Timeouts in Finals: Do they happen too often?

I'm seeing an awful lot of 1.5 VP tournament wins in recent reports. Are you seeing the same thing locally? Are players playing the clock rather than playing the game?

People just play too slow in general, not just in the finals.

> Adonai wrote: > I'm seeing an awful lot of 1.5 VP tournament wins in recent reports. > Are you seeing the same thing locally? > Are players playing the clock rather than playing the game? > If you are getting to that conclusion because of the final rounds of the Spanish Championship and the Last Chance Qualifier for it, then I have to tell you that any final round involving Noel usually times out (because he talks too much) V:EKN Website Coordinator

Some players just have obnoxiously slow styles of play. discussing for ten minutes as to IF your calling a krc then arguing another 5 over terms is unacceptable. I don't think many players intentionally time out finals, but sometimes play more defensively during them. a trend of girls style decks has probably led to the increase, since it moves forward very slowly and gains mounds of pool, 1 vp is often all it does before just sitting as the table does whatever.

When the only players with .5 VPs are those that are in the finals, and those .5 VPs were earned in the finals, it isn't a problem with their slow play. It is a problem with their changed behavior because it is a final round.

How can you judge it? You would need to do an experiment in which you time and record the time for each person's turn. I recently played in a final in which the judge asked a player to pick up the speed of his play. The player argued with the judge, indicating that he did not accept the judge's subjective opinion for what amounted to an unofficial warning against stalling. The judge said that he had been timing the player's most recent turns, and, citing those times, he indicated exactly how much slower the player's turns had become. The player then accepted the informal warning and play continued. But without using a timer it's hard to really judge. I've played in slow finals, I've played in slow non-finals. I've played in fast finals, I've played in fast non-finals. If most games end with a timeout, why wouldn't most finals end with a timeout? I have only ever played in one final in which I was certain a player was trying to time the game: he played very slowly in the mid-game (it was subtle but noticeable) and then sped up his turns towards the end. He miscalculated, however, because the game ended on his predator's turn and all he needed was one more turn in order to win the tournament.

> Adonai wrote: > I'm seeing an awful lot of 1.5 VP tournament wins in recent reports. > Are you seeing the same thing locally? > Are players playing the clock rather than playing the game? > 1.5 / 0 / 0.5 / 0.5 / 0.5 is not really the same as 1.5 / 1 / 0 / 0.5 / 0.5 or even 1.5 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 0.5 (where 3 players were ousted)

By their very nature, a finals game is less likely to end in a game win than preliminary rounds are. In prelims, players are forced to push for wins to reach the finals. Even in small tournaments where a win might not be needed to reach the final, players push for that one extra VP. It's this forced aggression which result in lunge-VPs (successful lunge) or ousting opportunities for others (failed lunges). In the finals, seeding actually demotivates the top seeds (presumably the decks with the highest ousting potential) from lunging. Consider: Any 1st seed is nearly assured a tournament win if he can a garner a reasonably timely VP and survive to the 2 hour mark. In this case: - his predator clearly could not win (no VP), - his original grand predator could not win (at most having 1.5 VP, but lower seed), - his original prey probably couldn't win, (he would have to accumulate 2 VP before the top seed ousts him) - that leaves only the top seed's original grand prey as real threat to accumulate 2 VP. (Note: edited for corrections on seating and VP distribution, sorry about that - I hurried too much in the initial post). If the top seed makes the mistake of sitting to the left of the number 2 seed, he can put himself in a position where the #2 seed can become the de facto top seed. Most top seeds never seem to think about this, instead focusing only on deck match-ups and/or player tendencies (e.g., never sit on Randall Rusdam's left). IMO, that's poor play, even before the game starts. Back to the original line of thought: This whole phenomenon is part of what makes Stickmen work so well. Players lunge in the early rounds, so Stickmen get a game win taking advantage of redirected lunge bleeds, which they follow with their own [DOM] powered bombs. If Sticks can get enough VPs in the prelims, any crafty player sits 2 seats behind some deck with limited offense and good defense (or huge bloat). They'll win a disproportionate number of those encounters with 1.5 VP. That doesn't even count the "playing chicken" part of the finals, where players are trying to snipe a VP on their final turn, despite having a disregarded opportunity to oust (or set up the oust) on previous turns.

> AaronC wrote: > If most games end with a timeout, why wouldn't most finals end with a timeout? > Take a look thru the Tournament Reports forum, and look for the .5 VPs for the non-finalists, when the Archon results are reported. I've observed that the vast majority of games are ending in the initial rounds and only the finals is different. Locally, you may see timeouts in every round, in which case it is not players playing the clock, only players playing badly ( ).

> TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > .. never sit on Randall Rusdam's left). ... > Not trying to derail the interesting thread, it's good news that this valuable hint also reached the new world. > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > If the top seed makes the mistake of sitting to the left of the number 2 seed, he can put himself in a position where the #2 seed can become the de facto top seed. > Can you explain, I simply don't understand the rationale. If the top seed is the prey (left side) of the #2, and #2 becomes the defacto top seed, he must have ousted the top seed. So why should the top seed care?

> Izaak wrote: > People just play too slow in general, not just in the finals. > Each cycle of ashur tablets can eat away as much as 5 mins of cards selection-put in hand-reshuffle deck; also on top of that we see lots of decks regaining an huge amount of pool with villein+lilith's blessing tricks and the like Now consider this multiplied at least for 2 players at the table (i've seen no no less than 2 decks at table playing massively the ashur recursion + villein and /or liquidations and so on, in recent times) and to me that's why lots of tables (not only finals) ends up at time limit nowadays Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> Each cycle of ashur tablets can eat away as much as 5 mins of cards > selection-put in hand-reshuffle deck; > Yes and it takes so long because players are slow. I play Ashur tablets a lot and it takes me 90 seconds at most to select the cards I want and shuffle them into my deck. That's because unlike many other players, I actually think about what I want back before playing the third tablet. > also on top of that we see lots of decks regaining an huge amount of pool with villein+lilith's blessing tricks and the like > Now consider this multiplied at least for 2 players at the table (i've seen no no less than 2 decks at table playing massively the ashur recursion + villein and /or liquidations and so on, in recent times) and to me that's why lots of tables (not only finals) ends up at time limit nowadays > When I play with friends, we hardly ever time, because we don't take minutes for the first few turns. Yet at tournaments, oftentimes you see yourself in turn 5 after 60 minutes. I can understand later turns or lunge turns need some extra consideration, but Governing down to dude X and declaring no blocks shouldn't take too long, right? I've also seen people take up to five minutes for the master phase WHILE THEY HAD NO MASTER IN HAND (and no master phase effects on the table either, mind you). And this isn't even uncommon! People just play too slow, that's really it.

