1) How long is too long for a player to make their first play in a turn? This can seem to be a nebulous area, but wouldn't it be reasonable to have a maximum number of allowable seconds? I'd like to hear some judges' opinions on this.
2) If a player that went first in Game 2 ends their turn, and the second player takes extra time deciding upon taking additional actions during the End Phase of first player's turn (such as completing One Draenei's Junk "hm... which should I take?" etc) when time is called, is it reasonable to call that turn 0 in the 0-1-2-3 end-of-game procedure? (Thereby essentially giving the player that went first a single turn at end-of-game)

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."

1. Giving a set time limit would only enable players to abuse the clock while doing it by the rules, causing the problem to become more widespread.  If we arbitrarily make a rule that a player has 30 seconds to make a play, then that's 29 seconds the player can just sit there staring at the ceiling and still be within the rules.

It's one of the most difficult of things to catch and is an extreme grey area, but as often as it is brought up it all comes down to being at the judge's discretion.  If you feel a player is playing slowly, call a Judge and ask them to watch the match.  And this is how it will remain unless it becomes such a heavily widespread problem that UD deems change to be necessary.

2. Personal feelings aside, by the letter of the law it is still that player's turn when time is called... even if it is the end phase and thus almost over.  So that would be the current turn that is finished, and then the count of 3 or 4 turns is made starting with the opponent's turn as turn 1.

---

Player Management: Level 2
Rules Knowledge - World of Warcraft: Level 2
Rules Knowledge - World of Warcraft Minis: Level 1
Tournament Organizer: Level 1

On number 2, I'll add my own personal philosophy. It should be noted that this is my opinion and other judges might take a different approach.

If a player is holding up the end of their opponent's turn, they better have a reason to do so. If the player has no quests they can complete and no instant cards or powers to play then taking more than a second or two is going to be a quick way to earn yourself a slow play penalty in my book.

---

The hands of a healer

1292276:

On number 2, I'll add my own personal philosophy. It should be noted that this is my opinion and other judges might take a different approach.

If a player is holding up the end of their opponent's turn, they better have a reason to do so. If the player has no quests they can complete and no instant cards or powers to play then taking more than a second or two is going to be a quick way to earn yourself a slow play penalty in my book.

Slow play at the very least. If they're waiting for time to be called before starting their turn to gain an advantage in time, well, then they're getting more than a warning;)

---

They gave me some judge levels or something, too...

1431021:

1. Giving a set time limit would only enable players to abuse the clock while doing it by the rules, causing the problem to become more widespread.  If we arbitrarily make a rule that a player has 30 seconds to make a play, then that's 29 seconds the player can just sit there staring at the ceiling and still be within the rules.

It's one of the most difficult of things to catch and is an extreme grey area, but as often as it is brought up it all comes down to being at the judge's discretion.  If you feel a player is playing slowly, call a Judge and ask them to watch the match.  And this is how it will remain unless it becomes such a heavily widespread problem that UD deems change to be necessary.

Understandable. However, without a definition, a player can currently take 40 seconds or more before making even a single play on their turn. If a judge is already watching the match, and chooses not to call a player for Slow Play to allow decision time, the person being Slow Played has no recourse or argument.

Knowing there is currently no defined amount of time for a turn, consider this: if the player being Slow Played has requested a judge to observe, wouldn't it make more sense for the judge to stand behind the potentially offending player, so he can decide if that player truly has some difficult decisions to ponder during his potentially 40+ seconds he's taking for his turn? (a Varanis Slow deck with 3 interrupts in hand, for example)

Here's my point in all of this... unless more rules are defined regarding Slow Play, the door is wide open for players, even when observed, to take advantage of this and kill a majority (40+ minutes) of the 60 minutes allowed for the round. This is a boundary I would like to see somehow be made into a violation. The discussion about chess clocks has been hashed through, and may not be a realistic option after considering the arguments for and against.

What hard-and-fast rules do you believe could be defined in order to help clarify the gray area that is Slow Play enforcement?

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."

The problem is: it's not easy to create hard rules, for reasons that have already been mentioned. Sometimes, you are in fact in a tight spot, where the next play you make decides over victory or defeat. So you sit back and take some time to reach a decision. And that's perfectly fine and you don't want to be accused of slow play for it.

On the other hand, completing Finkle Einhorn and taking 5 minutes to decide which ally to return to play is not OK.

