Rules Team Rulings - 02-DEC-2014

As always, changes contained herein do not go into effect for sanctioned tournaments for 30 days. (So these become active on January 1st, 2015.) These rules replace the existing rules. The changes are highlighted in yellow. ===== Tournament Rules changes 3.1.1. Round Time Limits Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option. When the round is over, the judge will notify all players. The game will end with the current minion action - if any -, or at the end of the current phase, if the notification didn't happen during the minion phase. ===== Continental Championships Qualifications changes How To Qualify [...] The winner of a sanctioned, rated, standard constructed tournament of 8 or more players will be qualified for all Continental Championships. [...]

Does this mean that by 2015 TWDs of tournaments with 8 or 9 players will enter the TWDA, too? National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de

> Hakuron wrote: > Does this mean that by 2015 TWDs of tournaments with 8 or 9 players will enter the TWDA, too? > It doesn't mean so. It also doesn't mean they won't. The TWDA was created by Jeff "TheLasombra" Thompson, who maintained it for more than 10 years, and is now taken care of by Vincent "Ankha" Ripoll. The list It contains is unrelated to the VEKN. I *think* (but I cannot speak for him) Vincent wanted to stick to Jeff's original intent of having a 10-player limit. Jeff's initial choice was made way before I added the "winner of a 10+player event qualifies". I would consider these two separate, but that's up to Vincent now

> Hakuron wrote: > Does this mean that by 2015 TWDs of tournaments with 8 or 9 players will enter the TWDA, too? > No. The minimum number of players required by the TWDA has no relation with the minimum number of players required to qualify and is still set to 10. Prince of Paris, France Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director

> Pascal wrote: > 3.1.1. Round Time Limits > Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option. > When the round is over, the judge will notify all players. The game will end with the current minion action - if any -, or at the end of the current phase, if the notification didn't happen during the minion phase. > So, since this reintroduces the problem that the previous version of the rule had solved, how should the following be handled? Three (or more) players are on the table. Prior to the time limit expiring, player A starts a political action, such as Kine Resources Contested, Reckless Agitation, or Revolutionary Council (any vote where there is significant discretion about allocating pool damage would be fine). Prior to the terms being set, the time limit expires. The game is finely balanced, such that several players could be ousted, depending on the terms set. One way might give one player a game win; one way might a player another VP but leave them tied on VPs total (but that might still be better than having the vote fail); on a table with five players remaining, the acting Methuselah might try to get two VP by ousting his prey and grand-prey simultaneously but someone else threatens a Delaying Tactics if a point isn't given to a different Methuselah (so the acting Methuselah gets 1 VP and that other Methuselah gets 1VP). Negotiations ensue. Player B and Player C (and Player D etc. if necessary) make a number of promises, threats, and other negotiating stances. There is a lengthy period of threats; counter-threats; claims that someone is bluffing; counter-claims that no, I saw him play that card in round one, so I know he has at least one in his deck; I can pitch the Edge and this copy of Alastor to help you pass it if you set the terms this way, and so on. No-one plays slowly, but no-one has any incentive to give in - bluffing and manipulation are in no way poor play in V:TES. This is not idle speculation - I've been witness to such things happening under the WotC tournament rules, when they didn't require immediate termination of the game . 1) As a judge, is there any way I can intervene? As far as I can tell, no - no-one is playing illegally. 2) As a tournament organiser, how do I tell people when the next round will start? As a tournament organizer, how much time should I allot between rounds when announcing the tournament, so people know if they have time to play the whole thing, and I know the venue won't be trying to shut in the middle of the final?

