I am all for playing out the scenario if there is a chance that the player in the lock can win the game (say, if there's a card he can use to break out of the lock, but only if his hero has enough damage, or if his opponent will deck himself).  I'm just against forcing the game to be played out, or doing unnecessary actions (attacking with a hero for 0 damage, for example), for the sake of taking advantage of the clock.

Also...

there is never a time in a Game, for any reason, where a player is obligated or forced to concede.

Hearthstone :P

---

WoW characters:
Jadorel, 70 Night Elf Druid, 44/0/17 spec, Agamaggan server; raiding character.
Sethala, 55 Blood Elf Mage, 5/41/0 spec, Rivendare server; PvP character.

Conceding to Hearthstone is a cost of a payment power, and thus the controlling player is never forced to use it. :P

---

Larry Hortick

UDE Specializations:
WoW TCG Rules - Level 2
WoW Minis Rules - Level 1
Specialist - Level 2
Tournament Organizer - Level 1
Player Management - Level 1

1148207:

I am all for playing out the scenario if there is a chance that the player in the lock can win the game (say, if there's a card he can use to break out of the lock, but only if his hero has enough damage, or if his opponent will deck himself).  I'm just against forcing the game to be played out, or doing unnecessary actions (attacking with a hero for 0 damage, for example), for the sake of taking advantage of the clock.

Hey, great idea. He's got a total lock on me, now it's my turn. I sit there and think for a while. He says 'What are you doing? You're stalling!!'. I say 'No, I'm trying to figure out if I should attack with my hero or not :)'.

Cheers.

---

Come play at C & Js in Newark, CA
Level 43 Horde Orc Warrior 'Lankybrit'

I'd say it is dirty, as you are not beating the player. With the rules like this the person who wins game one has the valid strategy of abusing all the time rules so the 2nd game goes to time. From shuffling between rounds for two minutes, to taking very long each turn for each action. The person who loses game 1 is already at a large disadvantage and the opponent who won can make an uphill battle even more one sided. Just seems wrong and encouraging dirty tactics. As this game is supposed to encourage fun and friendly play, I think some more rules or judging decisions should be implemented.

1189990:

1148207:

I am all for playing out the scenario if there is a chance that the player in the lock can win the game (say, if there's a card he can use to break out of the lock, but only if his hero has enough damage, or if his opponent will deck himself).  I'm just against forcing the game to be played out, or doing unnecessary actions (attacking with a hero for 0 damage, for example), for the sake of taking advantage of the clock.

Hey, great idea. He's got a total lock on me, now it's my turn. I sit there and think for a while. He says 'What are you doing? You're stalling!!'. I say 'No, I'm trying to figure out if I should attack with my hero or not :)'.

Cheers.

Whenever I look into a game where slow play is involved I first look at the motive of the accused.  This will give me a clear idea if a player is using slow play to gain an advantage, then i determine if they are actually playing slow.  The scenario posted above by manufan is cheating.  Your motive is to win by time and your execution is bogging down the game with "thinking about" an irrelevant move. 

Now, there is a difference between making legal irrelevant moves and stalling while making irrelevant moves.  A player may attack with their hero, but why are they doing it?  I can forget that my weapon was destroyed and attack with a hero with no attack, and really, its a stupid mistake, but a legal move.  It may not even effect the game state other then exhausting my hero.  This is not abusing a mechanic, it is just sloppy play.  Next turn I probably wont make the same mistake.  It really comes down to motive.

Attacking just to burn the clock with no other motivation is at most fishy.  I would probably classify this as stalling.

Think of it this way.  The first couple of turns are usually fairly quick.  You know what is going to be placed as a resource, your 1 and 2 drops are fairly easy to determine, and the game is uncomplicated.  Later in the game, it gets more complicated, players have a multitude of options to take up time in their turn, and their opponent's turn.  If a turn under a lock that can not be broken takes as long or longer then the standard mid game turn, then there is something wrong.  The game goes back to an uncomplicated state, and slow play should become blatantly obvious if it occurs. 

Any PM 3 Judges want to take a crack at this? 

---

http://www.a-1comics.com/

Agreed.

I think the major point in this discussion is the following. Make the best use of all the time available to you. If you lose the first game with the knowledge that you were unlikely to win the game 15 minutes ago, then the error is on your behalf.

