SLOW PLAY - Why I stood up & left the table

[Julian23]

"In July I played in the Bazaar of Moxen Strasbourg, the series’ third stop of the season. While I usually focus on both the journey as well as the gameplay, I want to emphasize a different aspect of Magic in this report. In round 6 of the Legacy Main Event, I had one of the worst experiences in my competitive Magic career, which eventually led me to just standing up from the table and leaving both my match and the opponent behind."

This is something I wanted to write about much earlier but then never really got around to finish it. Usually I try to submit tournament reports for all the big events I play in, but things kinda got in the way of each other and it certainly didn't help that it was something really unpleasant I wanted to write about. But since the topic itself is always relevant (one might say...timeless), I figured there was worth in finishing it. If only just to vent some steam and/or keep pushing for stricter enforcement of Slow Play rules.

SLOW PLAY — Why I stood up and left the table

[taconaut]

How much time was left on the clock when he had to decide on his attacks?

[Julian23]

Must have been around a couple minutes. But that question is already quite misleading as the time left in the round has nothing to do with Slow Play. If anything it might help with differentiating between Slow Play and Stalling.

[twndomn]

Must have been around a couple minutes. But that question is already quite misleading as the time left in the round has nothing to do with Slow Play. If anything it might help with differentiating between Slow Play and Stalling.

Is it possible to discuss slow play in Legacy without discussing the card SDT?

I hate to digress. Often topics become:
1. Perceived stereotypes of Miracles SDT-ing vs actual fast Miracles players.
2. Storm with singleton SDT, or burn with singleton SDT, non-Miracles players doing the slow SDT-ing.

[Fox]

Is it possible to discuss slow play in Legacy without discussing the card SDT?
2. Storm with singleton SDT

Even with SDT out, a deck like ANT will spend much more time analyzing the lines of play during the resolution of a Brainstorm - and for good reason. Either way, storm decks like ANT aren't causing events to go to time. By itself SDT is an unambiguously poorly designed card, but it at least gives non-blue decks filtering and also really punishes opponents for overloading on discard without showing genuine interest in actually winning a game in a timely manner.

Naming off decks that use SDT you've got the ones that kill before turn 5 (i.e. ANT/Burn), ones that hard-lock opponents out of the game and should be often just be conceded to (Painter-Grindstone), needlessly turn-intensive [competitive sure, but still kinda ridiculous] (Post, Enchantress, NicFit), and then Miracles...there are others, but these are the usual SDT suspects. We can sit here and argue about SDT as the time-waster, but the fact of the matter is that Counterbalance is ultimately responsible. This card is absolutely the largest direct offender when it comes to spinning SDT multiple times between draws; more important though is its indirect impact: pushing out decks that would otherwise prey on slow SDT decks. Ban SDT~kill miracles won't ever stop Counterbalance from trolling the card pool looking for the next enabler to waste everyone's time in extra turns.

The OP is more about making slow decisions in a given match than the larger issue of extending overall tournament duration. I don't see this issue as much in legacy, as inexperienced players don't really happen upon the format by accident to a great degree. As someone who play limited though you can really see the dumbing-down of cards themselves; there is very little regard for understanding turn structure, what exactly happens between announcing and resolving a spell, putting things on the stack correctly, and passing of priority - and this sloppiness does spill over into legacy. You can't force people to intrinsically understand the game at your level, but you always have the ability (in any format) to clearly narrate the gamestate and simplify where things are, when they are, and what your opponent sees when you're passing priority. It is certainly tedious (almost needlessly so), but even newer players in simpler formats will quickly pick up proper short-cutting when a few entire turns are called out and you then begin using language like 'yielding priority, attempting to move through to cleanup.'

With the Eldrazi player it sounds more like an opportunity to educate and uplift a newer (??) legacy player was missed - this is fine; comp. REL and big event stress isn't exactly going to foster patience. If you do make the effort to simplify the gamestate's presentation unto their decisions, you'll probably be more comfortable calling the judge - they still are responsible for understanding and respecting the REL they have chosen to participate in. Concerning the Ross Merriam Brainstorm (where the player clearly understands the game), both informed parties can find intellectual worth in analyzing that scenario, but I can at least appreciate a non-blue deck's frustration with sitting through something their deck can't meaningfully interact with. By any measure 5 minutes is excessive, but in general I find myself more than happy to overlook slow play as long as both players are tacitly constricting these interludes to genuinely meaningful points in a given match.

