slow play? I don't believe the turn player should take upwards of 5-10 minutes to plan his next move, and was under the impression games should be moving along at a reasonable pace. Are there any concrete rules pertaining towards a player slow playing, deliberate or not?

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #1 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:09:58 PM »

Yes.

You can call a judge and hold your opponent to the clock. At one point the timing for each phase was laid out somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

lp670sv · « **Reply #2 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:12:21 PM »

I wish I had known that at NE Regionals 2 years ago.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #3 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:14:27 PM »

Quote from: SirNobody on May 12, 2011, 08:49:50 PM

Hey,

According to the tournament guide you have 90 seconds for your prep phase, 90 seconds for you discard phase, and 30 seconds per card played in battle. Of course those numbers are only applied at the judges discretion and it's also against the rules to "take more time than you need" which means that you can be under those numbers and still be illegally stalling.

Tschow,

Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly

That's from two years ago, but I believe it should still hold true.

Master KChief · « **Reply #4 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:18:23 PM »

So if I'm reading that correctly, that's 90 seconds total for the prep phase, regardless of how many cards you play down during prep phase?

Any further stipulations for upkeep phase? I once had a player take upwards of 5 minutes to decide to put a counter on a card during upkeep. -_-

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #5 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:23:28 PM »

I just read the entirety of the section that discusses it in the Tournament Guide.

Here is what it says:

Quote

3. Regarding Timing
Once the opponent to the player’s right has completed his turn, the player’s turn begins.
a.) Draw phase, update phase and preparation phase: [90 seconds] The Player has 90 seconds to draw 3
cards, take actions they wish prior to the battle phase, and place a hero in the field of battle. If the player
has not placed a hero in the field of battle within 90 seconds then the player forfeits his battle phase for
that turn and skips to step 3 (discard phase).
b.) Battle phase: [30 seconds per card]. Since another player or players are now involved we can limit the
amount of time between each card. (Example, I place a hero in the field of battle, you have 30 seconds to
present a blocker. The player that has initiative now has 30 seconds to play the next enhancement card,
etc.) If more than 30 seconds have elapsed since the last card was played, then the player whose burden it
is to play a card loses initiative. If that player’s forces are losing, then the battle is resolved without any
more cards being played. However, if the battle is in a stalemate or mutual destruction situation then
initiative immediately passes to the other player. c.) Discard Phase: [90seconds] Following the conclusion of the rescue attempt. The Player now has 90
seconds to set cards aside, place characters into his territory, play dominant cards, and discard cards. If
the player has not reduced his hand down to eight cards or less by the time the 90 seconds have elapsed
the opponent to the player’s left shall randomly discard cards from the player’s hand down to eight cards
(or 10 cards if the player has “Tables of the Law” activated).
- Note: Time does not accumulate from previous turn stages. Any remaining seconds from a previous
stage are lost.
- Players may have additional time during any stage if they have played a card requiring searching a
discard or draw pile, or are asking a question or requesting a ruling from a referee.
- The referee shall warn a player if they believe a player is only asking a question to stall for time.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #6 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:30:12 PM »

I think that at one point there was something about a limit of 30 seconds between substantive actions (not sure of the precise wording). However, that is still a rather loose term, and one could easily stall out for awhile under those guidelines. I wish we could implement a sort of chess-clock system, the problem is that each player can play cards on every turn, so the clock would have to be broken down by initiative in battle probably. It might get complicated.

It's definitely something that should be looked into to, as slow play is one of the most frustrating things about Redemption for me personally, as I am typically a very fast player (even when using turtles; I only timed out once in a live tournament with my Heroless deck, and that timeout occurred five minutes after the game started...*JSB, grumble grumble*).

What I usually try to do is prod my opponent to play a little more quickly. I don't like having to call a judge over, especially if I'm not sure if the slowness is deliberate; fun and fellowship over competition and all that, but I think someone who is deliberately slow playing is not adhering to fun and fellowship either, and should be corrected.

I'll admit that I do tend to ruminate a bit more if I am pretty sure I'm beat (such as vs. Kirk at the T2 only) but I'd say that it has more to do with trying to think of any outs than trying to get the timeout.

One solution might be to just remove the point for a timeout loss, and make the full win condition either the person who gets to 5 (7) first or the person who has the most redeemed LSs after time expires. That would have the added benefit of having simpler tournament rankings/pairings, as we'd get rid of all of the extra points everywhere. You'd still have to deal with 1.5 pts/ties...or maybe we could just make a win worth 2, and a tie worth 1. Hmm...