> nc-italy wrote: > Each cycle of ashur tablets can eat away as much as 5 mins of cards > selection-put in hand-reshuffle deck; also on top of that we see lots of decks regaining an huge amount of pool with villein+lilith's blessing tricks and the like > Now consider this multiplied at least for 2 players at the table (i've seen no no less than 2 decks at table playing massively the ashur recursion + villein and /or liquidations and so on, in recent times) and to me that's why lots of tables (not only finals) ends up at time limit nowadays > My thoughts exactly. A lot of decks rely on big pool gain, then they are okay with eitheir timing out with 1,5 VP or a lose deal for 2 VP and give 3 to another, faster deck. They often just need 1 GW to get to the finals with 1GW 5,5/6 VP. So, big problem apart, it's a always a win for those strategies. Now, the game evolved. Isn't it about time that the tournament rules evolves also ? I'd say the current Victory point system tallying is obsolete. What I would like : Either you get the GW and garner the VP, or else you get nothing. So slow deck with mass pool gain will be forced to actually do something (take risks) to get to the finals. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Reyda wrote: > What I would like : Either you get the GW and garner the VP, or else you get nothing. So slow deck with mass pool gain will be forced to actually do something (take risks) to get to the finals. > Isn't that exactly how the current system works? It counts GWs first, but with such a crude measure you still need something to sort out ex-aequos. One could change the final ranking, but that would be rather drastric: no GW = no tournament winner.

> extrala wrote: > > > TryDeflectingThisGrapple wrote: > > If the top seed makes the mistake of sitting to the left of the number 2 seed, he can put himself in a position where the #2 seed can become the de facto top seed. > > > Can you explain, I simply don't understand the rationale. If the top seed is the prey (left side) of the #2, and #2 becomes the defacto top seed, he must have ousted the top seed. So why should the top seed care? > From that viewpoint, you're right - an ousted player shouldn't care who wins. But that's not the point in time we're talking about here. Step back to time zero, when selecting seats and think about this: I'm #1 seed (a small subset of all tournaments I play, but OK....) If I sit to the left of the #3-5 seed, he'll have 1 motivation to be an active predator......1 VP if he ousts me. Being #4 or #5 seed, finishing with 1.5 VP, is good - but many players won't take extra mid-game risks to reach that outcome. It's still too easy to lose in that situation. If I sit to the right of the #2 seed, he has TWO motivations to be a very active predator earlier in the game....1 VP if he ousts me AND top (remaining) seed. Jeff's data suggests that 1.5 VP as top dog is frequently a winning position. This consideration SHOULD justify a higher risk tolerance, earlier in the game, from the #2 seed. I know if I were #2 in that situation, I would be chanting the mantra "get my one and wall up" in that situation, starting about 30 minutes into the game. I'm notoriously left-looking anyway, but if I can get a double advantage from an oust, watch out, the fur is going to fly. Following that thought process, the last thing I ever want to do is give my predator any additional excuse to stifle my development early, or to be looking at my pool total with too much interest. As #1 seed in a tournament, I should be extra-concerned about that. I'm not saying it's the only thing a #1 seed should think about - but there's a subtle rationale to avoid sitting left of #2 when you're top seed.

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > Reyda wrote: > > What I would like : Either you get the GW and garner the VP, or else you get nothing. So slow deck with mass pool gain will be forced to actually do something (take risks) to get to the finals. > > > Isn't that exactly how the current system works? It counts GWs first, but with such a crude measure you still need something to sort out ex-aequos. One could change the final ranking, but that would be rather drastric: no GW = no tournament winner. > Let's find something else. why not try this : Gaining the most vp at a table is worth 1 Vampiric Point. Sweeping a table is worth 1 Dhampiric point. all the rest does not count. the players going to the finals are the one with the most Vampiric / Dhampiric points count as tiebreakers. Not that I'm also in favor of "no tournament winner if no VP" ! And for skeptical people : the tournament and GW system has already changed in the past. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Non-existant user wrote: > One could change the final ranking, but that would be rather drastric: no GW = no tournament winner. > I think that is a really bad option. People who have no chance to win will try to prevent the table from having a GW (like rolling over so there is a 2-2-1) because then everybody will be 1st (or 2nd??)

I think there are a few factors: - People tend to be even more cautious, because this is not about a GW but about the tournament win. Higher stakes .. more double checking you are not making a mistake. Paired with the potential of being tired after 6+ hours of V:TES this naturally leads to slower games. - Finals tend to have spectators. So everyone tries to be extra witty, cracking a joke to seem like the nice guy in the beginning, trying to strike a nice deal etc ... (we have all done it, me too). That eats up time as well.

