Upper Deck Entertainment Forums

747828:

1733232:

Dude, tone it down a notch. There's no need to start a name calling contest just because you disagree with the rules UDE has set up regarding this situation.

I apologize, my tone in the previous post was unnecessary. I suppose I'm simply frustrated, not because I don't like the "ruling", but mostly because I feel like my issue is falling on deaf ears. I'm not so sure the right people are even taking notice of this, and I worry that it could lead to potentially bad scenarios sometime down the line. I'd just like to feel like the people who need to know are actually aware of this issue, and know whether its being looked at, or if that double-match-loss is a final ruling.

This is definately being looked at. The issue was actually discussed some by the judges at NACC a few weekends back and at that point the general consus was "I don't know, let's hope it doesn't happen." And, ideally, the match just doesn't fail to end--something happens like one player making a mistake or somehow not drawing the right cards or whatever. As of now, there's nothing in the rules or tournament policy that covers this particular situation. The suggestion of a double-match loss is a possibility, and the judges obviously understand how much that would suck to the players involved. If this does become the final ruling, remember that one of you can always conceed so there's a winner of the match (which sucks, but not quite as badly). One thing you have to consider as a player: even though the double match loss would suck if you were playing this deck, standing around waiting for one match to finish sucks even more for all the other players. Imagine an event like NACC: two players holding up 350 other players is completely unacceptable, regardless of the fact that it's caused by random chance (pairings). This is our concern, and the ideal solution to this situation is one that makes the players happy and addresses the potential tournament delays.

1539230:

This is definately being looked at. The issue was actually discussed some by the judges at NACC a few weekends back and at that point the general consus was "I don't know, let's hope it doesn't happen." And, ideally, the match just doesn't fail to end--something happens like one player making a mistake or somehow not drawing the right cards or whatever. As of now, there's nothing in the rules or tournament policy that covers this particular situation. The suggestion of a double-match loss is a possibility, and the judges obviously understand how much that would suck to the players involved. If this does become the final ruling, remember that one of you can always conceed so there's a winner of the match (which sucks, but not quite as badly). One thing you have to consider as a player: even though the double match loss would suck if you were playing this deck, standing around waiting for one match to finish sucks even more for all the other players. Imagine an event like NACC: two players holding up 350 other players is completely unacceptable, regardless of the fact that it's caused by random chance (pairings). This is our concern, and the ideal solution to this situation is one that makes the players happy and addresses the potential tournament delays.

Thank you very much for taking the time to understand the situation. We have come to most of the same conclusions:
1) We can't let the match go on indefinitely
2) Something needs to be done to force the match to an end
3) If the players insist on playing out a nearly unwinnable matchup far past the time limit, then they may be guilty of slow play violation and given double-match-loss
4) One player should be able to concede to the other to avoid the match loss.

NOW, the problem lies with the concession. Under the current rules, if this situation has occurred and the players know that one needs to concede to the other, the players are NOT allowed to agree to flip a coin or roll a die to determine who should get the win. So how are the two players to decide who concedes to the other, if you don't allow them to randomly determine it? This is why I propose that in THIS scenario, players should be allowed to randomly determine the winner if both players agree to do so.

Specifically and clearly, the rule would be that:
If a match is drastically exceeding the time limit for the round, and neither player is personally violating any slow play policies (that is, both players are playing at a reasonable pace), then the players should be permitted to agree to use a randomization method to determine a winner of the match. If the players fail to timely resolve the match after that option has been given, the players may be given double-slow-play penalties at the judge's discretion.

I hope that makes sense, I don't want to open the Pandora's Box that is "random determination", but it just seems fitting here. How else is one player supposed to decide to concede to another, especially in a large tournament setting?

While I do completely understand the situation, I still don't see why a player playing such a deck would not add some cards to his side deck which deal damage, drastically increasing his chances of winning in the case of a mirror match...
I don't suggest to force the players to do so, but if I get this thing right, then it would be of great advantage for the player, so why wouldn't he do it?

That is an option (one that I suggested originally). However, there are a couple of points that need to be considered before you do.

1. It would have to be unpreventable damage or it does not make a difference with all the armor in the decks.

2. To have a serious chance of getting the damage dealing cards before the combo goes off you would need to include at least 3 if not 4 damage dealing cards.

3. There are only 10 cards allowed in the side deck so it is hard to decide what to put in as answers to the local meta. At the moment this is not a common deck in most meta games. Which means you may end up losing more regular match ups to deal with a rare case of playing against the same deck. Worse yet, if no one is playing the same deck they are wasted cards.

---

WoW RK2
VS RK2
PM LV2
Specialist LV2 (formerly demo team)
TO LV1

284102:

That is an option (one that I suggested originally). However, there are a couple of points that need to be considered before you do.

1. It would have to be unpreventable damage or it does not make a difference with all the armor in the decks.

2. To have a serious chance of getting the damage dealing cards before the combo goes off you would need to include at least 3 if not 4 damage dealing cards.

3. There are only 10 cards allowed in the side deck so it is hard to decide what to put in as answers to the local meta. At the moment this is not a common deck in most meta games. Which means you may end up losing more regular match ups to deal with a rare case of playing against the same deck. Worse yet, if no one is playing the same deck they are wasted cards.

Not to mention point #4, that the deck also includes Arcane Torrent, so you also need to be able to get out Concentration Aura or Aegis before you decide to try and play such an ability. And point #5, that the hero's flip makes him untargettable, limiting your options even further. But the main reasons that spotsknight pointed out above are the biggest consideration. Damage dealing effects serve NO purpose to do anything but deal with this situation, and are pretty much dead cards in any other matchup. With a 10 card sideboard, that takes up precious slots that you NEED to beat certain other decks.

