I don't actually think 35 minutes is a bad limit. I've played quite a few games at this point including in two tournaments and I've never hit 35 minutes. That's with mill vs. mill and mill vs. control/aggro. That's about as slow as you can get. Going to time is a player issue, not a game mechanic issue.

Well, the game is played with players, and if players are slow, it's an issue.

It IS an issue, sadly.

I don't actually think 35 minutes is a bad limit. I've played quite a few games at this point including in two tournaments and I've never hit 35 minutes. That's with mill vs. mill and mill vs. control/aggro. That's about as slow as you can get. Going to time is a player issue, not a game mechanic issue.

Well, the game is played with players, and if players are slow, it's an issue.

It IS an issue, sadly.

Anecdotal evidence, but I haven't seen it as a problem. Is anyone actually seeing this as a consistent issue in their gaming group? My core group has no issue. The larger group centered around the store I go to normally has no issue. The other stores I've played at have no issue. I'm just not seeing this as a real issue. The last 22 person, 4 round tournament I went to (44 games) had maybe one game that went to time... and the game was won during the final round players are allowed to finish. I don't think there were any tie breakers. I might be wrong, but it certainly wasn't an issue for the overwhelming majority.

I think that if you're constantly seeing games going past 35 minutes that the problem is a specific slow player. If most of your games are going past time, you might be that slow player. I'm not judging. I'm just saying that it's not an issue anywhere I've played or at any event I've read about.

Hosted a 16 person tourney last Friday. 4 rounds.

8 games went to time. 1 in one round 3 in another, 2 in the other 2. Four of the games all featured the same player.

Most of the games were able to be able to finish after playing out the round after time. Only 3 games went tie-breakers.

4 round tournament. 8 players.

So we had 16 games.

None of them went to time.

Hosted a 16 person tourney last Friday. 4 rounds.

8 games went to time. 1 in one round 3 in another, 2 in the other 2. Four of the games all featured the same player.

Most of the games were able to be able to finish after playing out the round after time. Only 3 games went tie-breakers.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence that it's a player issue and not a game issue. When you have 16 players and half the games that go to time have the same player... you've identified a slow player. Also, I'm understanding that of the 8 games that went to time, only 3 ended in tie breakers, which means that 5 of the games that 'went to time' actually did have time to finish with a clear victor. I'd be curious to know how many of those 3 tie breaker games featured the same player. If all 3 did, you've definitely identified a slow player.

Fact is, those rules are absurd. Nobody in his right mind will disqualify a player, because he only brought one die for his Falcon he has in two copies. Also, they allow proxies for damaged cards, but if you lost a die you are disqualified - it's nonsense - a player could still play and use that dead card for rerolling.

Should let TOs provide proxy dice too, not hard to assign 1-6 to the card icons.

Hosted a 16 person tourney last Friday. 4 rounds.

8 games went to time. 1 in one round 3 in another, 2 in the other 2. Four of the games all featured the same player.

Most of the games were able to be able to finish after playing out the round after time. Only 3 games went tie-breakers.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence that it's a player issue and not a game issue. When you have 16 players and half the games that go to time have the same player... you've identified a slow player. Also, I'm understanding that of the 8 games that went to time, only 3 ended in tie breakers, which means that 5 of the games that 'went to time' actually did have time to finish with a clear victor. I'd be curious to know how many of those 3 tie breaker games featured the same player. If all 3 did, you've definitely identified a slow player.

For sure, when a player goes to time each round, it's definitely an issue with that particular player.

Two of the games that went to tie-breakers were really dishearting for the losing player, as they lost by 1 or 2 damage. That's an awful way to lose and having a hard fought/close game come down to that is really lame sometimes.

Hosted a 16 person tourney last Friday. 4 rounds.

8 games went to time. 1 in one round 3 in another, 2 in the other 2. Four of the games all featured the same player.