> johannes wrote: > > > Non-existant user wrote: > > One could change the final ranking, but that would be rather drastric: no GW = no tournament winner. > > > I think that is a really bad option. People who have no chance to win will try to prevent the table from having a GW (like rolling over so there is a 2-2-1) because then everybody will be 1st (or 2nd??) > people already do that on preliminar rounds, my friend or worse, they do some kingmaking to get 2 VP, so they can raise their chance to go to the finals. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Why not just reward offensive play by multiplying survival bonus with victory points. For example: You get 1 VP per oust. You get another 0.5VP per oust if you have survived until end of game. This will penalize people who has not ousted a single methuselah hard. Table 1 A alive 1.5VP B dead (killed by A) 1VP C dead (killed by B) 0VP D alive 0VP E alive 0VP Table 2 A dead (killed by E) 0VP B alive 3VP C dead (killed by B) 0VP D dead( killed by B) 0VP E alive 1.5VP Table 3 A alive 6VP B dead (killed by A) 0VP C dead (killed by A) 0VP D dead (killed by A) 0VP E dead (killed by A) 0VP

So, if you are the first one to get an oust, you still win if the game stall and then timeout. You also have a significant motivation to stop moving forward and turtle once you got two oust (since you already have the GW if you survive, just like now). So, I don't see much of a difference with the current situation.

> Ohlmann wrote: > So, if you are the first one to get an oust, you still win if the game stall and then timeout. > > You also have a significant motivation to stop moving forward and turtle once you got two oust (since you already have the GW if you survive, just like now). > > So, I don't see much of a difference with the current situation. > True for the most part but there is a small difference. The other players should feel the need to be more offensive or they will end up with 0 VP.

Or they can as well decide to roll over since the outcome is the same for them. While it might decrease the number of timeouts, do we really want to encourage suicides?

> Non-existant user wrote: > Or they can as well decide to roll over since the outcome is the same for them. While it might decrease the number of timeouts, do we really want to encourage suicides? > Not encourage suicide but how about loosen up the rules for withdrawal a bit. The goal is to maximize victory points but if the table stalls and above scenario occur. 0.5 VP for a successful withdrawal can be preferable to 0 VP. modified withdrawal rule: > > If you have exhausted your library and begin your turn with less than a full hand, you have the option of withdrawing from the game. To exercise this option, you must announce your intent to withdraw during your untap phase. For the withdrawal to succeed, you must meet the following conditions: > None of your minions enter combat until your next untap phase. > None of your minions lose (or spend) any blood until your next untap phase. > You do not lose (or spend) any pool until your next untap phase. > If you can successfully defend against not losing a single blood or pool a whole turn you can exit the game with 0.5 VP.

> If you can successfully defend against not losing a single blood or pool a whole turn you can exit the game with 0.5 VP. > I sse at least 2(3) cards that can prevent a withdrawal under such conditions: 419 Operation (corner case) Army of rats (often played) Fame (often played) It seems to me that this favors the player who wishes to prevent vp's from leaving(fleeing) the table... VTES is not for the faint of heart...especially when you don't have a enough blood. Prince Of Geneva

I think two hour time limit is to simple.One solution could be some sort of extra time could be added for each VP left in the game, so say it's 10 more minutes for each VP, this discourages walling up to time out. But on the other hand this could add to much pressure on event organizers as it could add almost an hour to a tournament and could hurt a play style that may or may not be toxic. I haven't seen a solution that I really like but I do think that the game it's self has become longer with all the pool gain options and the flat two hour rule is far to simple for such a complex game.

2 hour limit - but instead of closing the game, the game go on, and the organizer start playing Britney Spears album on a sound system. Increase the volume and/or choose even worse singer every 10 minutes.

> nc-italy wrote: > > > Izaak wrote: > > People just play too slow in general, not just in the finals. > > > Each cycle of ashur tablets can eat away as much as 5 mins of cards > selection-put in hand-reshuffle deck... > I've never seen anyone take more than maybe 90 seconds to Ashur-cycle, and if I did, I'd call a judge and ask for time to be added to the clock. 5 minutes to decide on 13 cards is total and complete stalling. Or they are just inexperienced, I suppose, but in either case, the table shouldn't be penalized for their slowness. This is the EXACT same thing as someone taking 5 minutes to decide if they are going to Govern down or forward, and you'd call a judge for that, wouldn't you? Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Chaitan wrote: > Why not just reward offensive play by multiplying survival bonus with victory points. > Offensive play is already rewarded via the definition of a Game Win. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Ohlmann wrote: > 2 hour limit - but instead of closing the game, the game go on, and the organizer start playing Britney Spears album on a sound system. Increase the volume and/or choose even worse singer every 10 minutes. > I might be more tempted to play the back catalogue of Toto or possibly Willow Smith... but you know... each to their own. Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418

> KevinM wrote: > Offensive play is already rewarded via the definition of a Game Win. > Not in the final, especially for the high seeds.

