Organized Play

[Drefan]

The idea that tournament matches won't be timed is not open for debate for any event occurring at a large convention, at least in North America. Due to constraints of space and logistics timed matches are the only possible option.

As for timing phases. I do not see forcing people to play faster than they're comfortable with being an option. Time limits are outside a judges control as stated earlier. However a judge has an obligation to make an event as welcoming to ALL players as possible. Limiting time phases penalizes new players as well as individuals who just play a little slower than average for whatever reason.

If we accept the fact that time will always be an issue, why is that not even a bigger reason to introduce time-based phases? From my perspective the more actions that are being played in a game, the easier it's to see who's playing better and who is more likely to win.

Will time-based phases be a disaster for the competitive community? I wouldn't think so at all, I think it would introduce a wider variety of books resulting in a more developed meta. Would this change not be for everyone? Probably, it will require both more deck design and game knowledge but also produce them as a result.

I think every mage wars competitive match should end up with a winner or a loser, preferably by killing the other mage. With more actions, it should be an easier task to accomplish but in case no one dies, perhaps the judge would step in and call a winner. Since the judge has seen the match, both decks and can, therefore, make an educated guess about who would win if the game went on further.

You would only have Winners or Losers, making scoring a lot easier.

[Drefan]

All the solutions we have are unacceptable, it seems. Either it costs too much money or it interferes with the balance of the metagame. I think maybe we are at a point where ANY possible decision that can be made regarding this issue with the current constraints could potentially harm the game in a serious way, if it hasn't already.

Or maybe we could try the thing I recommended earlier in this thread which  seems to have been ignored, which was that if we don't have enough time or tablespace to run a quality competitive mage wars tournament in the convention hall, we need to get at least some of that time and space somewhere else where it is cheaper. Either reserve space at a restaurant, or if weather permits go to a park and use picnic tables, then have only the semifinals and finals in the convention center proper. Or maybe just raise the ticket prices for entering mage wars tournaments at conventions, so that AW can afford more time and tablespace?

Just a thought.

I don't mind conventions being restricted by various conventions variables themselves, I just want the overall competitive scene to be more strict, however, that might just be me.


If you play a tournament at a convention center its more or less implied it has to be finished at it. There's no real way around it that is worth exploring.

[Brian VanAlstyne]

Cause you'd need a judge with a stopwatch at every table timing every single phase and it still doesn't solve the issue if a match is running long and you have to call it at some point.

I think it's unfair to say we don't have acceptable solutions. I think it's just a matter of ironing out some fine points starting with whether or not a timed win is a win or a tie OR if we're going on a straight point structure; how to define those points when time runs out.

As someone who thinks a win is a win is a win but would be willing to accept a point structure...I think that's a fair compromise as long as we don't overload points in a specific way that just goes back to death being the only acceptable way to win.

[silverclawgrizzly]

Even if players could be counted on to time their own phases you still have to time the matches due to the restraints of your venue. This just isn't a realistic way to go.

[Obsidian Soul]

Timed matches are the standard for every convention, so they are probably going to be the standard for every tournament.  Giving the same number of point to each person during a tie prevents people from spending too much time on each phase because they cannot just wait out the clock and get a win.  I play Priestess, but I really do not like timed wins, as it is not satisfying.

[Drefan]

Even if players could be counted on to time their own phases you still have to time the matches due to the restraints of your venue. This just isn't a realistic way to go.

Well as I said earlier I accepted that time-constraint due to the venue would be a factor and argued that it only increased the incentive to have timed-phases since more actions = higher chance of someone dying.

If we accept the fact that time will always be an issue, why is that not even a bigger reason to introduce time-based phases? From my perspective the more actions that are being played in a game, the easier it's to see who's playing better and who is more likely to win.

Will time-based phases be a disaster for the competitive community? I wouldn't think so at all, I think it would introduce a wider variety of books resulting in a more developed meta. Would this change not be for everyone? Probably, it will require both more deck design and game knowledge but also produce them as a result.

I think every mage wars competitive match should end up with a winner or a loser, preferably by killing the other mage. With more actions, it should be an easier task to accomplish but in case no one dies, perhaps the judge would step in and call a winner. Since the judge has seen the match, both decks and can, therefore, make an educated guess about who would win if the game went on further.

You would only have Winners or Losers, making scoring a lot easier.

[silverclawgrizzly]

As has been discussed in this thread: nobody is trying for a timed win in a tournament. The logic behind that is flawed. So I don't believe it's a matter of encouragement so much as it is a method of fairness. Though I'll concede players may have a "back up" plan if they see a death is unlikely.

[Sailor Vulcan]

If you play a tournament at a convention center its more or less implied it has to be finished at it. There's no real way around it that is worth exploring.

I don't follow. Could you elaborate on why, specifically? That sounds a bit like social expectations. Just because your'e socially expected to conduct your entire event at the convention hall proper doesn't make it a good idea.

