SLOW PLAY - Why I stood up & left the table

http://i.imgur.com/tYxkulY.png

"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

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

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The MTR, emphasis mine

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twndomn

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.

Amen to curbing slow play. A-fucking-men.

I know too many people that will tank a game away just because they can't win it, just to cheese their way into a match win from taking game 1. So what if you can't beat my sideboard cards? Quit being a little bitch, man up and take this beating I'm about to give you. Some of them are smug enough about it where I want to give them a literal beating in the parking lot after its over.

Before anyone asks, I'll take my own losses if they're deserved, and they're clear and happen in a reasonable amount of time. I've no problem losing to storm with D&T... but if Miracles takes game one and stalls game two out to turns... I want to punch him so hard his grandchildren get bruises.

TL,DR: If you can win, then win. If you can't, stop being a little bitch about it.

Edit: Also... good idea about the hourglass life counter. Maybe I can find a 30 second hourglass and make my own fancy little Slow Play Detector...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

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.

Maybe tournament play needs individual timers like MTGO, implemented like a chess clock. You both get half the match time, and the decisions to which you allot it are up to you. Once you are out of time, if your opponent still has time, that's that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

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%!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Article

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooligan

Maybe tournament play needs individual timers like MTGO, implemented like a chess clock. You both get half the match time, and the decisions to which you allot it are up to you. Once you are out of time, if your opponent still has time, that's that.

---

I've stopped arguing with people about this in real life. Instead, I pull out a chess clock and tell them to walk through a turn. Every single priority pass requires hitting the clock. By the time you've played a land and said go, you've actually walked through half a dozen priority passes. Without dramatically simplifying the game, a chess clock is not doable in meatspace.

edit: Oh, and that's not to mention the problems that come about when SCG or the like has to acquire, maintain, and transport thousands of clocks to each event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecrav

I've stopped arguing with people about this in real life. Instead, I pull out a chess clock and tell them to walk through a turn. Every single priority pass requires hitting the clock. By the time you've played a land and said go, you've actually walked through half a dozen priority passes. Without dramatically simplifying the game, a chess clock is not doable in meatspace.

edit: Oh, and that's not to mention the problems that come about when SCG or the like has to acquire, maintain, and transport thousands of clocks to each event.

---

The easy fix is that if a chessclock would actually help, SCG could build that functionality into their app. Probably take a programmer less than a day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julian23

He's actually on a "major" country's national team.

---

I love the quotation marks on major. So that means it's actually a minor country!
And Vatican City is the smallest country in the world... so I'm guessing it was the retired Pope Benedict.

I could totally see him slow playing.
http://www.catholiccompany.com/getfe...er-300x218.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by taconaut

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecrav

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.

Don't you think the Pope would rather play...Miracles? :tongue:

Slow play is an issue in MTG in general, maybe even more so in legacy because people just don't play that many games/events so they are naturally more slow in processing game plays. Not that this excuses them much, just saying..

If an opponent plays at somehow reasonable pace all game and stops to think a bit harder during on of those crucial turn I would almost call it unsportly to start reminding my opponent of slow play and calling judge after 60 seconds. I would consider it even more unsportly if my opponent would start reminding/terrorizing me every 15 seconds interrupting my thought process, even more so in the presence of a judge. But as said this is only "true", when a player keeps playing at reasonable pace throughout the game and just make one, two (or very few) "deep tanks" during crucial turns.

However, if the player is playing at slow pace every single turn and takes even longer at crucial turns then yes, I would also call a judge and let him handle it without any further reminder to my opponent (while in the presence of a judge - he is the authority nonetheless).

It is also true that judges are not adequately trained on this topic and Magic as general doesn't have a good consensus/grip on what slow paly is and how to handle time per decision making in regards to game status. Until Wizards/Judge community don't address this issue more seriously (at least at competitive level) I don't see us (players) collectively achieving much, other than creating few self-proclaimed "experts" who will go around timing (terrorizing) every single opponent move. For the awareness to really kick in call for a change needs to come from top to bottom and not the other way around (especially with rules being so openly written right now..).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zooligan

Maybe tournament play needs individual timers like MTGO, implemented like a chess clock. You both get half the match time, and the decisions to which you allot it are up to you. Once you are out of time, if your opponent still has time, that's that.

---

can you imagine how ridiculous would be the actual going to time?... Miracles players already "miraclously" speed up in last turns of the game, timing people on triggers in RL would lead into some really heated stuff... also how would player communication/judge calls and so on work then?

One possibility for so much slow play is people going from small events at their locals to larger ones. Playing Doomsday at my local, people know me, know my deck choice and often are too helpful in giving me more decision time (which in one way is great, but in others actually hampers my ability to have to make quick decisions). This jump from one scene to another may be quite a step for those used to the friendlier confines.

Having made the jump at Prague this year. I found myself playing quickly but not rushing and people being quite friendly and lenient on one or two decisions I could have been called to speed up on but obviously everyone is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecrav

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.

I think 30 seconds is on the short end. Normally if an opponent doesn't make a play within 60 seconds I will ask them what they are doing. There are spots where more time is needed but as the judges you asked said people should be planning ahead unless the board state dramatically changes. This weekend in modern one of my opponents got a prompt from a judge after thinking for 1-2 minutes. Was this warranted probably but a couple of turns earlier I had also tanked for a couple of minutes and when I passed the turn with about 16 mintues left I made the comment to him that this game(game 3) is probably going to end in about 4 turns and we both proceeded to take 1-2 minutes on each of our next few turns.