I had a situation in New Jersey where my opponent recognized that he had no outs, but continued to play the game as he want to know how I would win. For the record, it was game 1, I had A'dal and Greench in play and my opponent was playing Mythren Traitor rush. It wasn't until a bunch of turns later where I had Doshura to get rid of A'Dal and a Belt of Blasting that would deal lethal damage to his hero. I knew that I had the win in my deck, but my opponent didn't. (Though he could've theorized how I would deal with A'Dal) The point is, my opponent didn't recognize that he was at a huge disadvantage as time went on. It would've been more beneficial for him to concede the game and move onto the second so that he could try to win the 2nd and 3rd game before time ran out.

Yes, my opponent had the option to concede, but yet he didn't. The error was on him.

Now with regards to the OP, you can't force your opponent to concede just because you have him under a lock. Though it might be beneficial for him to concede to move onto a game 3, he has the choice to play it out. If his deck is a slow controlling deck, it might not be the best to try and wait it out in game 2 knowing time is getting very close. However, if his deck is highly aggressive or has alot of early plays, it may be extremely beneficial to wait it out game 2, knowing that his deck is favored to take game 3 in overtime.

What tactic I would suggest for the player on the wrong side of the voidfire lock, would be to talk to his opponent to get him to waste more time. Even to the point where you're "debating" about not conceding. Thus forcing his opponent to take more time on his turn and buying you more time. It may not be the nicest of strategies, but putting your opponent on tilt can cause him to lose focus.

 

---

---

1261127:

I'd say it is dirty, as you are not beating the player. With the rules like this the person who wins game one has the valid strategy of abusing all the time rules so the 2nd game goes to time. From shuffling between rounds for two minutes, to taking very long each turn for each action. The person who loses game 1 is already at a large disadvantage and the opponent who won can make an uphill battle even more one sided. Just seems wrong and encouraging dirty tactics. As this game is supposed to encourage fun and friendly play, I think some more rules or judging decisions should be implemented.

If you get stalled you can only blame yourself.

You can call the judges and the head judge to prevent such actions.

~

---

Best ranking at weekly draft : 4th (5 showed up and I got a bye :D)
Number of weekly drafts : 44 and counting.
0-4 drop at worlds (pairings suck)
Once won a game in DMF, my opponent didn't show up.

OK, well that makes me feel sorry for the ignorant player. A valid strategy is to stall from the point you know you have won game 1. Take it as playing slowly or laboring over decisions, the opponent will think you are just slow and considering your options. In actual fact you are burning the clock to get time to beat your opponent. He will probably click on late that you are going very slow, but by then you have established your game speed and if you played it right, you should have eaten most if not all of your opponent's time to fight back.
Although very underhanded, very valid.
Meh, you still have to win a game so it's not a given, but still, game 2 is your opponent vs you and your ally, the clock. Attack with the clock and stall the opponent. Request to look at opponents in-play cards, ask about their powers, pose questions about those powers, ask how many cards in opponent's hand constantly, ask to see the cards in their graveyards, look thru your resources that are face down and agonise over why you placed them down. Their are a ton of things you can do earlier in the game that all add up.
Can't wait until some strong rules nerf this, even an experienced player might not realise they are up against a pro-staller and if they did pressure the point, imagine all the new players who make it to tournaments who aren't used to playing at lightning speed and then being accused of stalling.

1261127:

OK, well that makes me feel sorry for the ignorant player. A valid strategy is to stall from the point you know you have won game 1. Take it as playing slowly or laboring over decisions, the opponent will think you are just slow and considering your options. In actual fact you are burning the clock to get time to beat your opponent. He will probably click on late that you are going very slow, but by then you have established your game speed and if you played it right, you should have eaten most if not all of your opponent's time to fight back.
Although very underhanded, very valid.
Meh, you still have to win a game so it's not a given, but still, game 2 is your opponent vs you and your ally, the clock. Attack with the clock and stall the opponent. Request to look at opponents in-play cards, ask about their powers, pose questions about those powers, ask how many cards in opponent's hand constantly, ask to see the cards in their graveyards, look thru your resources that are face down and agonise over why you placed them down. Their are a ton of things you can do earlier in the game that all add up.
Can't wait until some strong rules nerf this, even an experienced player might not realise they are up against a pro-staller and if they did pressure the point, imagine all the new players who make it to tournaments who aren't used to playing at lightning speed and then being accused of stalling.