EDIT: Instaposted. Interesting, but I think my idea may still warrant some discussion.

Master KChief · « **Reply #7 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:56:57 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on March 05, 2013, 01:23:28 PM

I just read the entirety of the section that discusses it in the Tournament Guide.

Here is what it says:

Quote
3. Regarding Timing
Once the opponent to the player’s right has completed his turn, the player’s turn begins.
a.) Draw phase, update phase and preparation phase: [90 seconds] The Player has 90 seconds to draw 3
cards, take actions they wish prior to the battle phase, and place a hero in the field of battle. If the player
has not placed a hero in the field of battle within 90 seconds then the player forfeits his battle phase for
that turn and skips to step 3 (discard phase).
b.) Battle phase: [30 seconds per card]. Since another player or players are now involved we can limit the
amount of time between each card. (Example, I place a hero in the field of battle, you have 30 seconds to
present a blocker. The player that has initiative now has 30 seconds to play the next enhancement card,
etc.) If more than 30 seconds have elapsed since the last card was played, then the player whose burden it
is to play a card loses initiative. If that player’s forces are losing, then the battle is resolved without any
more cards being played. However, if the battle is in a stalemate or mutual destruction situation then
initiative immediately passes to the other player. c.) Discard Phase: [90seconds] Following the conclusion of the rescue attempt. The Player now has 90
seconds to set cards aside, place characters into his territory, play dominant cards, and discard cards. If
the player has not reduced his hand down to eight cards or less by the time the 90 seconds have elapsed
the opponent to the player’s left shall randomly discard cards from the player’s hand down to eight cards
(or 10 cards if the player has “Tables of the Law” activated).
- Note: Time does not accumulate from previous turn stages. Any remaining seconds from a previous
stage are lost.
- Players may have additional time during any stage if they have played a card requiring searching a
discard or draw pile, or are asking a question or requesting a ruling from a referee.
- The referee shall warn a player if they believe a player is only asking a question to stall for time.

Extremely helpful read, some of that stuff isn't even very common knowledge (random end phase hand discard for the lulz, love it). If these guidelines were actually enforced, I'm very hard pressed to see why T1 games should ever go to time unless its super-turtle mirror or something.

Thanks for the find RDT, its very useful we have something to reference quite easily now.

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 05, 2013, 01:30:12 PM

It's definitely something that should be looked into to, as slow play is one of the most frustrating things about Redemption for me personally...

I wholeheartedly agree, all games should be moving at a reasonable pace. Slow play, intentional or not, detracts from games getting finished and overall active gameplay.

Quote

What I usually try to do is prod my opponent to play a little more quickly. I don't like having to call a judge over, especially if I'm not sure if the slowness is deliberate; fun and fellowship over competition and all that, but I think someone who is deliberately slow playing is not adhering to fun and fellowship either, and should be corrected.

I can understand your point about being 'nice' about it and all, but slow play is slow play no matter which way you cut it, and if its an offense against the rules it should be dealt with and have consequences issued accordingly. I'm more behind being impartial and objective towards every situation presented in an effort to retain fairness and the integrity of the game/players, rather than trying to determine something as ambiguous as the reasoning behind such an infraction and judge it based on that. In the end the infraction is still made, the damage has already been done, a penalty should be issued.

Somewhat related, there should also be more concrete rules in place about what kinds of penalties are issued for infractions.

Quote

One solution might be to just remove the point for a timeout loss, and make the full win condition either the person who gets to 5 (7) first or the person who has the most redeemed LSs after time expires.

I can get on board for more streamlined scoring. I never understood why the points were split up that way for timeout wins/losses. Winning and losing seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #8 on:** March 05, 2013, 01:58:46 PM »

Quote

3. Regarding Timing
Once the opponent to the player’s right has completed his turn, the player’s turn begins.
a.) Draw phase, update phase and preparation phase: [90 seconds] The Player has 90 seconds to draw 3 cards, take actions they wish prior to the battle phase, and place a hero in the field of battle. If the player has not placed a hero in the field of battle within 90 seconds then the player forfeits his battle phase for that turn and skips to step 3 (discard phase).