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > 1) As a judge, is there any way I can intervene? As far as I can tell, no - no-one is playing illegally. > Yes, you can intervene. You're the judge. That's part of your job - resolving situations that aren't covered under the rules. Perhaps this is a contingency that should be covered with a rule. Until there is such a rule, do your job as the judge and end the game so the next round can start. > 2) As a tournament organiser, how do I tell people when the next round will start? As a tournament organizer, how much time should I allot between rounds when announcing the tournament, so people know if they have time to play the whole thing, and I know the venue won't be trying to shut in the middle of the final? > Obviated by the answer above.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > Pascal wrote: > > 3.1.1. Round Time Limits > > Each round in the tournament has a time limit. The minimum time limit used in V:TES rounds is two hours. The time limit must be announced before play begins. The final round may last longer than the preliminary rounds, at the judge's option. > > When the round is over, the judge will notify all players. The game will end with the current minion action - if any -, or at the end of the current phase, if the notification didn't happen during the minion phase. > > > So, since this reintroduces the problem that the previous version of the rule had solved, how should the following be handled? > > Three (or more) players are on the table. Prior to the time limit expiring, player A starts a political action, such as Kine Resources Contested, Reckless Agitation, or Revolutionary Council (any vote where there is significant discretion about allocating pool damage would be fine). Prior to the terms being set, the time limit expires. The game is finely balanced, such that several players could be ousted, depending on the terms set. One way might give one player a game win; one way might a player another VP but leave them tied on VPs total (but that might still be better than having the vote fail); on a table with five players remaining, the acting Methuselah might try to get two VP by ousting his prey and grand-prey simultaneously but someone else threatens a Delaying Tactics if a point isn't given to a different Methuselah (so the acting Methuselah gets 1 VP and that other Methuselah gets 1VP). Negotiations ensue. Player B and Player C (and Player D etc. if necessary) make a number of promises, threats, and other negotiating stances. There is a lengthy period of threats; counter-threats; claims that someone is bluffing; counter-claims that no, I saw him play that card in round one, so I know he has at least one in his deck; I can pitch the Edge and this copy of Alastor to help you pass it if you set the terms this way, and so on. No-one plays slowly, but no-one has any incentive to give in - bluffing and manipulation are in no way poor play in V:TES. > > This is not idle speculation - I've been witness to such things happening under the WotC tournament rules, when they didn't require immediate termination of the game . > Back then, game would end at the end of the turn, which makes promises at time limit a lot more valid than per the current change ("If you kill my prey with your first KRC, I will vote in favour of killing your prey on your second KRC" - there will be no next "KRC now"). > jamesatzephyr wrote: > 1) As a judge, is there any way I can intervene? As far as I can tell, no - no-one is playing illegally. > Correct - and unrelated to the current change of rules. Just like in mid-game discussions, if the judge realises the discussion is going in circles, giving a gentle push to the players to get things moving usually helps. Currently, the sequencing rule doesn't apply to casting votes or ballots. If the current handling of casting appears to be too costly (see below), I might consider involving sequencing in there. Anyways: always check if PTW rule is respected when setting the terms (this can sometimes remove choices). Check if PTW is respected when casting votes / ballots. > jamesatzephyr wrote: > 2) As a tournament organiser, how do I tell people when the next round will start? As a tournament organizer, how much time should I allot between rounds when announcing the tournament, so people know if they have time to play the whole thing, and I know the venue won't be trying to shut in the middle of the final? > The test data collected in Finland amounted to 3min 31 sec of extra game out of 144 played games (bias: Finnish politics usually last till one of the combatants is sent to torpor or burned) French tests didn't show overextended game durations. It seems safe to assume that the (usual?) 10-15min break will cover this.

> BenPeal wrote: > Yes, you can intervene. You're the judge. > Incorrect. As the judge, I can't intervene, as Pascal has confirmed.

> Pascal wrote: > Back then, game would end at the end of the turn, which makes promises at time limit a lot more valid than per the current change ("If you kill my prey with your first KRC, I will vote in favour of killing your prey on your second KRC" - there will be no next "KRC now"). > There doesn't need to be a next KRC. The terms of a single referendum can knock out several players at once. > Pascal wrote: > Just like in mid-game discussions, if the judge realises the discussion is going in circles, giving a gentle push to the players to get things moving usually helps. > As I say, I'm not talking about breaching unintentional slow play rules (or intentional stalling rules), just when negotiations take a very, very long time indeed because absolutely no-one has an incentive to back down.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > Yes, you can intervene. You're the judge. > > > Incorrect. As the judge, I can't intervene, as Pascal has confirmed. > And Pascal is incorrect. If the next round of games can't be started properly, then intervention is necessary.

> BenPeal wrote: > And Pascal is incorrect. If the next round of games can't be started properly, then intervention is necessary. > Then surely the correct intervention here is to fix the rules. The rules were changed to the pre-this-ruling form to avoid this class of problem. A fairly simple fix that preserves the apparent intent of the rules change is to provide a backstop. The time limit kicks in at 2 hours as in the rules change. If by 2 hours 5 minutes things haven't been concluded, play terminates.

> jamesatzephyr wrote: > > > BenPeal wrote: > > And Pascal is incorrect. If the next round of games can't be started properly, then intervention is necessary. > > > Then surely the correct intervention here is to fix the rules. > Yeah, I said that already: > I wrote: > Perhaps this is a contingency that should be covered with a rule. Until there is such a rule, do your job as the judge and end the game so the next round can start. > > You wrote: > A fairly simple fix that preserves the apparent intent of the rules change is to provide a backstop. The time limit kicks in at 2 hours as in the rules change. If by 2 hours 5 minutes things haven't been concluded, play terminates. > Sure, or "The judge may end the current game so the next one can start."