Most of the games were able to be able to finish after playing out the round after time. Only 3 games went tie-breakers.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence that it's a player issue and not a game issue. When you have 16 players and half the games that go to time have the same player... you've identified a slow player. Also, I'm understanding that of the 8 games that went to time, only 3 ended in tie breakers, which means that 5 of the games that 'went to time' actually did have time to finish with a clear victor. I'd be curious to know how many of those 3 tie breaker games featured the same player. If all 3 did, you've definitely identified a slow player.

For sure, when a player goes to time each round, it's definitely an issue with that particular player.

Two of the games that went to tie-breakers were really dishearting for the losing player, as they lost by 1 or 2 damage. That's an awful way to lose and having a hard fought/close game come down to that is really lame sometimes.

Losing in a tie breaker when the game is close is definitely frustrating, but it's really no different from losing when your opponent has one or two health remaining on one character. Anecdotal, but I feel like I would have won most of the games I lost if the dice had just worked with me once or twice instead of against me. In all of the games I've played, only a handful have been truly one sided. Most could have gone either way with uncooperative/more cooperative dice.

Hosted a 16 person tourney last Friday. 4 rounds.

8 games went to time. 1 in one round 3 in another, 2 in the other 2. Four of the games all featured the same player.

Most of the games were able to be able to finish after playing out the round after time. Only 3 games went tie-breakers.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence that it's a player issue and not a game issue. When you have 16 players and half the games that go to time have the same player... you've identified a slow player. Also, I'm understanding that of the 8 games that went to time, only 3 ended in tie breakers, which means that 5 of the games that 'went to time' actually did have time to finish with a clear victor. I'd be curious to know how many of those 3 tie breaker games featured the same player. If all 3 did, you've definitely identified a slow player.

For sure, when a player goes to time each round, it's definitely an issue with that particular player.

Two of the games that went to tie-breakers were really dishearting for the losing player, as they lost by 1 or 2 damage. That's an awful way to lose and having a hard fought/close game come down to that is really lame sometimes.

Losing in a tie breaker when the game is close is definitely frustrating, but it's really no different from losing when your opponent has one or two health remaining on one character. Anecdotal, but I feel like I would have won most of the games I lost if the dice had just worked with me once or twice instead of against me. In all of the games I've played, only a handful have been truly one sided. Most could have gone either way with uncooperative/more cooperative dice.

Losing because the dice didn't go your way is one thing, yeah it sucks, but it happens. Losing because the tournament rules force there to be a winner is completely different.

Two of the games that went to tie-breakers were really dishearting for the losing player, as they lost by 1 or 2 damage. That's an awful way to lose and having a hard fought/close game come down to that is really lame sometimes.

There's an old story I heard John Madden relate from his days as a coach. He hated going for it on 4th down, even on close ones. When his players would all but beg to go for it, he'd tell them "You should have gotten those inches on the last play."

Losing a close game on time isn't really losing the game on time. You lost the game on every unfortunate roll and every bad decision you made which led up to that. People LOVE to wipe out everything that has come before when they decide why they lost. But the entire game leads to that moment. If you don't want to lose on the tiebreaker, win before it gets there.

Two of the games that went to tie-breakers were really dishearting for the losing player, as they lost by 1 or 2 damage. That's an awful way to lose and having a hard fought/close game come down to that is really lame sometimes.

There's an old story I heard John Madden relate from his days as a coach. He hated going for it on 4th down, even on close ones. When his players would all but beg to go for it, he'd tell them "You should have gotten those inches on the last play."

Losing a close game on time isn't really losing the game on time. You lost the game on every unfortunate roll and every bad decision you made which led up to that. People LOVE to wipe out everything that has come before when they decide why they lost. But the entire game leads to that moment. If you don't want to lose on the tiebreaker, win before it gets there.

I've used that argument to argue for draws. The reasoning/complaints against draws is that there would intentional draws in the final round or two. If you wanted to be a in a position to ID you should have done better earlier in the tournament.

And I agree with what you're saying but that doesn't mean I have to like that the game doesn't have draws and forces a winner, it's called a tie-breaker because at that point in the game, it's tied and no one has won.

Two of the games that went to tie-breakers were really dishearting for the losing player, as they lost by 1 or 2 damage. That's an awful way to lose and having a hard fought/close game come down to that is really lame sometimes.