The 90 sec prep phase was a rule a long time ago back where there was a lot less that you could do during upkeep/prep phase. It would be quite reasonable these days to exceed that. Imagine a scenario such as this:

Upkeep Phase:
-- Player 1 draws and has no LSs to defend.
-- Player 1 has 7 Yrs of Plenty active and has to decide whether to draw the extra card which they normally would, but now might not risk drawing a LS to defend. They think about it for 10 seconds and decide NOT to draw from 7 yrs.
-- Player 1 also has a priest set aside with Feast of Trumpets and so they add a counter to that.
-- Player 1 also has a hero set aside with Provisions and adds the 2nd counter to that.
It is now their prep phase:
-- Player 1 puts down a couple cards in their territory taking a few seconds.
-- Player 1 brings back their priest and has to pick 1-4 cards to put under their deck. This is often a difficult decision of what you will need now vs. what you will need later. In this case the decision is compounded by the fact that they more cards they put under the more likely that they will draw a LS to defend which they still currently do not. After 30 seconds, they end up taking the risk and put the maximum number of cards beneath their deck to draw 4. None of them are LSs.
-- Player 1 now wants to see what they are up against, so they activate Urim & Thummin to see their opponent's hand. They have to analyze all the defensive options that are there as well as try to figure out how to block future rescues by their opponent. This takes about 30 seconds, and then they give the hand back and turn off U&T to decide what other artifact to turn on.
-- Player 1 knows that their opponent's artifact will stop their rescue, and they have Captured Ark in their artifact pile, but they also have Live Coal in their territory in storehouse. They think about using the Captured Ark for 5 seconds, but decide instead to use the Live Coal. So now they can pick between activating a defensive artifact like Unholy Writ or an artifact that draws cards like Gifts of the Magi (again with the dilemma of pulling out a LS). Gifts has a "may" ability, and they feel confident in their defense so after 5 more seconds they decide to activate GotM.
-- Player 1 now picks up the Live Coal from Storehouse and plays it on their opponent's evil curse to negate and discard it. This takes another few seconds, but makes it possible for their rescue to succeed.
-- Player 1 now brings back their hero set aside with Provisions and has to decide yet again whether to draw 2 cards and possibly pull out a LS. After 5 more seconds, they decide NOT to draw the cards, thinking that they already have out GotM, so drawing shouldn't be much of an issue.
-- Player 1 now knows that they are ready to attack once they grab their Isaiah using the Isaiah's Call in their hand. So they play that, search their deck for Isaiah, put the Call on him, and shuffle their deck which takes another 10 seconds.
-- Now after all these interactions with set-asides (provisions, feast), fortresses (storehouse), artifacts (U&T, GotM), TC-enhs (Live Coal, Isaiah's Call), and deck (searching & shuffling) now they are finally able to make their attack with Isaiah.

With today's game the above situation is NOT AT ALL exaggerated. All the cards I referred to are commonly used, and this kind of thing probably happens in a lot of games. There is no way that all of that could happen in 90 seconds. I was using ideal times above, and still went over 90 seconds. In real time many of those actions would take a bit longer.

Master KChief · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:07:18 PM »

I read that in 90 seconds. If I can read that in 90 seconds, it can be done in less than 90 seconds.

Your novel also has a lot of 'thinking', 'deciding', etc. Think faster. Complex situations should not in any way impact the players responsibility of playing at a reasonable pace.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #10 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:26:20 PM »

Honestly, if a player has all of those things going on, then experience with their deck, and the situation that surrounded those various actions should allow them to make decisions more quickly.

Even with the listed time limits, (1:30 up to battle, ~2:00 for a 4 card battle phase, and 1:30 until end of turn) each turn could take up to 5:00. That equates to 9 turns in a game, between both players, so 5 turns per player (if we assume as is standard that each player gets an equal number of turns). And then we wonder why Speed Decks are so prevalent; they are really necessary. That would translate to by the same logic to 8 turns per player in T2, where people actually use defense.

Now I don't think anyone is saying that if you take one or two longer than necessary prep phases then you should be punished, but if it is a repeated pattern throughout the game, there could be a problem.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:35:53 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2013, 02:07:18 PM

I read that in 90 seconds. If I can read that in 90 seconds, it can be done in less than 90 seconds.

This makes less than 0% sense

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2013, 02:07:18 PM

Complex situations should not in any way impact the players responsibility of playing at a reasonable pace.

I'm not talking about responsibility. I'm talking about the processing of the human mind. Redemption is a strategy game, not Go Fish. Of course more complex situations will take longer to think through. I'm completely against people stalling on purpose to run out the clock on a game. But if they are genuinely trying to play as fast as they can and make strategic decisions, then they should be allowed to do that.