When you're thinking that your opponent is using Slow Play to gain an unfair advantage, ask him to speed up and tell him that you're going to call a judge if he doesn't change his behaviour. Don't hesitate to call a jude and ask him to stay at the table and observe the match if he is not playing faster. Be polite but firm and don't ask for penalties. Just report the situation.

---

Carpe diem

Inc Wall O' Text.

The idea that "if the game state is complicated I can take longer" is a misconception. Regardless of the complexity of choices facing a player, they still have to play at a reasonable pace (the reason being that at some point in the past the game was less complicated and has developed since then). As a judge, I don't care about the board position or a player's potential options. What I do care about is: "Will this match finish in time?" That being said, a single play that takes 30+ seconds to think about in a match that is otherwise being played at an acceptable pace isn't as much as a problem as 15-20 seconds of thinking before every play. Also, taking a considerable amount of time to plan out a turn of complicated plays and then making those plays in quick succession (such as trying to figure out if you can combo out and then doing it) isn't necessarily slow play as the turn, and thus the game, can still be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

There can be no hard-and-fast rules for Slow Play, but there are a couple signs that a warning is in order. Players repeatedly doing the same thing before deciding what to do, such as looking through graveyards, asking how many cards their opponent has in hand, or shuffling their hand/resource row/whatever is a red flag that they may be playing slowly. The advice I usually give to new judges about slow play is that if they start to think someone needs a slow play penalty, it's time to remind them that they need to make a decision. If after that reminder they continue to not make decisions, a warning is in order.

In addition, when a judge is called to a table for slow play, they watch both players equally. If you call me to watch your opponent for slow play, I'm watching you too, and I've given warnings to players that thought their opponent was the problem.

Slow play will always be a gray area. As such, it's a judgment call each floor judge has to make, and it always will be. As a player, the best thing you can do to insure that your match isn't decided by time is call a judge as soon as you feel your opponent is playing slowly. One of the biggest mistakes players make is waiting until there are only ten minutes in the round to call a judge. The more time's left in the round, the more we can do to make sure your match finishes in time or gets the appropriate extensions.

Another thing most players don't realize is that if you call a judge for slow play and after a while he decides that the game is proceeding at an acceptable pace and no warning is necessary, you can appeal: this is as much a ruling as a rules question or a penalty. A caveat to this, however, is that in most cases the head judge will uphold the floor judge's decision, especially if he doesn't have time to stand and watch the match himself.

---

They gave me some judge levels or something, too...

1539230:

The idea that "if the game state is complicated I can take longer" is a misconception. Regardless of the complexity of choices facing a player, they still have to play at a reasonable pace (the reason being that at some point in the past the game was less complicated and has developed since then). As a judge, I don't care about the board position or a player's potential options. What I do care about is: "Will this match finish in time?" That being said, a single play that takes 30+ seconds to think about in a match that is otherwise being played at an acceptable pace isn't as much as a problem as 15-20 seconds of thinking before every play. Also, taking a considerable amount of time to plan out a turn of complicated plays and then making those plays in quick succession (such as trying to figure out if you can combo out and then doing it) isn't necessarily slow play as the turn, and thus the game, can still be completed in a reasonable amount of time.

That's what I was trying to say. If I played quickly during the whole game and then take some time to think about a particular situation, it's not slow play in my book. Provided, as you wrote, that I continue to play quickly after I reached my decision.

---

Carpe diem

1. The only people who will take 44 secs if the limit is 45 secs are the same people who will take 1-2 mins. That is not a good reason to avoid putting in time limits.

Putting in a time limit will allow judges and players ways in which to keep their opponents honest.

With that said try creating some rules. Then try using them into your weekly BGs. See how hard it is. If you come up with something your entire BG (4 people or more) can live with then I would be interested in that infromation being posted.

I am guessing it is not as easy as it sounds.

As a logistical question, are judges supposed to be carrying stopwatches with them? It seems wholly impractical to literally be hovering over a match timing each play.

---

The hands of a healer

We have a similar issue with a player at the shop where I run. He will obviously have no legal actions left for him to make due to already having attacked and being tapped out however he usually takes 30 seconds (at least) looking over the board at the end of every one of his turns. I have been called several times to watch this and I know the guy quite well. He is not a 'close-friend' so to speak but someone who I do trust having played him several times myself. I think its hard to put rules on timing, for some people they just over-think things and pre-plan out turns for others a stall tactic is how they play. In the case I presented however, despite his end of turn thinking, I do not think I have ever seen him and his coupled opponent(s) 'not' finish their best of three games. So in the end, at least where I play, his thinking did not take away any overall matches.

