Taking your Time in Combo Decks...

[Julian23]

Because Bahamuth mentioned how much Saito took his time making decisions when he played ANT I was wondering what's the judges opinion on this. My question is very simple: how much time would you (being a judge) give to a player each turn to make a decision given that you don't think he's trying to stall but actually pondering. I know game state doesn't matter. I'm just talking about how much time the average judge would permit for Untap, Draw, Thinking.

I've never played ANT but I consider picking it up so I wanna play it safe before getting a warning for slow play.

[cdr]

The rules don't care how "complicated" a situation is, or how fast you've been playing, or how "hard you have to think". You have to keep playing at a normal pace no matter what.

There is no set time limit, and a little more leeway might be given in certain situations, but if you haven't done something in 30 seconds or more you're pushing it.

Here's a good article (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/16960_The_Riki_Rules_Anatomy_of_a_Slow_Play.html) by Riki Hayashi about how judges handle slow play.

[Atwa]

The rules don't care how "complicated" a situation is, or how fast you've been playing, or how "hard you have to think". You have to keep playing at a normal pace no matter what.

There is no set time limit, and a little more leeway might be given in certain situations, but if you haven't done something in 30 seconds or more you're pushing it.


I've seen Saito taken over 2 minutes thinking on how to stack a brainstrom, or to decide if he would crack a LED in response to playing a Tutor, when he was sitting next to me at the GP. And that wasn't the only time he did that, from what I've heard.

I've never payed much attention to it, but I really need to keep this stalling tactic in mind when visiting large tournaments.

[Anusien]

I've seen Saito taken over 2 minutes thinking on how to stack a brainstrom, or to decide if he would crack a LED in response to playing a Tutor, when he was sitting next to me at the GP. And that wasn't the only time he did that, from what I've heard.

I've never payed much attention to it, but I really need to keep this stalling tactic in mind when visiting large tournaments.
Intentionally playing slowly to gain a clock advantage is Cheating - Stalling, and will get you ejected from the tournament in a hurry.

[Sureshot]

Because an ANT player can win or lose a game in mere 4 turns or less, depending on how well he plays his cards or misplay them, taking time is reasonable. Having said that, I don't advocate stalling or over 2 minutes of thinking on just how to stack cards during a brainstorm or whether to shuffle or not on a Ponder. Any player facing combo should understand that during the tendrils turn however counting of spells and available mana source can be quite complicated.

[Forbiddian]

The rules don't care how "complicated" a situation is, or how fast you've been playing, or how "hard you have to think". You have to keep playing at a normal pace no matter what.

There is no set time limit, and a little more leeway might be given in certain situations, but if you haven't done something in 30 seconds or more you're pushing it.

Here's a good article (http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/16960_The_Riki_Rules_Anatomy_of_a_Slow_Play.html) by Riki Hayashi about how judges handle slow play.


cdr, or someone else: I read through the article, which cleared up a lot of things, but I have two more questions:

1) He kept saying that the goal is to make sure that the match finishes on time (and he mentioned the time left in the round), and that his job was to make sure that all the matches finish on time. If you're say, 15-20 minutes into the round and two players are playing slowly, but already are into their game 3 and they'll finish the round for sure, would that weigh in on a decision to issue a slow play warning?


2) In Legacy, the games tend to be shorter (turn-wise) than in Standard or Limited, but since there's a larger cardpool, including split-second material, you have to be more careful with your play. He mentioned that the Shards sealed PTQ was a simple format and that his opponent should have been playing faster. Does that work the opposite direction (e.g. in Legacy, a format more complex than Standard, and the rules are formatted for Standard play, are we given more time)?

[cdr]

cdr, or someone else: I read through the article, which cleared up a lot of things, but I have two more questions:

1) He kept saying that the goal is to make sure that the match finishes on time (and he mentioned the time left in the round), and that his job was to make sure that all the matches finish on time. If you're say, 15-20 minutes into the round and two players are playing slowly, but already are into their game 3 and they'll finish the round for sure, would that weigh in on a decision to issue a slow play warning?

That is the goal behind the rule, but that has nothing to do with enforcement. Time in the round is not a consideration. There are effectively no considerations beyond how quickly the player is taking actions. The infraction removes as much subjectivity as possible, since it's already a very subjective area.


2) In Legacy, the games tend to be shorter (turn-wise) than in Standard or Limited, but since there's a larger cardpool, including split-second material, you have to be more careful with your play. He mentioned that the Shards sealed PTQ was a simple format and that his opponent should have been playing faster. Does that work the opposite direction (e.g. in Legacy, a format more complex than Standard, and the rules are formatted for Standard play, are we given more time)?

Format is not a consideration. He's not saying he takes that into consideration in enforcement, only explaining why he thought his opponent was taking an excessive amount of time.

The Slow Play section from the Infraction Guide (http://www.wizards.com/dci/downloads/MTG_IPG_1Jan10_EN.pdf):

4.3. Tournament Error — Slow Play

Definition
Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaging in Slow Play. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Cheating — Stalling.

Examples
A. A player repeatedly reviews his opponent’s graveyard without any significant change in game state.
B. A player spends time writing down the contents of an opponent's deck while resolving Thought Hemorrhage.
C. After 3 minutes into a round at a Pro Tour™ Qualifier, a player has not completed his shuffling.
D. A player gets up from his seat to look at standings, or goes to the bathroom without permission of an official.

Philosophy
All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so that their opponents are not at a significant disadvantage because of the time limit. A player may be playing slowly without realizing it. A comment of “I need you to play faster” is often appropriate and all that is needed. Further slow play should be penalized.

Penalty
All Levels
Warning

An extra turn is awarded for each player, to be applied if the match exceeds the time limit. If multiple players on each side are playing the same game (such as in Two-Headed Giant) only one extra turn is awarded per team. This turn extension occurs before any end-of-match procedure can begin and after any time extensions that may have been issued.

No extra turns are awarded if the match is already in extra turns, though the Warning still applies.

If Slow Play has significantly affected the result of the match, the Head Judge may upgrade the penalty.

[Atwa]

Intentionally playing slowly to gain a clock advantage is Cheating - Stalling, and will get you ejected from the tournament in a hurry.

I meant I should look out for it when my opponents takes way too much time. I play way to much with friends at the kitchentable, so I never really pay much attention to how much time my opponent takes.

Translating Dutch straight into English is a sureway method to raise some confusion.