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 05, 2013, 02:26:20 PM

Even with the listed time limits, (1:30 up to battle, ~2:00 for a 4 card battle phase, and 1:30 until end of turn) each turn could take up to 5:00. That equates to 9 turns in a game, between both players, so 5 turns per player (if we assume as is standard that each player gets an equal number of turns). And then we wonder why Speed Decks are so prevalent; they are really necessary.

I've been saying this for a long time. The time limits in the game DO force people to play speed decks if they want to win at the top level where thing get complicated.

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 05, 2013, 02:26:20 PM

Honestly, if a player has all of those things going on, then experience with their deck, and the situation that surrounded those various actions should allow them to make decisions more quickly.

Some things can be prepared for, but others just take time. For instance in the example above, you can know that your priest is coming back and that you'll be putting cards under. But until you draw your opening 3 and see whether there are any LSs you don't know whether it is better to do more or less cards. And you also don't know whether the cards you already have or the new ones you draw will be better to put under for later. These things are just naturally going to take time, and I don't think that 90 seconds in today's game is reasonable anymore. That time limit was made back before TC-enhs even existed. For that matter, U&T didn't exist either, nor did Feast of Trumpets, Pentecost, First Fruits, etc. The game has evolved away from the battle-phase and towards the prep-phase. The time limits will need to evolve to reflect that.

Master KChief · « **Reply #12 on:** March 05, 2013, 02:56:00 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 05, 2013, 02:26:20 PM

Now I don't think anyone is saying that if you take one or two longer than necessary prep phases then you should be punished, but if it is a repeated pattern throughout the game, there could be a problem.

Agree. This somewhat relates to my point about infractions with penalties being more concrete, and there should be a hierarchy of infractions/penalties fully outlined, with penalties upgraded for habitual offenders. Slow Play could look like this over the course of a single tournament, with a hierarchy of Minor, Major, Strict, Severe:

1st Slow Play: Minor infraction: Warning: Serves as a training tool for players and allows tournament staff to track a potential problem.
2nd Slow Play: Major: Opponent auto-rescues a Lost Soul
3rd Slow Play: Strict: Game Loss
4th Slow Play: Severe: Disqualification

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 05, 2013, 02:35:53 PM

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2013, 02:07:18 PM
I read that in 90 seconds. If I can read that in 90 seconds, it can be done in less than 90 seconds.
This makes less than 0% sense

Maybe you're still processing the information. I'd say give it another 10 minutes, but you may time out.

Quote

I'm not talking about responsibility. I'm talking about the processing of the human mind. Redemption is a strategy game, not Go Fish. Of course more complex situations will take longer to think through. I'm completely against people stalling on purpose to run out the clock on a game. But if they are genuinely trying to play as fast as they can and make strategic decisions, then they should be allowed to do that.

It is a players responsibility to maintain the gamestate at a reasonable pace. If players are not trusted with such a responsibility, then the system is open to abuse, intentional or not. The speed at which the human brain processes information (which, apparently you give very little credit to or are comparing it to the brain processing speed of a goldfish) is absolutely irrelevant towards this discussion. The only important thing to consider is that the T1 gamestate cannot maintain 10-15 minute turns. A player dominating 80% of the total game time is a grand misuse of the system. Absolutely ridiculous. The structure and integrity of the game is completely, absolutely undeniably on the shoulders of the players responsible for maintaining it, and they are to be held accountable for it under tournament circumstances. That is, you know, the whole point of judges enforcing it.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2013, 03:29:09 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 05, 2013, 02:35:53 PM

Quote from: Professoralstad on March 05, 2013, 02:26:20 PM
Even with the listed time limits, (1:30 up to battle, ~2:00 for a 4 card battle phase, and 1:30 until end of turn) each turn could take up to 5:00. That equates to 9 turns in a game, between both players, so 5 turns per player (if we assume as is standard that each player gets an equal number of turns). And then we wonder why Speed Decks are so prevalent; they are really necessary.
I've been saying this for a long time. The time limits in the game DO force people to play speed decks if they want to win at the top level where thing get complicated.

I ran a Turtle in 2011 for 6 rounds without having a problem with time. My 2 ties were due to not being able to rescue (due to mistakes...), not because I didn't have time. And turtles take far more thinking than speed.

If anything, I'd like to see the time limits decrease to force people to play faster. As it is, most people think as much as they like and don't time out. Partly because they're playing speed decks, and partly because we give them so much time.