> KevinM wrote: > > > nc-italy wrote: > > > > > Izaak wrote: > > > People just play too slow in general, not just in the finals. > > > > > > > > Each cycle of ashur tablets can eat away as much as 5 mins of cards > > selection-put in hand-reshuffle deck... > > > I've never seen anyone take more than maybe 90 seconds to Ashur-cycle > Then you're lucky Ashur is an awful horribily designed card in term of slowing the game, as it's both pool (re)gain and totally broken cards recursion (no card in the game before allowed a 4.33 cards retrival per slot used, not counting the "put one in your hand" effect which is just another call to utter slower decision among the 13 retrieved) Average time of ending up master phase with AT it's significantly higher, and that's just another matter of fact - even if it would take just 90 seconds (which is untrue, as it's another matter of fact that most people plays slow and such a card make so damn easy to play *slower* than usual your master phase) you would have at least 5 minutes of an average game eaten away only by it, which is a notable amount of time for playing a card with no other interactions in a 2hr time limit Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> KevinM wrote: > > > Chaitan wrote: > > Why not just reward offensive play by multiplying survival bonus with victory points. > > > Offensive play is already rewarded via the definition of a Game Win. > game win rule favors offensive players ? maybe. game win rule favors table splitters ? hundred percent certain. Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> Non-existant user wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > Offensive play is already rewarded via the definition of a Game Win. > > > Not in the final, especially for the high seeds. > You mean high SEED. Everyone in the final below #1 needs to continue to play offensively until either they have 2vp or are #1 seed themselves. Yes, #1 becomes a "defensive" and not offensive player in the finals, but since everyone knows who #1 is, that player should have 3-4 predators, unless the rest of the players at the table are complete amateurs. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> nc-italy wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > > > > nc-italy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Izaak wrote: > > > > People just play too slow in general, not just in the finals. > > > > > > > > > > > Each cycle of ashur tablets can eat away as much as 5 mins of cards > > > selection-put in hand-reshuffle deck... > > > > > I've never seen anyone take more than maybe 90 seconds to Ashur-cycle > > > Then you're lucky > Ashur is an awful horribily designed card in term of slowing the game, as it's both pool (re)gain and totally broken cards recursion (no card in the game before allowed a 4.33 cards retrival per slot used, not counting the "put one in your hand" effect which is just another call to utter slower decision among the 13 retrieved) > Average time of ending up master phase with AT it's significantly higher, and that's just another matter of fact - even if it would take just 90 seconds (which is untrue, as it's another matter of fact that most people plays slow and such a card make so damn easy to play *slower* than usual your master phase) you would have at least 5 minutes of an average game eaten away only by it, which is a notable amount of time for playing a card with no other interactions in a 2hr time limit > It is interesting that you cutoff my quote in the middle. Everything after what you cutoff answers your concerns, unless you have weak judges that are unwilling to enforce proper play -- and since you yourself have agreed with me and defined 5 minutes of Ashur'ing as slow, then we have no issues. Find strong judges. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > It is interesting that you cutoff my quote in the middle. Everything after what you cutoff answers your concerns, unless you have weak judges that are unwilling to enforce proper play -- and since you yourself have agreed with me and defined 5 minutes of Ashur'ing as slow, then we have no issues. Find strong judges. > You can't rely on judge in the very moment an effect makes to select *13* cards and also to choose one to put back in hand, as there's no rule forcing a player to select those 13 in advance or being specially quicker with such consistent selection decision, general point was another: in the respect of timeouts (so pool gain *and* lenghty decisions) some effects, also one without table interaction as AT, just make typical slow play even more slower, and this is very true especially with AT which just made the master phase so boring slow nowadays Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> nc-italy wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > It is interesting that you cutoff my quote in the middle. Everything after what you cutoff answers your concerns, unless you have weak judges that are unwilling to enforce proper play -- and since you yourself have agreed with me and defined 5 minutes of Ashur'ing as slow, then we have no issues. Find strong judges. > > > You can't rely on judge in the very moment an effect makes to select *13* cards and also to choose one to put back in hand, as there's no rule forcing a player to select those 13 in advance or being specially quicker with such consistent selection decision, general point was another: > in the respect of timeouts (so pool gain *and* lenghty decisions) some effects, also one without table interaction as AT, just make typical slow play even more slower, and this is very true especially with AT which just made the master phase so boring slow nowadays > I guess you should have called a judge over after the 2nd Ashur was put onto the table. I would've, if I'd have had the issues that you've seemed to have had. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> KevinM wrote: > > > nc-italy wrote: > > > > > KevinM wrote: > > > It is interesting that you cutoff my quote in the middle. Everything after what you cutoff answers your concerns, unless you have weak judges that are unwilling to enforce proper play -- and since you yourself have agreed with me and defined 5 minutes of Ashur'ing as slow, then we have no issues. Find strong judges. > > > > > > > > You can't rely on judge in the very moment an effect makes to select *13* cards and also to choose one to put back in hand, as there's no rule forcing a player to select those 13 in advance or being specially quicker with such consistent selection decision, general point was another: > > in the respect of timeouts (so pool gain *and* lenghty decisions) some effects, also one without table interaction as AT, just make typical slow play even more slower, and this is very true especially with AT which just made the master phase so boring slow nowadays > > > I guess you should have called a judge over after the 2nd Ashur was put onto the table. I would've, if I'd have had the issues that you've seemed to have had. > As said, you can't call a judge in advance of a would be slow play, that would be just pointless and also there's no rule enforcing a player to select in advance the cards for AT Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

If you have finals and the judge is enot watching it or in immediate vicinity, something in wrong IMHO... Finnish Politics!

> Lönkka wrote: > If you have finals and the judge is enot watching it or in immediate vicinity, something in wrong IMHO... > Even in final a judge can't force a player to set aside his cards in advance for a future AT, as there's no rule allowing that (or more in general, no rule enforcing that a player must spare as much time as possibile setting aside stuff for future effects that are not even granted to happen); lenghty (or stalling for time) decisions can be just evaluated once an effect triggers and needs some not-so-fast operation to be done (as such as 13 card retrival from ash heap, or choosing by the controlling players how all of the titled vampire at the table will vote in the referendum, and the like) Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> as such as 13 card retrival from ash heap > You are VASTLY overestimating the amount of decision-making it takes to dig up 13 cards. And if it's not, you're not ready to play Ashur decks which should give a judge even more incentive to tell you to move on instead of making everyone else wait. > Even in final a judge can't force a player to set aside his cards in advance for a future AT > A jugde can *certainly* force a player to complete his Ashur cycle in ~90 seconds. If that means said player needs to start earlier, then so be it. I just don't understand why most VTES players are so protective of disruptively slow play. I'd guess it's because judges are afraid to piss off players and end up with even less turnup in tournaments. Anecdotal, this weekend I was watching the M:TG Return to Ravnica pro-tour events. Obviously, it being the pro-tour there is a lot more at stake than an entry in Jeff's TWDA and some boosters you don't really need. There was a French player who was playing a rather technical deck and was facing a fairly complicated situation where he had some tough decisions to make. The guy was *genuinly* considering his options and trying to make the best play given the situation, but it was taking ages. BAM! Without warning, a judge comes in, gives him his (second) slowplay warning of the day and with it a loss in that game. In game five (of a best of five) he gets ANOTHER warning and it took the head judge to not transform that into another game loss. I mean, sure, that might be on the harsh side but that's what good judges should be doing. I don't agree with Kevin a lot, but here he's 100% spot-on: get better judges.