For me personally, something that could not be enforced but a tactic I have learned through playing other games (particularly table tops such as Star Wars Minis or Mechwarrior), is thinking ahead. Usually, like most people who responded to this thread, I only take long periods of time when I am weighing my options and thinking of a good, logical, choice. This is usually mid game or towards the end when my actions could determine the outcome. Other than that though I almost always know what I am going to do during my turn by the end of my opponents turn. Thus when my turn starts I ready, draw, drop my cards/attack/etc and then end my turn. For me making fast paced turns leaves more pressure on my opponent because I am setting the momentum and I know what I want to accomplish, sounds a bit like chess, but it works.

Not sure if my thoughts on the subject help much but I wanted to share none the less.

---

1753131:

1. The only people who will take 44 secs if the limit is 45 secs are the same people who will take 1-2 mins. That is not a good reason to avoid putting in time limits. Putting in a time limit will allow judges and players ways in which to keep their opponents honest. With that said try creating some rules. Then try using them into your weekly BGs. See how hard it is. If you come up with something your entire BG (4 people or more) can live with then I would be interested in that infromation being posted. I am guessing it is not as easy as it sounds.

That's actually the precise reason to avoid time limits: any limit set by tournament policy is more likely to be abused (by players trying to stall) than be helpful for judges. Slow play is more about preserving the integrity of the final standings than catching cheaters. In the ideal tournament, the players who have chosen the best decks and made the best plays should be at the top of the standings, not the ones that can manipulate the clock. For every match that goes to time, there's a chance that the better (or in some cases luckier) player loses to end of match procedure (a necessary evil of tournament logistics), and the point of slow play penalties is making this occurrence as rare as possible by encouraging players to play faster.

If we were to set specific time limits on plays (X seconds per play), there will be players who take the maximum amount of time allotted just because the rules say they can. Their opponents won't feel like they can call a judge on slow play because their opponent is still within the rules, but it's obvious that their match won't finish in time. This is the reason the slow play rules are vague: some matches can finish in time at a slower pace; some matches have to be played faster.

Also, you can't just consider single plays as a measure of slow play. If I'm making most of my plays in  10-15 seconds throughout the match, and a game gets to a crucial turning point and I take longer (45 seconds-a minute) to consider my options, should I be penalized for slow play? My match will obviously finish before time is called because I've been playing at an acceptable pace, I just need a bit extra time here to think before I commit to a game plan. Under a specified time limit for plays, I'd get a warning. Most judges, on the other hand, would realize that this match is (probably) not going to go to time and, at most, give a verbal warning that I should make my decisions faster.

Another thing to consider is the stress time limits have on players. Say I know I have a certain amount of time (we'll say 45 seconds) to make a decision. So far, I've made all of my decisions in a fraction of that time, we'll say 10-15 seconds. I'm playing the aggro mirror and it gets to turn four or five and I have to decide whether I'm going to try to race or play the control deck. This decision could take me a bit of extra time, as there are factors like board presence, life totals, and card advantage that I need to consider before I decide whether or not I can race. Instead of focusing on those details, I'm going to be concerned about the clock, and the pressure of making that decision in 45 seconds is going to do one of two things: either I'm going to make a hasty decision which could cost me the game, or I'm going to take longer make my decision than I normally would because, in addition to the game state, I keep thinking about how much time I'm taking. Neither of these outcomes are constructive to the integrity of the tournament's final standings.

Slow play is one of those things that's left up to the judges because each situation is different. Placing hard-and-fast rules, especially time limits, on slow play may make everyone's experience with slow play calls slightly different, but it lets judges do their job: evaluate the situation taking into account all relevant factors and make a decision based, not on some arbitrary time limit, but on their evaluation of whether or not the pace of play allows for the match to be completed in time.

---

They gave me some judge levels or something, too...

1539230:

1753131:

1. The only people who will take 44 secs if the limit is 45 secs are the same people who will take 1-2 mins. That is not a good reason to avoid putting in time limits. Putting in a time limit will allow judges and players ways in which to keep their opponents honest. With that said try creating some rules. Then try using them into your weekly BGs. See how hard it is. If you come up with something your entire BG (4 people or more) can live with then I would be interested in that infromation being posted. I am guessing it is not as easy as it sounds.