Master KChief · « **Reply #14 on:** March 05, 2013, 03:44:33 PM »

Just bought this off Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/90-Second-Sand-Timer-1/dp/B002GJH5Y2

Come at me bro.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #15 on:** March 05, 2013, 03:49:43 PM »

Quote from: Westy on March 05, 2013, 03:29:09 PM

I ran a Turtle in 2011 for 6 rounds without having a problem with time.

I ran a Turtle in 2012 for 10 rounds without having a problem with time either. My 2 timeouts were due to a lot of judges rulings one round, and playing against Pequinot's monster turtle deck one round.

But I'm also pretty sure that I had some upkeep/prep phases that lasted more than 90 seconds. I just think that particular time limit has not kept up with the changes in the game and therefore doesn't fit anymore.

And Westy, neither you, nor I, nor Pequinot, nor Josh Kopp, nor anyone else who has run defense-heavy at Nats has ever won, so I still maintain that it can't be done with the current time limits. Shortening the time limits more just makes it that much harder for anyone to prove me wrong.

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2013, 03:44:33 PM

Just bought this off Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/90-Second-Sand-Timer-1/dp/B002GJH5Y2

Why pay $8 when you can get the same thing for $5?

The Guardian · « **Reply #16 on:** March 05, 2013, 03:51:30 PM »

I also get frustrated with slow play, but it should also be noted that sometimes games just time out because that's the way the cards draw.

I remember my game with MKC at Nats 2011. Neither of us played slow, but we were both playing balanced decks and the defenses held equally well. The difference was him using Falling Away and he ended up winning 4-3.

Master KChief · « **Reply #17 on:** March 05, 2013, 03:56:47 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 05, 2013, 03:49:43 PM

I ran a Turtle in 2012 for 10 rounds without having a problem with time either.

I'm curious, when you say you didn't have a problem with time, do you actually mean an opponent just didn't call you out on milking the clock?

Quote from: The Guardian on March 05, 2013, 03:51:30 PM

I remember my game with MKC at Nats 2011. Neither of us played slow, but we were both playing balanced decks and the defenses held equally well. The difference was him using Falling Away and he ended up winning 4-3.

The last Nats with FTM. Ah, those were the days. Not missed, of course.

Warrior_Monk · « **Reply #18 on:** March 05, 2013, 04:04:22 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 05, 2013, 03:49:43 PM

And Westy, neither you, nor I, nor Pequinot, nor Josh Kopp, nor anyone else who has run defense-heavy at Nats has ever won, so I still maintain that it can't be done with the current time limits. Shortening the time limits more just makes it that much harder for anyone to prove me wrong.

Yet most of us haven't had a problem with time before, so why would time limits make a difference? I haven't won nats with a speed deck either. It has more to do with percentages. Let's say 20 top players bring speed decks to nationals and 4 top players bring turtles. Chances are, the speed will win in the end, just because there's so many more of them. The turtle might get 3rd, like it's done twice, but at the end of the day, one of the speed decks will have ran the hottest and taken the prize.

Secondly, I'm not convinced we're doing turtles right. I'm trying dozens of ideas and have pulled out some good ones, but so far nothing that is right (though I think I'm getting closer). If more people tested turtles, maybe we could come up with a top tier deck. There are other issues, but that's the main one. The point is, it's not about time limits, it's about the deck and the players.

Honestly, turtles are, at the end of the day, bad for the game. If turtles were more popular, then games would be really really painful. I despise Turtle versus Turtle. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Turtle versus Speed is actually fun. Speed versus Speed isn't as bad as Turtle versus Turtle.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #19 on:** March 05, 2013, 04:23:04 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on March 05, 2013, 03:56:47 PM

I'm curious, when you say you didn't have a problem with time, do you actually mean an opponent just didn't call you out on milking the clock?

I mean that the games finished in either a full win or a loss before time expired in all but a couple explainable instances.

Quote from: Westy on March 05, 2013, 04:04:22 PM

If turtles were more popular, then games would be really really painful. I despise Turtle versus Turtle. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Turtle versus Speed is actually fun. Speed versus Speed isn't as bad as Turtle versus Turtle.

The problem isn't with Turtles or with Speed actually. The problem is just with too much of the same thing. Turtle vs. Turtle is boring. But Speed vs. Speed is boring too. The most fun games are either Balanced vs. Balanced or Speed vs. Turtle.

And right now in the game there is too much Speed, so playing Turtle leads to more fun games. You bring up a good point though that if more top players played Turtles, then one would probably end up winning Nats someday. However, I don't think that will ever happen.