I think your biggest mistake was not calling a judge earlier in the process. You should be able to make decisions in a timely manner and if you/they continually do not do so a judge needs to be involved. People tend not to speed up when the opponent is asked and only when a judge is asked. While you did eventually ask for a judge you made it sound like he was not comfortable. At that point you could ask the judge to see if another judge would be able to watch for slow play (which could lead to a penalty for essentially disrespecting a judge) or another option is when you call over the judge write down the time left in the round(I'd try and make sure judge sees or verbally say there is X time left). And after 60 seconds I would say something to the judge. If he responds with a complicated board state you should say that shouldn't affect a slow play decision and the board has not significantly changed from previous turns. Yes people hate making slow play calls and tend to be more lenient in Legacy but they won't stop unless players keep pushing the issue. Also after the round you should probably have talked to the head judge about both your opponent and the judge. While to late for you he could educate his fellow judge and also keep an eye on your opponent and if he is playing slow either speed him up or game loss/match loss him out with enough slow play warnings

I've been called for slow play before and I am normally a pretty fast player. It isn't easy for the judges either because they sometimes come in at the most complicated time when you do truly need to spend a couple of minutes on the board and/or tank. But if you need to tank you can even after being warned to make a play. Just realize you will get a slow play warning which will only matter if you proceed to get more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ParkerLewis

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.

---

You have no idea how many times I sat across a dude not answering that simple question for 10+ seconds.

The joke is that if you simply proceed and the other guy/gal decides to do something while the next spell is already on the stack its becoming a mess involving the Judge, you returning the second spell to your hand and the opponent getting the gamestate rewinded AND the additional information about your hand and plan.

P.S.: Don't get me started on some Judges, please. Every big event I played in France, I encountered a situation where I wanted to punch one of them for acting like a douche, making unreasonable rulings (see example above and Julians Article), discuss my altered cards IN THE MIDDLE OF A GAME despite me having the "ok" from the Headjudge to play them (distraction, hello?) or requested me to play faster during the combo turn in game 3 (wtf seriously?)

30 seconds is super short. Just for refernce i tbought id add that hearthstone turns are 1 min 30 seconds. I know the games arnt the same, blah blah blah but as i said its just a reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apple713

30 seconds is super short.

---

If we could do away with that idea, that would already be progress towards a better playing environment. Nobody is gonna give you a Slow Play Warning after 30 seconds, but that's pretty much when you already start venturing into "this guy should really start doing something now" territory.

There's no fixed duration of time you can take. And that for good reason, as others have pointed out. Having a fixed time would open the doors to even more widespread time issues. It's already bad enough as it is right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sloshthedark

how would player communication/judge calls and so on work then?

---

In Warmachine, the clock continues running on the active player's turn as a kind of "you should know what your shit does." Obviously, in a miniatures game, things are a bit different though. Most judge calls in MTG seem to come from the opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ParkerLewis

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.

---

Especially in the case I mentioned, I feel weird against this because it feels a lot like I'm rubbing in that I'm about to crush the guy.

Top quality german restraint there.

If I'm at the point where I'm rage quitting, you can bet your kransky that I'm calling everyone involved a cunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apple713

30 seconds is super short. Just for refernce i tbought id add that hearthstone turns are 1 min 30 seconds. I know the games arnt the same, blah blah blah but as i said its just a reference.

---

I'm not a particularily fast player, and in my experience 30 seconds is plenty to figure out a plan for action for most turns. I'd detest it as an absolute cap, but it's easily enough thinking time on most boardstates.

They should treat draws as losses for both players, and perhaps even subtract a point as a punishment for delaying the logistics of the tournament organizer. That incentivizes people to avoid drawing. This way, Miracle won't remain a popular deck for people that are not able to play it quickly. The draws will force most miracle players to the bottom of the ranking, while the true masters will still make top 8's. This solves not only slow play, but also the time cost of cards like Sensei's Divining Top.

Also, if you constantly get into problems against miracle players, play revokers/needles/null rod and discard effects

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecrav

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beatusnox

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

---

Its not. You are free to cast anything you like, it is my job as the Stax player to remember that I have a relevant effect in play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beatusnox

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

---

The intended tricking of the opponent to not respond to spells cast right into Chalice is something is saw and heared about plenty of times.

So in the case of the Chalice, what am I to do? Do I put my spell on the stack and stare at my opponent's face until he either responds or time expires?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thecrav

So in the case of the Chalice, what am I to do? Do I put my spell on the stack and stare at my opponent's face until he either responds or time expires?

---

don't you get a grv for intentionally allowing a missed trigger?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by apple713

don't you get a grv for intentionally allowing a missed trigger?

---

No. You can cast into a Chalice, its on the controller to remember the trigger.

Quote:

---

2.6. Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State
Definition
A player allows another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error involving an effect or action that he or she
does not control, and has not pointed it out immediately. If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out
other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more
strategically advantageous time, they should consider an Unsporting Conduct — Cheating infraction. Not reminding
an opponent about his or her triggered abilities is never Failure to Maintain Game State or Cheating.

---