> Izaak wrote: > I mean, sure, that might be on the harsh side but that's what good judges should be doing. I don't agree with Kevin a lot, but here he's 100% spot-on: get better judges. > It's a question of what tournament are for. If you believe that the focus is on player skill (like in MTG big tournament), it's perfectly fine. If you believe that the tournament are a way to meet up and play, then it's not.

> Izaak wrote: > > > as such as 13 card retrival from ash heap > > > You are VASTLY overestimating the amount of decision-making it takes to dig up 13 cards. > I'm just ackowledging a fact: many people tend to play slow, certain cards (such as AT) are just a call to play even slower Period Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> It's a question of what tournament are for. If you believe that the focus is on player skill (like in MTG big tournament), it's perfectly fine. If you believe that the tournament are a way to meet up and play, then it's not. > What I think tournaments are doesn't matter. Tournaments are by their very nature a way to pit players against one another in a competitive environment. You can have your "meet up and play" at friday night, like everyone else. And even then, if I play a tournament for my enjoyment and/or meet players (which is certainly part of reason I'm attending whichever I can) I expect to have a good times. If someone is taking 5 minutes for his master phase, then I'm not having a good time because he's playing obnoxiously slow. > I'm just ackowledging a fact: many people tend to play slow, > Yes, this is a fact and I'm fairly sure that was more or less my first response in this thread. People just play slow in general. Slower than they should. > certain cards (such as AT) are just a call to play even slower > Period > That is not a fact. That is your opinion. It is my opinion (as well as experience) that if you know what you're doing, Ashur Tablets don't take up a disproportionate amount of time. When you're just throwing Ashur Tablets in a deck because all the cool kids do so while you don't really have a reason, or a clue as to why, how or when use then, then yes they take up a disproportionate amount of time. But then again, ANYTHING those players do take up stupid amounts of time.

> KevinM wrote: > You mean high SEED. Everyone in the final below #1 needs to continue to play offensively until either they have 2vp or are #1 seed themselves. > > Yes, #1 becomes a "defensive" and not offensive player in the finals, but since everyone knows who #1 is, that player should have 3-4 predators, unless the rest of the players at the table are complete amateurs. > While not as certain as for the top seed, anyone can win with 1.5VP as long as only lower seeds have scored any and managed to stayed alive. In a 1.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0 split, the 1.5 always wins, no matter what his seed is. What you say suggests another system: if the game times out without a GW (so not in the case of a 2-2 draw), then the winner is the highest seed still alive, irrespective of VPs scored. That would work much closer to what you describe. It would probably favor offensive play, but wouldn't it warp the table dynamics too much?

> Izaak wrote: > > > > I'm just ackowledging a fact: many people tend to play slow, > > > > > > > > Yes, this is a fact and I'm fairly sure that was more or less my first response in this thread. People just play slow in general. Slower than they should. > > > And that certain cards (such as AT) just make that slow general play even slower is another fact, not opinion - deying such a thing is denying evidence > Otherwise you can state that playing and resolving, say, a player's 3rd villein takes just the same amount of time than resoving his 3rd AT > Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

> And that certain cards (such as AT) just make that slow general play even slower is another fact, not opinion - deying such a thing is denying evidence > What evidence are you referring to? I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your personal experience or opinion is not evidence by any means. Does the third Ashur Tablet take a longer time to resolve than the third Villein? Well, sure, it will likely do so. Will it resolve sufficiently slow to be bordering on stalling and slowing down the pace of the game? Most certainly not. Unless, of course, you are playing with bads and/or allow players to take 5 minutes for their master phases. Which is not the problem of Ashur Tablets, but the problem of the player playing them and judges not stepping up to speed up the game.

The real problem: 120 minutes / 5 players = 24 minutes per player Games that go longer than 12 turns give each player less than 2 minutes per turn. We should not be encouraging faster play, but more correct play.

> Izaak wrote: > > > And that certain cards (such as AT) just make that slow general play even slower is another fact, not opinion - deying such a thing is denying evidence > > > What evidence are you referring to? I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your personal experience or opinion is not evidence by any means. > > Does the third Ashur Tablet take a longer time to resolve than the third Villein? Well, sure, it will likely do so. > Yes indeed it will do so, and that's in fact an evidence that the resolution certain cards (such AT) actually slow utterly the already slow style of play of many players, contributing to the problem of timeouts of games nowadays (AT is also pool regain in this respect) Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

I don't see the evidence still, really. What I see is your opinion, stated as fact and conclusions that have no basis. By your logic KRC also slows down the game to a snail's pace because there needs a vote to be done and sometimes splits needs to be negotiated. Of course, decent players vote fast and negotiate splits in under 30 seconds so it's usually not an issue. Just as resolving a third Ashur Tablets is never a problem when someone that's not mentally handicapped does it. Poor players taking forever to decide how to offer Kine splits is not a problem with card, but with the players. Just as people taking ages to resolve something as trivial as a third Ashur Tablets. Again that is a problem with the players and not with the card. Judges should be stepping in and make people move. Be it Ashur Tablets, DI's, Parity Shifts or even wakes for all I care. The issue at hand is that they are (mostly) not doing that and therefore the game is being slowed down to the point of being unenjoyable.

> Izaak wrote: > I don't see the evidence still, really. What I see is your opinion, stated as fact and conclusions that have no basis. > > By your logic KRC also slows down the game to a snail's pace because there needs a vote to be done and sometimes splits needs to be negotiated. > Political is negotation, so table interaction, sure it can pose another kind of slowness problem but on another different level (negotiation slowness) But cards such AT (or, say, the imbued mechanics with high amount of permanent in the game and long phases to be done without interactions) are no interaction at all, they're sort of autistical mechanics which, as said, just lead toward utter slowness of play Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

When I have zero votes, I have no interaction with a kine. When I'm one of the targets of the kine, I have no interaction. There is absolutely no difference here. In fact, one could argue that BECAUSE there is no interaction, Ashur Tablets should resolve fast because nobody can do a fuck about it once the third one hits the table. Ya know, like resolving a Villein isn't very hard either. If some nitwit is taking forever to complete their Ashur cycle they should be told to speed things the hell up because they're stalling. If judges (or other players) don't have the balls to tell them then either it's not a problem, or they need to man the fuck up and start being actual judges.