Chris · « **Reply #20 on:** March 05, 2013, 06:46:18 PM »

I think the current time limits on phases is completely reasonable in competitive tournament play. Like all competitions, Redemption allows people with certain traits to excel over people without them. Being a strategy game, one of those traits that Redemption favors is the ability to process information and make decisions quickly (the use of dominants and the occasional bout of slapjack only emphasizes this). I see no reason to change the rules to cater to people who are worse at the game. It's for this reason that I'm also in favor of abolishing the current time out system. Why should a player be penalized because they got paired against a slow player? Especially at Nats, where there are lots of people who aren't familiar with the cards, and thus need to read every single one, removing this system would help.

I'm not sure how longer per-turn time limits will help turtle decks. Wouldn't less time allowed in any given turn mean more turns per game, which would result in more chances for a turtle (or balanced) deck to gain the advantage? This is especially true when you consider that oftentimes, turtle deck turns are initially shorter, because they're not engaging in a battle phase as often as a speed deck would.

Iamalittleking · « **Reply #21 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:30:06 PM »

Quote from: Chris on March 05, 2013, 06:46:18 PM

I see no reason to change the rules to cater to people who are worse at the game. It's for this reason that I'm also in favor of abolishing the current time out system. Why should a player be penalized because they got paired against a slow player? Especially at Nats, where there are lots of people who aren't familiar with the cards, and thus need to read every single one, removing this system would help.

Agree totally with getting rid of time out. I take longer to think through things I am overly careful some times. which is why i have lay down your life instead of HT in my tgt deck. So why should some one be penalized because, I like using all of my time it make no scene to me.

Chris · « **Reply #22 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:44:15 PM »

Quote from: Iamalittleking on March 05, 2013, 09:30:06 PM

Agree totally with getting rid of time out. I take longer to think through things I am overly careful some times. which is why i have lay down your life instead of HT in my tgt deck. So why should some one be penalized because, I like using all of my time it make no scene to me.

To clarify, when I said get rid of the current time out system, I was referring to the points. I think a win should be a win and a loss should be a loss. Again, why should a player be penalized because they were paired with a slow opponent? I think this would eliminate some of the stress of major tournament play, when a time out can mean the difference between first or second place for a good player.

Iamalittleking · « **Reply #23 on:** March 05, 2013, 09:54:41 PM »

Quote from: Chris on March 05, 2013, 09:44:15 PM

Quote from: Iamalittleking on March 05, 2013, 09:30:06 PM
Agree totally with getting rid of time out. I take longer to think through things I am overly careful some times. which is why i have lay down your life instead of HT in my tgt deck. So why should some one be penalized because, I like using all of my time it make no scene to me.

To clarify, when I said get rid of the current time out system, I was referring to the points. I think a win should be a win and a loss should be a loss. Again, why should a player be penalized because they were paired with a slow opponent? I think this would eliminate some of the stress of major tournament play, when a time out can mean the difference between first or second place for a good player.

should have lessened to the little voice in my head to clarify better. What your saying is what i am referring to.

TheKarazyvicePresidentRR · « **Reply #24 on:** March 06, 2013, 12:28:46 AM »

Quote

And Westy, neither you, nor I, nor Pequinot, nor Josh Kopp, nor anyone else who has run defense-heavy at Nats has ever won, so I still maintain that it can't be done with the current time limits. Shortening the time limits more just makes it that much harder for anyone to prove me wrong.

You guys DO love me

I do not believe deck type has anything to do with it. I've run turtle V turtle (Me Vs Kirk at nationals) in t1 before, both of us knew our decks, our strategies, and counters long before the game started. This lead to a normal length game (30ish minutes). I myself finish my turns as fast as possible even with the deck I run (heroless, turtle, etc, etc). I like defense, I like battles, I like ~~crushing hopes and dreams of attaining that fifth lost soul~~ a good competetive game.

People who are unsure of what to do, what a card will do, etc will usually be near a time limit more than others and thats okay. I do say there needs to be a change or at the very least some enforcing though. I have had games that have gone to time due to someone not knowing cards or rulings taking too long. There needs to be an extention if rulings take a while to deliberate. It isn't the player's fault they did something odd.

So recap:
Time limit enforcing
Extentions for rulings
Decks are not the problem.

News:

Author Topic: Rules against slow play (Read 3954 times)

Warrior_Monk

Warrior_Monk

Chris

Chris