There's an old story I heard John Madden relate from his days as a coach. He hated going for it on 4th down, even on close ones. When his players would all but beg to go for it, he'd tell them "You should have gotten those inches on the last play."

Losing a close game on time isn't really losing the game on time. You lost the game on every unfortunate roll and every bad decision you made which led up to that. People LOVE to wipe out everything that has come before when they decide why they lost. But the entire game leads to that moment. If you don't want to lose on the tiebreaker, win before it gets there.

I've used that argument to argue for draws. The reasoning/complaints against draws is that there would intentional draws in the final round or two. If you wanted to be a in a position to ID you should have done better earlier in the tournament.

And I agree with what you're saying but that doesn't mean I have to like that the game doesn't have draws and forces a winner, it's called a tie-breaker because at that point in the game, it's tied and no one has won.

Draws are in theory an OK thing. In practice, they're frequently not. Savvy players will take advantage of intentional draws to advance when they might otherwise not. This unfairly takes away another player's ability to advance. It's much easier (and more fair) to just say that every game must end with a winner and put a policy in place for how to determine that winner. Tournaments should be a competition of player skill, decided in battle... not a contest of who can manipulate tournament standings better without playing.

I don't really like damage done as the determiner as that heavily favors one type of deck (aggro) while making another (mill) guaranteed to lose tie breakers almost every time. The current tie breaker mechanic will give the win to aggro decks even if they would almost certainly lose to a mill deck with one more round.

I've used that argument to argue for draws. The reasoning/complaints against draws is that there would intentional draws in the final round or two. If you wanted to be a in a position to ID you should have done better earlier in the tournament.

And I agree with what you're saying but that doesn't mean I have to like that the game doesn't have draws and forces a winner, it's called a tie-breaker because at that point in the game, it's tied and no one has won.

The difference is that many people consider ID to be an unfair abuse of the system that borders on collusion. If two friends end up at the top table and realize that the higher-seeded player could take a loss without falling out of the cut, while the lower one needs a win to guarantee the cut, and they decide to sandbag the game for that to happen... I don't know many people who wouldn't think that was illegal collusion, but how is that any different than two players who can both get in with a draw and decide to do so?

I think they key there is "at that point in the game". Before you apply the tie breaker, the game isn't actually resolved.

As to whether draws are OK... I prefer not having them, especially in a swiss pairing system as they provide less information into the system. And when you start talking Intentional Draws, it's effectively providing false information to the system in order to manipulate it. However much you dislike the tiebreaker methods, that does more damage to the integrity of the system.

Last game I played competitively if you weren't finished on time both players lost.

Fact is, those rules are absurd. Nobody in his right mind will disqualify a player, because he only brought one die for his Falcon he has in two copies.

The simple solution to this one is ask the TO what he expects here. If he agrees with you bring a single dice, if not bring them both.

I would add here the rule may seem absurd, but if you are knowingly breaking it and the TO doesn't agree with you that the rule is absurd you may be going home early.

Were I TO I would expect you to play by the rules, I would not like to be put into the situation where I allow a player to break the rules absurd or otherwise because it allows other players to question my integrity. A TO should never be addressing the rules of play and making judgements as to what matters and what doesn't.

.

Fact is, those rules are absurd. Nobody in his right mind will disqualify a player, because he only brought one die for his Falcon he has in two copies. Also, they allow proxies for damaged cards, but if you lost a die you are disqualified - it's nonsense - a player could still play and use that dead card for rerolling.

I can agree that this seems unnecessary, but I won't go all the way to absurd. At the very least, we already have a case where both copies of your unique can be in play (Grievous steals one, you play the other). We may very well get more similar effects in the future, and they're just future-proofing for that case. I think the outrage on this is a little overblown too - is it really such a hardship to bring that second Falcon die?

The lost die leading to disqualification... I'm not sure what the logic is on that myself. I suspect it's to head off the "But I can proxy them!" road, but agree that it would be better to just say the player can't play a card if they don't have the appropriate die. But it's really not going to happen all that often, so I have a hard time getting my blood boiling over it.