On another note, I hope this doesn't come off as nagging, but I just want to point out that September 26 starts the regular Constructed portion of Realm Qualifiers, and I have had a number of people ask me about this deck (and it also received a front-page article about a week ago). As you know, Realm Qualifiers are much smaller events (our local ones tend to be 10-16 players), and if more than one person brings this deck to a tournament, it is quite likely that this situation can occur. If the powers that be decide that something needs to change to address this situation, it would probably be best to do so before September 26. I suggest this not because I dislike the double-loss ruling, its just that without an official ruling on the subject, I suspect that most judges who are unaware of this thread will develop their own home-brewed solution. And if you read this thread and the thread on the main site's rules page, people developed some very screwey home-brewed solutions, like forcing the players to sidedeck out certain cards or play in sub-optimal ways. So, an official rules announcement might be in order.

Again, sorry if this seems to be nagging, I just really beleive that this situation WILL come up in the upcoming RQ constructed season, and I think you could head off some awkward situations with a rules change or announcement, if you see fit.

So I am curious. We've had a few RQs so far this season. Has this situation even come up yet? The frequency of this actually occuring, rather than rampant speculation about it, may influence our decision.

---

Erik Mock
UD Judge Coordinator
WoW TCG Level 3
Player Management Level 4

Mock, this deck is not legal in Block Constructed because Xi'ri and Footsteps are not legal in block.  It won't come up until the next few RCQs because they are now constructed.

---

William C. Zobac
Lubbock, TX
WoW TCG RK 2
WoW Minis RK 2
PM LV 1

Duh, of course. It was just "the sky is falling" mentality that made me think that it was happening everywhere.

---

Erik Mock
UD Judge Coordinator
WoW TCG Level 3
Player Management Level 4

Is there anyway to get an "official" answer as to what should happen in this scenario?
I am asking again because the realms championship is coming up soon, and a few of my friends want to play this deck. We need to know ahead of time what should happen if this scenario comes up where we are paired against one another. Seeing as how realms tends to be no more than 40 players or so, if 4 people play this deck, this is very likely. I would rather not leave it to that particular judge's discretion what should happen, I'd much rather have an official answer to refer to.
If it is going to be a double-slow-play-match-loss, we would like to know ahead of time so we can make other plans.

Thanks,
Anthony Calabrese

The sort-of solution that was discussed at Worlds was a double slow-play game loss, the hope being that somehow, through some sort of sheer luck (or whatnot) one of the games would end in something other than a draw (via really awful draws or a misplay or whatever). At this point, it seems like the options are a) play something different, b) tech unpreventable, uncounterable damage for the mirror, or c) hope you don't have to play the mirror. Obviously these options are far from ideal, but in a tournament setting we can't let one match run forever. The double game loss (as opposed to a double match loss) allows for someone to naturally (i.e. with the cards instead of the players deciding that someone should concede so both players don't lose) win the match. I know that with the match up in question, the liklihood of someone winning two games in the given time limit is extremely small.

I also understand that there's still the issue of "if someone should concede to avoid a double match loss, how do we chose who it will be?" and the best answer I can give to that is "diplomatically." In this situation randomly determining the match outcome might seem like an option, but the danger there is opening the proverbial can of worms on random match outcomes, and I'm sure you can understand the potential problems. Basically, if it gets to the point where the penalty would be upgraded to double match loss, it is up to the players to decide if one of them should concede as a sporting gesture to avoid both of them getting losses for the round. In this context, it's not so much a "how do we decide who concedes" but a "do I personally want to give my opponent this win so we both don't have to lose."

Again, I realize this isn't a very satisfactory solution to the situation for the players involved, especially ones that want to play this deck. However, considering current policy on match results (which is a completely different discussion) and random outcomes, it's really the only solution available to ensure that the tournament plays out in a timely manner.

Three little Zomms went out to play,
against the mirror at worlds one day.
They swung so low but oh so fast,
players had questions they had to ask.

So, two players at Worlds 2009 were convinced their Mirror Match minis teams could not kill each other and needed a tie-breaker beyond the last check for End of Match procedures for Appendix D.

The last step for appendix D is to look for the first change in damage totals, assuming everything from every previous step is equal.  Both men claimed to be convinced they could not come up with a winner between the two of them for the Top 8.

Well, eventually "Hyperbole Man" made it to the final table, where he was reportedly trounced 2-0, but I've not arrived at my question.

When the players in question were finished discussing it with Simon Key, Alex Charskey, and anyone else they were able to bend the ear of, the reported solution was that the highest seeded player would be awarded the victory. 

Were they serious about that being the solution offered?  I was tied up with helping to manage DMF: Austin and missed the outcome of Minis Worlds 2009 Top 8's quarter finals, where the two men were to face off against one another.

In the case of reportedly un-winable matches, has a new step been added to award the highest seeded person the match?

Cheers!

-teh Sig

---

Level 2 Minis Judge.

2465615:

Were they serious about that being the solution offered?  I was tied up with helping to manage DMF: Austin and missed the outcome of Minis Worlds 2009 Top 8's quarter finals, where the two men were to face off against one another.

In the case of reportedly un-winable matches, has a new step been added to award the highest seeded person the match?

Well, the issue is that in the elimination rounds (i.e. Top 8), there NEEDS to be a winner. So, while Demonfae's solution seems very reasonable and is probably the best ruling under the current rules, it doesn't work for a Top 8 situation where a winner NEEDS to be determined. So, if someone had to come up with SOME way to determine a winner, top seeded makes sense, as that person achieved a better record in the tournament previously, so in a situation where neither player can win the match, the person who did better in the tournament previously should be the one to advance. It makes sense.

This issue has been resolved and the Official policy will be included in the next policy update.

Patience, everyone. It will address both in Swiss rounds and in a single elimination situation.

-Jared