[Julian23]

With the Eldrazi player it sounds more like an opportunity to educate and uplift a newer (??) legacy player was missed

He's actually on a "major" country's national team but I decided to leave it who it was because I figured it would only distract from the actual issue I wanted to talk about.

[taconaut]

Must have been around a couple minutes. But that question is already quite misleading as the time left in the round has nothing to do with Slow Play.

I think I'm in the minority on this board, but I feel like in situations like the one you described, I err on the side of more time rather than less. I know I personally ought to play faster, but I also feel that if:

- this is the decisive turn of the match
- there is a non-zero amount of time on the clock
- each of you has a win, so the opponent can't stall his way to a win
- whether or not you win or lose is mostly on the table, presuming optimal play (in this case, you were able to identify the correct attack, so as long as your hand didn't have any surprises, he should've been able to as well)

then it's fine to take some more time. If he takes a long time, and makes the correct attack, he wins, right - he took the time to carefully consider his options and played optimally, which is all we can really ask of our opponents. If he makes the wrong attack, he spent some time, and it didn't matter, because he was unable to take the correct line, allowing you to win, also good. If it really is a decisive turn, even if you go to time, you get some extra turns to decide it, and the match will still still end decisively.

Sometimes it feels like many of the posters here want their matches, including ones that go 2-1, to end in half an hour or less. For me, it seems like as long as the match ended before time is called, what does it matter the pace? If all the games end however Magic games are supposed to end, no one gets any points for being the quickest to pass the turn.

[thecrav]

I think I'm in the minority on this board, but I feel like in situations like the one you described, I err on the side of more time rather than less. I know I personally ought to play faster, but I also feel that if:
...
then it's fine to take some more time.

The rule explicitly states that how complex the situation is absolutely does not matter. If people on the board would like to have a discussion about what the rule could or should be, we can certainly do that. But at this time, the rules say that complexity doesn't matter.

Must have been around a couple minutes.

One of the big problems with slow play is that people are just bad at perceiving time.

An experiment:
Time yourself counting and see how far off you are. I just did it and it took me 17.11 seconds to count what I thought was 15 seconds - an error of 14%! Now try counting time while simultaneously doing some brain intensive task. I just tried that, too. While writing powers of 2 on a piece of paper I counted out loud to 15 seconds. I got to 2^13 (8,192) and hit 15 at the same time. I checked my stopwatch and I was at 21.75 seconds - an error of 45%!

In order to speed up the game I announced a Wirewood Symbiote activation targeting Deathrite Shaman in order to produce the mana needed for an important spell. Following the activation I looked into my opponent’s face for a good 4-5 seconds, who just looked back at me like a stone. I untapped DRS, tapped it for mana and put the spell to the table. My opponent thought about the situation a good deal more, then calmy announced that he would like to respond to my Wirewood Symbiote activation by Dismembering my Deathrite. I knew he was within his right to do so as I never asked for actual confirmation of the ability to resolve, but COME ON.

This is something that, without changing the existing slow play rule, we can and need to fix. Many counter-heavy players already kinda do something about it, too. It's not uncommon to see a blue player stick out their hand and say, "thinking" to acknowledge that something has been put on the stack while not yet saying that the spell or ability will resolve.

When I'm not playing against those more considerate players, how long should I wait? At Eternal Weekend, playing Tin Fins, a player Show and Told in my Grisselbrand. I untapped, drew, played a Dark Ritual, and sat for what felt like 15 seconds. With no response, I announced that there was BBB in my pool and moved the Ritual to the graveyard. I played another spell. This time I counted to myself. After five seconds, I again announced the result of the spell and moved the card to my graveyard. After repeating this a few times, I started playing as if my opponent had announced that they were yielding to anything. How long should I have waited on the first spell? What about the second? Or the fifteenth?

Chalice of the Void brings a similar issue. I've played against a lot of prison players who aren't used to responding to things. When I play into a Chalice and they don't immediately announce their trigger, how long should I wait for them to either announce it or say that my spell is going to resolve? I certainly don't want to ask them if it resolves because I don't want to give them any hints that they should maybe counter the thing.