WhileJames' concern is certainly valid and something more or less according to the lines he described is bound to happen sooner or later, the experiences we had while testing these timeout rules in Helsinki between EC 2013 and 2014 show the opposite. And not just because of Finnish Politics TM... Tijme added to each game/round is MINISCULE in overwhelmingly majority of games. The extra seconds very seldom go into double digits, let alone change into minutes. Also, during the year I never once heard a player complain about the system. Plenty of players did comment that this was a definite improvement. Finnish Politics!

Here is some data from Helsinki Experiment 13 tournaments (from 9 to 52 players) 206 players (15,8 players/tournament) 144 games 56 timeouts (between 0 and 33 sec) time added: 0 sec 29 instances 1 sec 6 -"- 2 sec 8 -"- 3 sec 2 -"- 5 sec 2 -"- 10 sec 3 -"- 15 sec 2 -"- 20 sec 1 -"- 30 sec 2 -"- 33 sec 1 -"- Total time: +3 min 31 sec +16,23 sec per tournament * +3,77 sec per timeout +1,47 sec per game * actually less tournament time since some of the timeouts took place during the same rounds. Minion Phase 39 timeouts (13 of which combat) Untap Phase 5 timeouts Master Phase 3 timeouts Infl. Phase 1 timeout Discard Phase 1 timeout ? phase (not marked which phase...) 7 timeouts There was one instance where a Game Win would've been scored if the combat which was played to the end woun't have been ended with Strike: Combat End. (There was one tournament finals where, if ruled in different way, there would've been +7 secs extra time instead of +0 and this would've resulted in Game Win going to a different player.) Finnish Politics!

Maybe write something official about the reasons behind the changes? "My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."

I like the experiment as such & data that has been collected. Nicely done!

> Ashur wrote: > Maybe write something official about the reasons behind the changes? > Sure. The change regarding the end of the action/phase was motivated by a feedback by a fair amount of players and some experience at watching games (which I do quite a lot during National Championships). The last minute is usually quite tense (especially if players know how much time is left). I have often read or heard people complain or ask me "But if I announce a bleed, they don't block, they're on 1 pool, with no Deflection, how can they not be ousted?" (and this happened quite some times). Here's also the French Nationals 2014's Finals sum-up: Florian (first seed) > Orian > Mehdi > P2 > Pierre. It's Florian's turn, there is less than 2 mins to play. He plays his turn in a regular speed. If the game times, he wins. His turn ends, Orian starts his turn. Orian is playing a swarm deck, his plan is to swarm bleed Mehdi and oust him. Mehdi, on the other side, is playing a tons-of-wakes Goratrix deck. Mehdi might survive Orian's turn. If he does so, his prey is quite low and would be ousted with Mehdi's actions. If Orian ousts Mehdi, and P2 gets a turn, P2 might oust Pierre (and P2 has a higher ranking than Orian, which means P2 would win over Orian if they both had 1.5 VPs at time limit). Pierre has no chance of ousting anyone, but he might be playing a Life Boon that, if Time was called, would be enough to give him the win. So Florian ends his turn. Orian launches all his bleeds. The final bleed is not blocked. Pierre declines to play Life Boon. Mehdi burns his pool. And 1 second after that, the time limit is called. I don't think it would have been fair to deny an action's forced resolution not to happen. Regarding phases, it seems safe enough to end the current phase. For future references: maybe a different split could be considered. It could be "finish action, or reach start of minion phase, or finish turn". Or "finish turn, whatever you were doing." If some playgroups want to test any of these, be my guest! I would recommend the last one. Please send me any feedback (extra time spent, number of ousted players during that extra time). Regarding the second change - lowering the minimum number of players from 10 to 8 to qualify the winner to a CC: it's been a feedback from the National Coordinators that countries / places where gathering a good share of players is difficult that only few people qualify. Promoting "small" playgroups (or event smaller) being one way of promoting the game, we shouldn't close the door on that one. If you have any suggestion, you are free to send them to me!

> Pascal wrote: > For future references: maybe a different split could be considered. It could be "finish action, or reach start of minion phase, or finish turn". Or "finish turn, whatever you were doing." > I have a gut feeling that finishing the whole turn would be a too big a change. Might be fair but plenty of things could happen during the whole turn. AND it could way more easily take quite a long time to finnish the last turn. Not aboslutely opposed but extremely dubious Finnish Politics!