That's actually the precise reason to avoid time limits: any limit set by tournament policy is more likely to be abused (by players trying to stall) than be helpful for judges. Slow play is more about preserving the integrity of the final standings than catching cheaters. In the ideal tournament, the players who have chosen the best decks and made the best plays should be at the top of the standings, not the ones that can manipulate the clock. For every match that goes to time, there's a chance that the better (or in some cases luckier) player loses to end of match procedure (a necessary evil of tournament logistics), and the point of slow play penalties is making this occurrence as rare as possible by encouraging players to play faster.

If we were to set specific time limits on plays (X seconds per play), there will be players who take the maximum amount of time allotted just because the rules say they can. Their opponents won't feel like they can call a judge on slow play because their opponent is still within the rules, but it's obvious that their match won't finish in time. This is the reason the slow play rules are vague: some matches can finish in time at a slower pace; some matches have to be played faster.

Also, you can't just consider single plays as a measure of slow play. If I'm making most of my plays in  10-15 seconds throughout the match, and a game gets to a crucial turning point and I take longer (45 seconds-a minute) to consider my options, should I be penalized for slow play? My match will obviously finish before time is called because I've been playing at an acceptable pace, I just need a bit extra time here to think before I commit to a game plan. Under a specified time limit for plays, I'd get a warning. Most judges, on the other hand, would realize that this match is (probably) not going to go to time and, at most, give a verbal warning that I should make my decisions faster.

Another thing to consider is the stress time limits have on players. Say I know I have a certain amount of time (we'll say 45 seconds) to make a decision. So far, I've made all of my decisions in a fraction of that time, we'll say 10-15 seconds. I'm playing the aggro mirror and it gets to turn four or five and I have to decide whether I'm going to try to race or play the control deck. This decision could take me a bit of extra time, as there are factors like board presence, life totals, and card advantage that I need to consider before I decide whether or not I can race. Instead of focusing on those details, I'm going to be concerned about the clock, and the pressure of making that decision in 45 seconds is going to do one of two things: either I'm going to make a hasty decision which could cost me the game, or I'm going to take longer make my decision than I normally would because, in addition to the game state, I keep thinking about how much time I'm taking. Neither of these outcomes are constructive to the integrity of the tournament's final standings.

Slow play is one of those things that's left up to the judges because each situation is different. Placing hard-and-fast rules, especially time limits, on slow play may make everyone's experience with slow play calls slightly different, but it lets judges do their job: evaluate the situation taking into account all relevant factors and make a decision based, not on some arbitrary time limit, but on their evaluation of whether or not the pace of play allows for the match to be completed in time.

I would agree with you, everything you said made crystal clear sense. I also think its important to note that Slow Play (in my opinion) would be a noticeable trend.

a) For example, say me and you play, we may have a couple of our turns that are slower than normal but that is typical of two well versed and 'smart' players. Lets assume we get our three matches completed before the time limit and we both feel the matches were tough as well as enjoyable.

No reason for Slow Play to have been considered an issue.

b) Lets say me and you play, more of my turns are longer than you'd expect and the winner ends up being determined by the clock. One time, it happens, no big deal. Lets say that during my second set of matches the decision goes to the clock, again. The third time, again. This would be a trend and would obviously indicate foul play.

My point here is that there is a difference between 'logical' game play and 'manipulation.'

---

1539230:

In addition, when a judge is called to a table for slow play, they watch both players equally. If you call me to watch your opponent for slow play, I'm watching you too, and I've given warnings to players that thought their opponent was the problem.

Slow play will always be a gray area. As such, it's a judgment call each floor judge has to make, and it always will be. As a player, the best thing you can do to insure that your match isn't decided by time is call a judge as soon as you feel your opponent is playing slowly. One of the biggest mistakes players make is waiting until there are only ten minutes in the round to call a judge. The more time's left in the round, the more we can do to make sure your match finishes in time or gets the appropriate extensions.

Thanks for the answers everyone. I took a particularly tough loss recently in the third round of a tournament with a 1w-1L standing, hence all my questions about this subject. I'm really having a tough time coming to terms with this loss because I feel I did everything in my power to prevent what happened (aside from playing a different deck, naturally).