[ParkerLewis]

When I'm not playing against those more considerate players, how long should I wait? At Eternal Weekend, playing Tin Fins, a player Show and Told in my Grisselbrand. I untapped, drew, played a Dark Ritual, and sat for what felt like 15 seconds. With no response, I announced that there was BBB in my pool and moved the Ritual to the graveyard. I played another spell. This time I counted to myself. After five seconds, I again announced the result of the spell and moved the card to my graveyard. After repeating this a few times, I started playing as if my opponent had announced that they were yielding to anything. How long should I have waited on the first spell? What about the second? Or the fifteenth?

Chalice of the Void brings a similar issue. I've played against a lot of prison players who aren't used to responding to things. When I play into a Chalice and they don't immediately announce their trigger, how long should I wait for them to either announce it or say that my spell is going to resolve? I certainly don't want to ask them if it resolves because I don't want to give them any hints that they should maybe counter the thing.

Simple question. Can't you just ask "ok ?" (or "resolves ?", or whatever) each and every time you put a spell on the stack (and don't intend to keep priority of course) ? Either right then, or after a couple seconds if there's absolutely no reaction from the opponent. At least you'll have an answer - yes, no, or thinking - that you know how to deal with.

Not only should it solve your problem (?), but if it's systematic and natural, it won't raise suspicion when it is also asked in front of a Chalice. Although since Chalice is a mandatory trigger, even if the opponent misses it, you're obligated to remind him of it, so I'm not really sure what gain there'd be to expect.

[Beatusnox]

Chalice of the Void brings a similar issue. I've played against a lot of prison players who aren't used to responding to things. When I play into a Chalice and they don't immediately announce their trigger, how long should I wait for them to either announce it or say that my spell is going to resolve? I certainly don't want to ask them if it resolves because I don't want to give them any hints that they should maybe counter the thing.

Last I checked this is explicitly cheating and should get you a DQ.



Sent from my ASUS_Z00TD using Tapatalk

[CptHaddock]

I think I'm in the minority on this board, but I feel like in situations like the one you described, I err on the side of more time rather than less. I know I personally ought to play faster, but I also feel that if:

- this is the decisive turn of the match
- there is a non-zero amount of time on the clock
- each of you has a win, so the opponent can't stall his way to a win
- whether or not you win or lose is mostly on the table, presuming optimal play (in this case, you were able to identify the correct attack, so as long as your hand didn't have any surprises, he should've been able to as well)

then it's fine to take some more time. If he takes a long time, and makes the correct attack, he wins, right - he took the time to carefully consider his options and played optimally, which is all we can really ask of our opponents. If he makes the wrong attack, he spent some time, and it didn't matter, because he was unable to take the correct line, allowing you to win, also good. If it really is a decisive turn, even if you go to time, you get some extra turns to decide it, and the match will still still end decisively.

Sometimes it feels like many of the posters here want their matches, including ones that go 2-1, to end in half an hour or less. For me, it seems like as long as the match ended before time is called, what does it matter the pace? If all the games end however Magic games are supposed to end, no one gets any points for being the quickest to pass the turn.

I think the big issue is what a reasonable amount of time per decision is given a constantly changing number of factors. It's just going to be different for everyone. Maybe the solution to this is have a set amount of time that a turn can last, but that is just going to cause more headaches.

This is something that, without changing the existing slow play rule, we can and need to fix. Many counter-heavy players already kinda do something about it, too. It's not uncommon to see a blue player stick out their hand and say, "thinking" to acknowledge that something has been put on the stack while not yet saying that the spell or ability will resolve.

When I'm not playing against those more considerate players, how long should I wait? At Eternal Weekend, playing Tin Fins, a player Show and Told in my Grisselbrand. I untapped, drew, played a Dark Ritual, and sat for what felt like 15 seconds. With no response, I announced that there was BBB in my pool and moved the Ritual to the graveyard. I played another spell. This time I counted to myself. After five seconds, I again announced the result of the spell and moved the card to my graveyard. After repeating this a few times, I started playing as if my opponent had announced that they were yielding to anything. How long should I have waited on the first spell? What about the second? Or the fifteenth?