I don't care what "valid" steps you think you're doing, but if you're doing all those things every turn, you're going to have Slow Play called on you at the very least, and worst-case a Cheating penalty for purposefully stalling.

Stalling is not a valid tactic. Slow play is not a valid tactic. Refusing to concede when "locked", however, is a valid tactic. You are never forced to concede. You ARE forced to play at a reasonable pace.

---

Larry Hortick

UDE Specializations:
WoW TCG Rules - Level 2
WoW Minis Rules - Level 1
Specialist - Level 2
Tournament Organizer - Level 1
Player Management - Level 1

If you are unsure on a card, you can ask to read over its power. Valid?
If you are playing a deck that takes advantage of the graveyard, asking to see what's currently in it or checking what is in yours, is valid?
If you want to know what resources you have played face down, you can look at them, valid?
If you want to call a judge to clarify a card's powers, valid?
If you want to know if a person has over 7 cards, or if you want to know if he has potential counters he could play or if its worth making him discard, you can ask how many cards he has in hand. Valid?
Writing down notes when you see the opponent's hand. Valid?
I wonder what the time limit is on writing notes is... meh.

Those are all valid.  Doing each of them every turn with the intent to play the clock, however, is not.  Once you see an opposing card you shouldn't need to see it again, at least not immediately.  Same with graveyards and resources.  Opposing cards in hand should also not be asked repeatedly.  And so on.

Slow play is still cheating, even if your opponent doesn't catch on.

---

WoW characters:
Jadorel, 70 Night Elf Druid, 44/0/17 spec, Agamaggan server; raiding character.
Sethala, 55 Blood Elf Mage, 5/41/0 spec, Rivendare server; PvP character.

This is walking the fine line between valid and potentially stalling. It should take no longer than 3-5 seconds to ask how many resources, cards in hand, etc. A few more seconds to examine graveyards. A judge question can take up to a minute sometimes.

Yes, this time does add up, but if you're doing this every turn or every other turn, eventually your opponent is going to realize it. (Unless they are the oblivious kind). And if a judge is watching this, you will likely receive a warning.

~DF

---

---

1261127:

If you are unsure on a card, you can ask to read over its power. Valid?
If you are playing a deck that takes advantage of the graveyard, asking to see what's currently in it or checking what is in yours, is valid?
If you want to know what resources you have played face down, you can look at them, valid?
If you want to call a judge to clarify a card's powers, valid?
If you want to know if a person has over 7 cards, or if you want to know if he has potential counters he could play or if its worth making him discard, you can ask how many cards he has in hand. Valid?
Writing down notes when you see the opponent's hand. Valid?
I wonder what the time limit is on writing notes is... meh.

None of this has anything to do with the original question.

1148207:

Slow play is still cheating, even if your opponent doesn't catch on.

Careful, there.  Remember, there is a difference between Slow Play and Stalling.  Slow Play is an unintentional infraction where a player is playing at an unreasonably slow pace.  This only merits a Warning.  Stalling is intentionally playing slow or running down the clock to gain an advantage, which falls under Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Cheating.

---

Player Management: Level 2
Rules Knowledge - VS System: Level 1
Rules Knowledge - World of Warcraft: Level 2
Rules Knowledge - World of Warcraft Minis: Level 1
Rules Knowledge - Yu-Gi-Oh!: Level 2
Tournament Organizer: Level 1

Yer obviously you wouldnt do it every one of those actions every turn, but I see no reason why you couldn't slow a turn or two down. I don't think it would be stalling, as they are valid. Beating the player with the clock seems like a good lock down strategy. Keeping thinking of more and more ways to exploit the lack of protection from this. If you declared that you would like each phase voiced so you would be able to respond and track priority you could really draw it out.

Anyways, subtle stalling is a valid tactic judging by the current rules and responses in this thread. If you win your first game, why not slow the second game down just incase you might lose it. Dont scoop, dont concede, dont give up. Work the slow game style in early 2nd game, if not when you feel you have secured the first game. If locked down consider attacking with you hero, but weigh up the pros and cons of it each turn. Ask your opponent to declare his actions so you have chance to interrupt or respond. If you opponent starts to question your not scooping, call a judge and explain you wish to see if your opponent has enough time to beat you. Make it a long explanation to burn up more of that clock.

The people who are good at stalling already know all this and many other tricks...

So is there anything wrong with this? I feel that if you can call a player smart for taking advantage of the clock, game pace and subtle stalling are smart plays.