> Izaak wrote: > When I have zero votes, I have no interaction with a kine. When I'm one of the targets of the kine, I have no interaction. There is absolutely no difference here. > not true. you can ask for the remaining damage point not being put on you, because you can provide compensation (blood from owain, let the pb montreal go, deal a rush etc... ) Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

Well, if you want to nitpick, extremely few action can't be negociated. If my prey hesitate between defense (redirection, rush, combat), or offense (stealth, bleed), there is something that can be negociated. If my prey want to villein for a lot, I can try to convince him that keeping blood on vampire for ousting my grandprey is better than turtling. Izaak believe all thoses decisions can be done quickly enough in the current card pool, while nc-italy think some card take too much time to be resolved by design. The only thing I will say on the topic is, the less serious and concentrated people will be, the more likely they are to take forever to divide KRC or use Ashur. And there is people that use tournament as social gathering and consequently are less than perfectly concentrated, leading to slow play. Aggressively handing out warning for that mean tournament will be less friendly for them and more for competitive player.

> Ohlmann wrote: > Well, if you want to nitpick, extremely few action can't be negociated. > True. > Ohlmann wrote: > If my prey hesitate between defense (redirection, rush, combat), or offense (stealth, bleed), there is something that can be negociated. > True. You can tell him "go on, do your job, no agression from me for the next two turns", for exemple. It works great. > Ohlmann wrote: > If my prey want to villein for a lot, I can try to convince him that keeping blood on vampire for ousting my grandprey is better than turtling. > Mmm, this is another situation than the one described with the KRC. The actual terms of the villein are chosen when the card is played, you can't really negociate and change this(but you can comment). Contrary to a KRC where there's some delay between "action is not blocked, we reach the referendum" and " let's set the terms". And even before, you can ask for hint to decide not to block if no damage is done to your pool. It's really, really different. > Ohlmann wrote: > The only thing I will say on the topic is, the less serious and concentrated people will be, the more likely they are to take forever to divide KRC or use Ashur. And there is people that use tournament as social gathering and consequently are less than perfectly concentrated, leading to slow play. Aggressively handing out warning for that mean tournament will be less friendly for them and more for competitive player. > ... ok but the risk is the "relax" players won't come anymore and we'll lose half the tournament population. It happened before, it can happen again. Let's make a move to not divide the tournament scene again... Imagination is our only weapon in the war against reality -Jules de Gaultier

> nc-italy wrote: > > > Izaak wrote: > > I don't see the evidence still, really. What I see is your opinion, stated as fact and conclusions that have no basis. > > > > By your logic KRC also slows down the game to a snail's pace because there needs a vote to be done and sometimes splits needs to be negotiated. > > > Political is negotation, so table interaction, sure it can pose another kind > of slowness problem but on another different level (negotiation slowness) > But cards such AT (or, say, the imbued mechanics with high amount of permanent in the game and long phases to be done without interactions) are no interaction at all, they're sort of autistical mechanics which, as said, just lead toward utter slowness of play > I know half a dozen serious Imbued players and none of them play slowly. In fact, they play faster than when they are playing with vampires. This is sounding more and more like a local issue for you and nothing that the game or the community needs to address. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

my opinion is that the final round should be given an extra 30 minutes on the timer. this should prevent those close-call timeout wins that are anticlimactic and unsatisfying. and if the game still isn't resolved after 2:30 then everybody loses! er I mean you count up half VPs so the judge can get on with his life. it makes sense that the preliminary rounds must be capped at 2 hours, since there's many players who are waiting for their next game to begin. but nobody else is required to wait on the final round, so why does it need the same time limit? I've read some people say this would create an unequal play environment, where some deck could do better in a 2 hr round compared to a 2.5 hr round, but.... ehhh. the finals are already different from preliminaries to begin with. you have the 5 best decks/players, who are most likely to talk diplomacy, and most likely to survive oust attempts. with chosen seating in seed-order rather than randomly assigned. someone may be grudgingly willing to accept 2VPs and no GW in a preliminary round, but nobody settles for that in the finals. if the finals are a whole different ballpark, so it seems fair to me that it gets compensated with the extra time it needs.

> KevinM wrote: > I know half a dozen serious Imbued players and none of them play slowly. In fact, they play faster than when they are playing with vampires. > > This is sounding more and more like a local issue for you and nothing that the game or the community needs to address. > Eh, I think that it is pretty obvious that some deck types and some cards are slower than others. If an Imbued player has 40 cards on the table with some moving around, some getting tapped, some hopping to and fro from the ash heap it will certainly take me more time to assess the situation and decide on an optimal course of play. Similarly, Ashur Tablets in a tight spot might take some thinking. Not five minutes worth, but even 90 seconds is rather a long time to spend on a Master phase. And sometimes you need to consider the Master card you play and it can easily end up taking three minutes without any mental deficiency or foul play or anything like that. The way I see it, nc-italy is saying that slower deck types have become more powerful and therefore more likely to reach the finals and result in timeouts. Which might be true or false but the underlying idea that some things take more time than others is pretty obvious and it seems like you and Izaak are arguing against that, which seems strange.

What we disagree with is that it's the fault of the game and/or certain cards that games tend to time out more and more. Slow players make tables time, not slow cards. The whole idea that the existence of Ashur Tablets makes tables more likely to time out is so ridiculous that it's not even possible to start arguing there. Yes, some cards, actions or situations take more time than others. But "more time" doesn't equal "so long that everything times". See, here in Holland tournament tables hardly ever time. And yet we're playing our Ashur Tablets and Parity Shifts just fine. We have our MMPA 300-pool decks just as much as everywhere else, and yet... timeouts are fairly rare. From what I gather, Kevin has the same experience. Therefore, tables timing is the fault of slow players and judges not correcting them and not the fault of the cards. Play faster.