Chalice of the Void brings a similar issue. I've played against a lot of prison players who aren't used to responding to things. When I play into a Chalice and they don't immediately announce their trigger, how long should I wait for them to either announce it or say that my spell is going to resolve? I certainly don't want to ask them if it resolves because I don't want to give them any hints that they should maybe counter the thing.

Can't you just solve this with simple communication? I know that this isn't ideal considering there are situations where you can use your knowledge of your deck/the game to gain an advantage in the matchup e.g. resolving spells under a chalice. I've resorted to constantly asking my opponent if a spell or trigger has resolved and if they say something like thinking I give them a little while before badgering them again. I've been burned too many times by trying to wait only for my opponent to finally them finally respond when I assumed a game action of mine had resolved, had a judge called and have the judge not rule in my favor.

[square_two]

I don't think I ever realized that the slow play ruling really makes no concession at all for game state complexity. You hear that excuse all the time though.

Also, I need to get a wrist-watch to use for this...glancing at the second-hand position seems way easier than counting to 30 seconds if you are wanting to process your own decisions while the opp tanks.

[PirateKing]

Getting over your fear of calling a judge can be one of the biggest obstacles for newer players, and it still surprises me when experiences players let things go by. Until they generate a penalty for too many judge calls, when in doubt call a judge. I'm not lecturing you Julian, you're a far better player than I am; we just need to eliminate the stigma that comes with calling a judge, and appealing calls to the head judge. I agree these are issues that aren't included when learning the rules of the game, and change has to start somewhere.

[Pdingo]

Haha sorry Julian for the Ad Nauseam on 3 Life:)
Best Ad Nauseam ever<3

[rufus]

I don't think I ever realized that the slow play ruling really makes no concession at all for game state complexity. You hear that excuse all the time though.

Also, I need to get a wrist-watch to use for this...glancing at the second-hand position seems way easier than counting to 30 seconds if you are wanting to process your own decisions while the opp tanks.

You could build an hourglass into your life counter...

[thecrav]

I don't think I ever realized that the slow play ruling really makes no concession at all for game state complexity. You hear that excuse all the time though.

Not only does the rule not make a concession, it specifically states that complexity doesn't matter.

5.5 Slow Play

Players must take their turns in a timely fashion regardless of the complexity of the play situation and adhere to
time limits specified for the tournament. Players must maintain a pace to allow the match to be finished in the
announced time limit. Stalling is not acceptable. Players may ask a judge to watch their game for slow play; such
a request will be granted if feasible.

[tescrin]

The problem here is that MTG, despite having a normally mathematical ruleset, doesn't seem to specify the time to make a decision. I think it's probably because it's abusable; since if it takes a minute per decision, dropping your only land on turn 1, a creeping tar pit, would allow you to delay (if it were somehow advantageous.)

Even so, they need to put a limit on it and just stick to it. Then.. I don't know, have an enforcement policy like "your opponent chooses whether you sacrifice a permanent, discard a card, or drain the mana from your pool" [covering all the bases, since a storm player taking a 20 minute turn won't care about a lost permanent or discarded card, but most decks won't care about losing mana in their pool; you get the idea..]

There may be a better way; giving a 3-strike rule where if you slow play three times while being watched (and maybe you get a warning buffer where they say "hey you're slow" and you get 10 seconds more to figure it out) and you just lose the match.

Something. Well defined. Would solve the problem. The problem is, as it often is, ill-defined rules. MTG is far and away one of the best defined rulesets I've ever seen; but the 40k problem creeps in (for those unfamiliar, famously badly written rules that haven't improved much in decades.) Just go to the rules thread in a place like Warseer, and see the shitshow that is the life of rules lawyers in that game. Those problems, and this one, are 100% ill-defined rules that; when it comes to deciding the entire game in a tournament over; feels very bad for a judge to have to determine RAW vs. RAI. I think the way to solve this isn't to get judges to take it seriously, it's top down. Get wizards to make the rule better, and boom. The problem will be over over-night. A new problem may occur with the top paragraph; but if that's the case it's not much different than people taking time-outs at the end of an NBA game to move up the court or w/e. If we enter an age where people have to build faster decks because the possibility of "allowed slow play" exists, w/e.

[HammerAndSickled]

Slow play is an epidemic in Magic, not just legacy. I honestly think it's killing the competitive scene for me. People take AGONIZINGLY long on simple decisions.