Question regarding slow play / slow decks in tournaments.

[MGB]

Let's just say I am playing a slow, grindy control deck in a tournament. As we all know, with 50 minute rounds (or some similarly restrictive allotment of time), these types of decks will often lead to draws or at the very least stretch the time required to play to the maximum.

If I know that my deck is capable of dragging out games for a long time, and I also, say, win game 1 in a long stretch of time, it might be advantageous for me not to even complete game 2, as I will win 1-0-1 if I can force game 2 to go to time.

And If I *want* to draw game 2 after winning game 1, I want to take as much time as possible in game 2, and my opponent wants the opposite - for us to play as fast as possible. For example, when we are shuffling decks for game 2, he may request that I do not pile shuffle, so as to conserve time. Or that we only cut decks during fetchland effects and not both shuffle the deck. Or he may simply implore me to "play faster".

What is the community's thoughts on this matter? Am I obligated, if I am the slow control player, to comply with these requests? I realize that it may be "courteous" to do so but if it is a big tournament with money on the line, and my opponent is someone from far away who I may never meet again, is it really that bad for me to disregard him and try to maximize my chances of winning? And if I decline his requests and continue to pile shuffle (at normal pace, just like the other times), what is the worst that could happen? Will the Judge be able to penalize me? Is this a valid strategy or frowned upon?

[Meekrab]

Well pile shuffling isn't even actually randomizing a deck, so I would imagine you can run afoul of slow play rules for doing so. Seven riffle shuffles takes about a minute so you can anyway stall that long completely legally each time anybody shuffles.

[warfordium]

i guess the question you have to ask yourself is "did i come to this tournament to win with my deck and my play" or "did i come to this tournament to win using the time limitation". if its the latter i hope you get paired against titan-post every round.

Edit: pile shuffling is not a randomization method. if you do it more than once (to count your deck and "check sleeve backs"—dubious), then you're actually time-wasting.

[iamajellydonut]

Is this a valid strategy or frowned upon?

It can be either.

You are well within your rights to advantageously draw out the game. There's nothing wrong, other than an associated social stigma, with strapping a Fog to Isochron Scepter and calling it a day. However, pace of play matters quite a lot and the consequences can very well involve disqualification based on Unsporting Conduct.

[cdr]

There's nothing wrong with playing for a draw.

Doing so by slowing your pace of play, however, is stalling - and stalling will get you DQed and suspended. Is Tomoharu Saito your idol?

You don't have to play faster than before as the end of the round nears, but playing slower is what is cheating.

[Ace/Homebrew]

And If I *want* to draw game 2 after winning game 1, I want to take as much time as possible in game 2, and my opponent wants the opposite - for us to play as fast as possible. For example, when we are shuffling decks for game 2, he may request that I do not pile shuffle, so as to conserve time. Or that we only cut decks during fetchland effects and not both shuffle the deck. Or he may simply implore me to "play faster".

If your strategy to win involves anything other than playing your deck as best you can, you enter a territory of questionable legality.

You are under no obligation to comply with your opponents shuffling requests. As long as you are not slow-playing, he can pound sand.
Pile shuffling is NOT shuffling. If time is of the essence, I'll let my opponent pile shuffle after side-boarding or whatever ONCE because he could legitimately be counting his cards to make sure he is still playing with 60, and pile shuffling is as efficient a way to do so as anything. But if a second round of pile shuffling starts, I'm calling the judge over.

[Dice_Box]

It can depend, I have seen a Judge called on a Lands player who would not short cut his Manabond triggers. Taking time to gesture at the card and announce the trigger every turn even though he would fail to use it. So I can see where issues arise. As someone who loves control, I can see why people get pissed, I guess if you fall back to the old stand by:

If you think you should should call a judge, you should call a judge.

[iamajellydonut]

It can depend, I have seen a Judge called on a Lands player who would not short cut his Manabond triggers. Taking time to gesture at the card and announce the trigger every turn even though he would fail to use it. So I can see where issues arise.

Note that, and this may be what you were implying, if the Lands player was objectively attempting to burn the clock, this could be considered stalling even though it was utilizing game mechanics. "Loopholes" are not a thing when it comes to stalling. Unlike may other scenarios where judges are unable to use available outside knowledge to determine the resolution of an issue, the resolution of a scenario such as this lies completely in the judges' control.