> Haze wrote: > my opinion is that the final round should be given an extra 30 minutes on the timer. this should prevent those close-call timeout wins that are anticlimactic and unsatisfying. and if the game still isn't resolved after 2:30 then everybody loses! er I mean you count up half VPs so the judge can get on with his life. > > it makes sense that the preliminary rounds must be capped at 2 hours, since there's many players who are waiting for their next game to begin. but nobody else is required to wait on the final round, so why does it need the same time limit? > > I've read some people say this would create an unequal play environment, where some deck could do better in a 2 hr round compared to a 2.5 hr round, but.... ehhh. the finals are already different from preliminaries to begin with. you have the 5 best decks/players, who are most likely to talk diplomacy, and most likely to survive oust attempts. with chosen seating in seed-order rather than randomly assigned. someone may be grudgingly willing to accept 2VPs and no GW in a preliminary round, but nobody settles for that in the finals. if the finals are a whole different ballpark, so it seems fair to me that it gets compensated with the extra time it needs. > I played in the NAC finals when they decided to extend the final limit to 3 hours. And you know what? The eventual winner had to rush through his turn -- not even necessarily legally ousting his preys -- and the game ended with literally seconds left on the clock. Additional time limits will do nothing to keep finals from timing out. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Lemminkäinen wrote: > > > KevinM wrote: > > I know half a dozen serious Imbued players and none of them play slowly. In fact, they play faster than when they are playing with vampires. > > > > This is sounding more and more like a local issue for you and nothing that the game or the community needs to address. > > > Eh, I think that it is pretty obvious that some deck types and some cards are slower than others. If an Imbued player has 40 cards on the table with some moving around, some getting tapped, some hopping to and fro from the ash heap it will certainly take me more time to assess the situation and decide on an optimal course of play. > I've just told you that my experience is that it doesn't. If in your experience it does, tell your players to play faster, and help them find ways to do so if they aren't creative enough to figure things out for themselves. Making two ash heaps as an Imbued player, continually reordering your ash heap on other player's turns as an Ashur player, playing your deck over and over on JOL, etc. Figuring out how to play faster leads to one thing and one thing only -- more VPs. You could also institute what my old board gaming club did -- no initiating an out-of-game conversation when it is your turn; you can answer all questions but you cannot start a conversation. Believe me, that speeds things up when you make a rule that says "Shut up and play". Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Izaak wrote: > What we disagree with is that it's the fault of the game and/or certain cards that games tend to time out more and more. Slow players make tables time, not slow cards. > This is just totally contradiction in terms (slow play, slow card) and fail both of you or kevin to ackowledging a matter of fact which comes not even by experience or opinions (i personally judged a whole EC and played at 2 different ones over the years so my personal experience isn't just "local" but also from seeing how certain mechanics *did* actually slow the game in general) but by the sheer notion that if you're using slower car(d) you'll end up traveling (playing the round) slower no matter how you think you're fast at driving or you see other drivers going fast with their car(d)s on the road (round) Hope the metaphor is clear enough to make you understand which notion you're failing to ackowledge; slow play is a fact, inherent longer resolutions of certain cards (both those implying interaction such politics and those not such as AT) is another fact, not opinion Emiliano vekn.net administrators staff

Anyway, this thread is about finals. This whole discussion about slow cards vs slow players is very interesting, but it fails to address the difference between finals and round games.

> Non-existant user wrote: > it fails to address the difference between finals and round games. > Part of the explanation may be that people are more stressed on the final, and a lot of people are less efficient and less concentrated when stressed. Another one is that on the final you have less pression to go get a game win, so peoples are more likely to stall or turtle than to try to lunge. (on round, you more or less need to get at least one GW to go to the final, and failing completely a game can still be salvaged on further round. On final, you only need to gave the most VP, and if you fail at a lunge and are ousted, you are out. It's common sense, but it does explain why people are less aggressive at finals)

Plus, let's not forget that people are often very tired in finals (at least i know i am) 4-6 hours of tense play in the 3 rounds that precede finals can and do take a toll on players. With that factor, and a pressure of finals, many players take that extra time to think things through, and make sure they are not forgetting something.

Aside from judges giving out slow-play warnings is there anything that can be done to give players incentive to play faster? I can't think of any except the passive threat that they can't win if they don't earn a certain amount of VPs.

> Aside from judges giving out slow-play warnings is there anything that can be done to give players incentive to play faster? > No, not really. Which is exactly why this is being discussed. Tournaments are simply too small for that and there is basically nothing at stake. I mean, over half the tournament reports on this site are about tournaments with 10-15 people where out of five finalists only 3 actually had a gamewin. At bigger tournaments you see people generally play faster (especially in round 1 and 2) because you need at least a GW to make the finals. On EC Day 1, for example, the cutoff for day 2 is usually around 1GW4VP so people have more incentive to move on. Also, at the EC in Paris the organization did a GREAT job at providing extra incentives to get gamewins in the form of boosters and starters for whomever got the gamewin and promo's for VP's. It worked pretty well on tables where I played. Especially for people that come mostly for fun and are not really interested in winning the whole thing, little extra's gives them a reason to try harder. In Poland lasy year the price support was terrible, even for the finalist of the daily events and as a result the play attitude of a lot of people that I personally played with/against was different, especially in round 3. Some people, if they go 0-0 in the first two rounds they really can't be fucked anymore and start dicking around which may influence the results and chances of people who are, for example, 1GW2,5 and really need to score to move on. On Day 2 of NAC/EC level events there is no chance to make the finals without a GW, although last year I believe 1GW4 was enough as there were TONS of timeouts in the prelims and Enrico and myself were the only ones with 2 GW. That at least provides some incentive to move on as long as you don't have a GW. I'd be all for making surviving until time worth zero VP and removing the the VP you get for being sole survivor. Then remove GWs from tables that timed and the result will be that less shit times. As a bonus, you'd get rid of the ridiculous situation where a wall deck basically cannot lose a 4-player table (as at worst it gets a 2-2 split) and people that get 2 VP at a 4-player table can actually get a gamewin.

