I still haven't been able to find an answer to how you solve a split match in the "best of 3" format. What have you guys heard or been using to decide a match if time is called and the match is split or not complete?

I'm baffled by no reply on time out rules yet from FFG . . . as this is pretty serious when you are going to limit rounds to 50 minutes and make them best 2 out of 3. Our local empire players are worried they are going be called for slow play every round, haha.

No tie-breakers. They allowed for ties at the FFG Regionals. 1 point per tie. Then they used SOS to determine tie-breakers between players with equal tournament results.

Yeah at the FFG Regional I think they did 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw and 0 for a loss.

I see I see I see.

So what if players in the middle of a game when time is called? Do they let them finish up that game, or just go with the results of the first game?

non finished game is a draw, at our tourney most rounds never got past 2 games in the 50 minutes allowed. so if it was 1 and 1, it was a drawn round. If it was one won and 2nd game not finished it was a won round for the player that won the first game.

I would have thought that in a best 2 out of three format you would need to have two won games in order to win the match. If you go to time and someone has not won two games it would be a draw, regardless of what the result of the first game was. Is there anything in the rules that indicates otherwise?

Is there anything in the rules that indicates this at all?

Which way would it be ruled?

Best two out of three

If player A has 1 win and a draw

and player B has 1 loss and a draw

then player A has the best of those two out of three. Seems simple enough to me.

I think the point being made here is that luck of the draw for a game shouldn't let the person win the round. I've played several people lately and they've won the first round due to uncanny draws like all three troll slayers in the first two turns. Then, I proceeded to stomp him the next two rounds. Overall, I'm 4-2 against that player, but he has won both first round games. Doesn't seem like giving him the win would be a true evaluation of who would win.

I had a similar problem running Monsterpocalypse. While I'm not suggesting it here, we had to change the tournament rules a little in order to make the rounds much more fair. Otherwise, most players weren't going to play.

Best 2 out of 3 means whoever wins two games out of three, not wins one game and draws the other with no third game being played, that isn't 2 out of 3 that is 1 out of 2.

Understand I'm not arguing this is the best way, just that the rules as I understand them say this is the way. I'd happily go with a completely different rule set using total zones burned to determine the winner. In the end the winner of the first game gets 2 points and the loser of the first game gets 1 or 0. Second game ending because of time could only give each player 1 more point each, which means the person who won the first game will win the match. If the time was called before the first game was completed then there would be a counting of burned zones and if both players had the same number then it becomes a draw...

But I don't get to make up the rules for Organized play, and running tournaments that don't use FFG's rules is going to cause problems with visiting players and for my own meta mates when they travel to larger events to play. If you need clarification I'm sure James or the person in charge of the OP program will happily explain the what and why.

Well I guess for tomorrow we'll go with the latest "official" rulings from the Regionals. I think I will increase the time limits of the rounds just a bit for our event, to help with those who aren't playing rush decks.

Best two out of three doesnt mean all 3 rounds needs to play to fruition. And really if not playing rush, good luck getting 3 rounds in in under the 50 minute time limit.

Toqtamish said:

Yeah, I really think I'm gonna bump the rounds up to an hour and a half.

would have to if you want to get all 3 games played in each round fully.

Toqtamish said:

Reports were that FFG ran their regional this way. The Lexington TD also got this from his interaction with FFG prior to that event, if I'm not mistaken, and that regional was also following these rules.

That would be helpful if that was the way they are running them, though that isn't best 2 out of 3. Makes me wonder about creating a control deck that has one purpose and that is to prevent the rush, with a brutally efficient kill switch to close out the game, the idea being that if I can slow the first game down and win in the slowest game possible I can game the system and walk away with the win with only ever having played a single game per match. I don't think such a deck would be viable at present, but I can see some W:I equivalent of Dobbler's Lannister Shadows deck eventually being build-able.

mylastnerv said:

Wow I am glade I am not playing in that tournament.

I will use the best of 3 / 50 minute format in my upcoming tournament and see how it works. I plan on NOT counting unfinished games, so there are the following possible results: 2:0, 2:1, 1:0, 1:1 and 0:0. 3 points awarded for a win, 1 point for a draw.

I think most rounds will have only 1 or 2 games counted. But don't forget that a player also can give up. If you have the feeling you can't win the game anymore, maybe you should forfeit and try to fit another game into the 50 minute timeslot. And I guess we'll see a lot of players not taking resource tokens, but "counting down" their plays and then only take the remaining tokens, because this will speed up play.

I still don't know how I shoud handle "slow" players, intentionally or not. Well, I'll know more after the tournament.

Well, with used an hour and a half limit, but only one round even barely edged over an hour. Actually the longest draw out match of the tournament was DE/Skaven vs. Orc/Skaven . . . . even our Empire player finished his matches faster than this one.

I can concur. The tournament didn't need over an hour for three rounds and I wouldn't call it a 'rush' environment either. The players knew what they were doing and got down to business. As that Empire player he mentioned, I was surprised at my own speed. A Dark Elf/Dark Elf matchup was one of the longest pairings that day. A third place with that Empire, too. My only loss was to the guy who won. He can also agree that it mostly had to do with me drawing dead for several rounds and then making a stupid play (realizing I could have developed to save a zone and make him draw out the next turn ) Learn better, I must.

The Sheffield regional was 50-minute best-of-three rounds and I only heard about one game going to time (and therefore being recorded as a draw). Blitz decks certainly help generate fast games, but so does conceding a game when you can see you can't win in order to start the next game. Remember that at a regional you're not just playing Invasion, but a timed version of Invasion where a win actually means achiveing two victories in 50 minutes.

Gamers tend to play slowly, over-analyse decisions that aren't that important and generally warp the objectives of a tournament game to fit their own notions of a game.

Played our first tournament yesterday. We extended the time limit from 50 to 60 minutes, but maybe that wasn't necessary at all. Most rounds, even those with 3 games, were finished within the 50 minutes. With 60 minutes we were on the safe side, so no need for tiebrakers. Only 2 of the decks were orc rush. The other decks were High Elf, Dwarf with High Elf splash, Dark Elf with Chaos, Orc control, and High Elf bolthrower.

The tiebreaker system can single handedly make or break the tournament scene for a game.

FFG really needs to keep an eye on this as the game ages and control decks become more viable.

There should be, at the very least, a mechanism for determining the winner of a game in progress.

FellintoOblivion said:

Why? A game in progress could very easily just be considered a draw, since there was no winner or loser, that certainly meets the technical definition. What does the OP format gain or lose based on this decision?

dormouse said:

Because a game one loss effectively means anyone playing a control deck loses the match.

If a game in progress is considered a draw control decks are at a serious disadvantage.