From the sound of it, the system that appears to be in place in conventions is clearly biased in favor of shorter smaller, simpler games, and Arcane Wonders shouldn't have to pretend otherwise just to keep up appearances. If they can't afford to run an adequate competitive tournament for their flagship game in a convention center because the time and tablespace they would need for it is too expensive, to the point where they would rather harm the balance/health of their flagship game's meta, just to comply with such constraints, then that is a problem that needs to be fixed. It is not something to be tolerated indefinitely.

I don't know what Arcane Wonders is planning to do about that if anything. It's not right and it's not fair of convention hosts to punish bigger games just for being bigger. If Arcane Wonders cannot convince ANY convention hosts ANYWHERE to be more reasonable, then they should consider whether there are any other possible venues for official tournament play which would allow them to actually run an Arena tournament properly without stupid extra constraints that artificially mess with the results.

[DaveW]

I wouldn't be opposed to paying more for longer time slots at cons... especially GenCon / Origins, where we seem to have a pretty good draw already.

The only downside (in MW terms) I can imagine is that I get burned out by the game after 5+ hours already... we would ideally (in my mind) have the preliminary rounds go two days instead of one. Maybe a Thursday afternoon / evening time, and then Friday morning / afternoon... with finals on Saturday.

The other (player) downsides are in 1) not being able to do anything else at the con all that time... and 2) having to be available on Thursday to play.

[silverclawgrizzly]

The downside to doing Thursdays is attendance. Historically turn out is lower for tournaments on the first day of the con.

Sailor time limits are mandatory is because we only have so much time with the tables. That's true at big cons like Gen Con and small ones like Mace. Yes we can normally play into the night, but that's cause the space is reserved for casual play and still has an expiration.

Tournaments stay in the same area the entire time because it's a logistics nightmare for the organizers and judges otherwise.

Also, and this is a very minor personal note speaking as a guy who's judged events at cons for almost 20 years now: I have other things I'd like to do other than watch a bunch of unlimited timed matches. You'd have real trouble finding qualified staff for that at a lot of events.

[zot]

exactly.

everyone might as well halt all discussions regarding no time limit. it absolutely will not happen for a sanctioned convention tournament in north america due to all of the reasons mentioned. a lot of folks go to conventions for things other than mage wars(though I do not know why). some of us die hards only want to play mw for the entire time, but that is not everyone(which includes the judges). they want to play and enjoy the con themselves. for casual play outside of a sanctioned event, sure no time constraints is fine. that is where you can play other longer books.

I would think 90 min matches is likely as long as it will realistically get.

the judges will post the final rules, limits, point system if there is one, etc, at least 30 days before an event. if they decide sooner, I am sure they will let everyone know as early as possible to give everyone as much time as they can to tune their books accordingly.

[silverclawgrizzly]

Thank you Zot. As a note I spent over 24 hours in the tournament area last Gen Con. I do sometimes like to go to the rest room and sleep though.

[Obsidian Soul]

It should be noted that no one is forcing people to tune all of their books to tournament specifications.  If you and your friends like playing 2-3 hour games, you should play 2-3 hour games, but conventions and tournaments have finite resources for games, so they cannot accommodate those spellbooks.  I do think that most spellbooks that take 2-3 hours to win will lose within 90 minutes to a spellbook made to tournament specifications though, as tournament spellbooks are designed to cause massive damage within 90 minutes. 

For example, the majority of the people who learned to play against my Priestess have had to deal an average of over 80 points of damage to my mage in less than 90 minutes to reliably win (and this is through her Guardian Angels and other protections), and I had to learn to deal an average of 60 points of damage to their mages in less than 90 minutes to reliably win.  If a spellbook is incapable of dealing 80 points of damage in 90 minutes or absorbing 60 points of damage in 90 minutes, then they would have a real hard time against my spellbook.  Just an observation. 

[Reddicediaries]

It should be noted that no one is forcing people to tune all of their books to tournament specifications.  If you and your friends like playing 2-3 hour games, you should play 2-3 hour games, but conventions and tournaments have finite resources for games, so they cannot accommodate those spellbooks.  I do think that most spellbooks that take 2-3 hours to win will lose within 90 minutes to a spellbook made to tournament specifications though, as tournament spellbooks are designed to cause massive damage within 90 minutes. 

For example, the majority of the people who learned to play against my Priestess have had to deal an average of over 80 points of damage to my mage in less than 90 minutes to reliably win (and this is through her Guardian Angels and other protections), and I had to learn to deal an average of 60 points of damage to their mages in less than 90 minutes to reliably win.  If a spellbook is incapable of dealing 80 points of damage in 90 minutes or absorbing 60 points of damage in 90 minutes, then they would have a real hard time against my spellbook.  Just an observation.

What books have you found that are capable if doing that much dmg in 90 minutes?

[Drefan]

No one is challenging the problem of game length at a convention.
What I'm arguing for is that you introduce a time-phases to competitive games to make them more challenging for the players while also giving them a more steady game pace. Games at conventions will be played faster which may result in more player mistakes due to time constraints and nerves.