> Izaak wrote: > Also, at the EC in Paris the organization did a GREAT job at providing extra incentives to get gamewins in the form of boosters and starters for whomever got the gamewin and promo's for VP's. It worked pretty well on tables where I played. Especially for people that come mostly for fun and are not really interested in winning the whole thing, little extra's gives them a reason to try harder. > I'm sure it worked fine but is appeal to greed really a great way for speeding up the game?

> Izaak wrote: > I'd be all for making surviving until time worth zero VP and removing the the VP you get for being sole survivor. Then remove GWs from tables that timed and the result will be that less shit times. As a bonus, you'd get rid of the ridiculous situation where a wall deck basically cannot lose a 4-player table (as at worst it gets a 2-2 split) and people that get 2 VP at a 4-player table can actually get a gamewin. > And in the final? It is easy to decide that everyone loses in the preliminary games. In the final, someone must win, or so it seems, even when the table times out.

Ye finals are still a problem in that case. Maybe there should be a similar rule for the finals as their is in the prelims: with 1,5 VP you don't get the GW. So the scenario where everyone jockeys for position to get the only VP at the table with 3 minutes to spare gets thrown out of the window. If nobody manages to get the GW, tough luck - the guy with highest seed wins by virtue of better prelims. (Note that this is significantly different from the current situation where *everyone* can play the finals for 1 VP + timeout) If you want to win, you have to oust people.

> Izaak wrote: > If nobody manages to get the GW, tough luck - the guy with highest seed wins by virtue of better prelims. > There is a big problem with that: the top seed can just play to slow the game down, and if he is good enough at it he can win despite getting ousted with 0VP. That's why I proposed to give the tournament to the highest seed still alive instead, so that at least the top seed still has to defend himself from the his predator and the second seed at least.

> the top seed can just play to slow the game down > Well, except that stalling is illegal. And if four other players plus a judge don't mind the top seed stalling, then well... no change will help.

> Izaak wrote: > Well, except that stalling is illegal. > Obvious stalling is illegal. Non-obvious and non-obnoxious stalling, like not playing fast, taking 2 minute instead of 90 second on important actions, and more importantly turtling without forward action is legal, if only because undistinguishable from someone a bit stressed and/or tired. Of course, if we have only the top seed that can do that instead of every finalist which have a reasonable hope for one vp before the end of the game, it will still lead to less stall. Online magic had a system where each player had its own clock, which runned only when the player had a decision to make. It was pretty efficient, but it's a pain in the ass to do in real life.

> Chaitan wrote: > Aside from judges giving out slow-play warnings is there anything that can be done to give players incentive to play faster? > Sure: Find judges that are willing to act like JUDGES, and after a warning for slow -- or "slower than normal" -- play, start adding time to the clock. I played in a final recently where, near the end, I began playing slower than the rest of the players. The judge had been timing everyone's play and when mine got out of sync, he gave me a warning and said that he would start adding time to the clock. I disputed it for about 5 seconds, because I didn't think that I had been doing so, but he showed me the timer and I said "damnit!" and I sped up my play. I won the tournament. It's completely anecdotal and I haven't researched the subject, but since I'm not saying anything new at this point, and I don't wish to dispute my good friend Emiliano any further perhaps it's best just to end my participation with this thought: Having been to only one EC, but having played with and judged dozens of European players -- both here in the US *and* at the EC, and at *all levels* of event-type, from "local" to the NAC itself -- I have noticed that European players have a MUCH greater tendency to dispute/argue with the judge. Perhaps it's this belief of mine that is making me suggest that Emiliano's issues are "local". Just a thought; I could be wrong. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Ohlmann wrote: > Obvious stalling is illegal. Non-obvious and non-obnoxious stalling, like not playing fast, taking 2 minute instead of 90 second on important actions, and more importantly turtling without forward action is legal, if only because undistinguishable from someone a bit stressed and/or tired. > With all due respect, that's complete and utter bullshit. Stalling is stalling, and stalling is illegal. If you are unable to identify that a player is stalling, you are, quite simply, unfit to be a judge. It may be that in your local area, everyone is at about the same skill level in terms of judging, and in those cases -- which I think are probably more hypothetical than real -- you do the best you can with what you have. In a "qualifier"- or "championship"-level tournament, you step out of the way and allow people who have shown the ability to judge properly and well to be in charge. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017

> Izaak wrote: > Well, except that stalling is illegal. > Who said anything about stalling? Offering your Powerbase: Montreal around, rushing crosstable anyone who starts to get an edge, vote pool damage votes down, crosstable DIs/Delaying/Suddens,... There are plenty of ways to slow down a table that do not involve trying to decrease the actual number of turns that people can play in 2 hours.

That's not stalling. If you manage to do that and win the tournament because of it, you're playing with fish. Which, given the decks I see at final tables in some smaller tournaments may well be the case.

5 (known) of the 6 events held at the EC2012 had finals that timed out. silence of death - 5 VP sweep vtesone.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/results-ec-2012-european-championship-day-1/ vtesone.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/results-ec-2012-last-chance-qualifier/ vtesone.wordpress.com/2012/10/27/vtes-ec-2012-nations-cup/ vtesone.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/results-ec-2012-first-chance-qualifier/ vtesone.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/results-ec-2012-silence-of-death/

At EC Brian had a nifty, if somewhat cumbersome, way of motivating finalists against timeouting. Brian, you can explain it so much better than me, so if you please, can you explain it to others too? Finnish Politics!