The lost die leading to disqualification... I'm not sure what the logic is on that myself. I suspect it's to head off the "But I can proxy them!" road, but agree that it would be better to just say the player can't play a card if they don't have the appropriate die. But it's really not going to happen all that often, so I have a hard time getting my blood boiling over it.

Well, that didn't take long. We now have a character who cannot be played properly if you lose a die (Krennic). Not that that didn't apply to any character dice.

It's a painful rule, but I don't think it's an insane one.

The lost die leading to disqualification... I'm not sure what the logic is on that myself. I suspect it's to head off the "But I can proxy them!" road, but agree that it would be better to just say the player can't play a card if they don't have the appropriate die. But it's really not going to happen all that often, so I have a hard time getting my blood boiling over it.

Well, that didn't take long. We now have a character who cannot be played properly if you lose a die (Krennic). Not that that didn't apply to any character dice.

It's a painful rule, but I don't think it's an insane one.

As you said, it's already true for ANY character die. Krennic doesn't change anything.

The lost die leading to disqualification... I'm not sure what the logic is on that myself. I suspect it's to head off the "But I can proxy them!" road, but agree that it would be better to just say the player can't play a card if they don't have the appropriate die. But it's really not going to happen all that often, so I have a hard time getting my blood boiling over it.

Well, that didn't take long. We now have a character who cannot be played properly if you lose a die (Krennic). Not that that didn't apply to any character dice.

It's a painful rule, but I don't think it's an insane one.

As you said, it's already true for ANY character die. Krennic doesn't change anything.

If a player includes any cards in his or her deck that require a

die, he or she must have the die matching that card’s collector

number for each copy of that card.

So by tournament rules you don't have to have trooper die

The lost die leading to disqualification... I'm not sure what the logic is on that myself. I suspect it's to head off the "But I can proxy them!" road, but agree that it would be better to just say the player can't play a card if they don't have the appropriate die. But it's really not going to happen all that often, so I have a hard time getting my blood boiling over it.

Well, that didn't take long. We now have a character who cannot be played properly if you lose a die (Krennic). Not that that didn't apply to any character dice.

It's a painful rule, but I don't think it's an insane one.

As you said, it's already true for ANY character die. Krennic doesn't change anything.

If a player includes any cards in his or her deck that require a

die, he or she must have the die matching that card’s collector

number for each copy of that card.

So by tournament rules you don't have to have trooper die

Different rule than what krennic's trooper die would use. And as soon as you roll Krennic while you control the battlefield and the card tells you to roll a Death Trooper die (without a "may" to make it optional), you're gonna have a problem.

If a player includes any cards in his or her deck that require a

die, he or she must have the die matching that card’s collector

number for each copy of that card.

So by tournament rules you don't have to have trooper die

What makes you think Krennic doesn't require the Death Trooper die? Even the "matching the card's collector number" works, because the ability specifically references the collector number for the Death Trooper.

Yes unfortunately unless you never want to claim the battlefield you will need to have a Death Trooper die if fielding Krennic, his ability does not have the word MAY in it.

Furelli

Yes unfortunately unless you never want to claim the battlefield you will need to have a Death Trooper die if fielding Krennic, his ability does not have the word MAY in it.

Even if you could guarantee that you would never control the battlefield (and you can't), you need to have the die for a tournament. That's the entire point of certain discontent - people are upset that the rules require you to have dice you probably won't use.

If a player includes any cards in his or her deck that require a

die, he or she must have the die matching that card’s collector

number for each copy of that card.

So by tournament rules you don't have to have trooper die

What makes you think Krennic doesn't require the Death Trooper die? Even the "matching the card's collector number" works, because the ability specifically references the collector number for the Death Trooper.

Sigh... Are you all seriously do not see this emoticon: ?

Current text says "matching that card’s collector number", so they need to update this text to include special cases like Krennic.

they need to update this text to include special cases like Krennic.

Or people could just be reasonable I guess, but I play games for fun, so what do I know