Given some of the more rudimentary responses here, I feel compelled to share some additional information about this matchup against a Varanis Slow deck.
FAIR WARNING: Some of the following may not be objective information. ;-)

2428206:

b) Lets say me and you play, more of my turns are longer than you'd expect and the winner ends up being determined by the clock. One time, it happens, no big deal. Lets say that during my second set of matches the decision goes to the clock, again. The third time, again. This would be a trend and would obviously indicate foul play.

My point here is that there is a difference between 'logical' game play and 'manipulation.'

~ When my opponent first sat down, he told me straight up he'd been playing slowly against other opponents as he dropped his hero on the table. Possible trend incoming.
~ Game 1 lasted 35 minutes. He dropped Naliss the Sliencer around the 30 minute mark, asked how much time was left in the round, and began taking 40 seconds before attacking with her (the first action he took on each of his turns thereafter). Each of the first two times he did this, at the 30-second mark (my threshold for when I start thinking Slow Play might be happening), I told him he had to move along and play out his turn. Each of those first two turns, he attacked between the 40-45 second mark.
~ When we arrived at the third turn that followed his Naliss hitting the board, I raised my hand to summon the judge at the 30 second mark, since he hadn't taken an action. "Would you mind watching our match for Slow Play?" was the question I asked politely.
~ Within 3 turns, my opponent swung Naliss into me for fatal, and I informed the judge that we'd just concluded game 1. As we shuffled up for game 2, the TO announced there were 25 minutes left in the round.
~ During the course of game two, my opponent took more than 30 seconds before making his first play on at least three of his turns. Whenever this happened, I reminded my opponent "Come on, man. You've got to move this thing along!" The judge was silent as he stood behind me, never once moving to the opponent's side to view what he was considering. Is he obligated to? I suppose not, but isn't it worth gathering all the info possible when specifically asked to observe a match?
~ At the 54 minute mark in the round, my opponent asked how much time remained in the round. The TO announced that 6 minutes remained. I turned around to make sure the judge was still observing from behind me, which he was. At this point, I had been swinging in for 4 damage per turn, just played an Arcanite Dragonling, and had Varanis at 19 damage. Around the 30 second mark, he played Spell Suppression (edit: this must have been Metalmorph) on my weapon and passed turn. I quickly swung in for 2 (to 21 dmg w/ Arcanite Dragonling) and passed.
~ Another 30 second pause, and then he dropped Blood Knight Kyria. He then played Spell Suppression on my Arcanite Dragonling, chained a Fizzle on his own SS, then chained a Mystic Denial on his own Fizzle, healing for 12 total with BKK (down to 9 dmg). His hand is now empty.
~ I glanced behind me to make sure the judge was still observing, which he was. I then played a Whispering Blade to break the Denial, fished out Demonblood Eviscerator with Sunken Treasure, then replayed it to take out BKK. Pass turn.
~ 30 second turn: he draws one and passes, not playing anything. My following combat takes him to 13. Another 30 second turn with no play, and a pass with two cards in hand. I add a Whisper Blade and combat takes him to 18. Another 30 second turn with no play, and a pass with three cards in hand (the origin of my question above). Following combat takes him to 23.
~ Time is called, and I say "end turn". He considers (something?) for a moment, and then the judge says "whose turn is it?" as though he left sometime in the last few minutes. I point at my opponent, and the judge asks me "when time was called?". I repeated that I had ended, and my opponent points back at me. Without missing a beat, the judge points at my opponent saying "turn 1", then me: "turn 2", then back at him: "turn 3".
~ In the turn that followed, he healed to 19 with BKK. I took out BKK, and swung in to bring his life to 24. Out of options, I passed turn and he ended without me being able to deal the last 2 damage. After the match, I asked the judge "so you didn't see any Slow Play in that last match?" He replied "each player is allowed time to consider their options."

So there you have it - the only thing I think I could have done differently was... call the judge in the first game, 20 minutes into the match. A totally frustrating outcome where I believe I was Slow Played starting at the 30 minute mark. Not your typical 10-minutes-left-in-the-round-panic-gesture.

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."

1292276:

As a logistical question, are judges supposed to be carrying stopwatches with them? It seems wholly impractical to literally be hovering over a match timing each play.

I'm not trying to sound flippant here, Aragorn, as I have a lot of respect for your wisdom and patience. With that said, I've lost 5-6 matches partially due to opponents Slow Playing me (which is why I developed my own 30-second check of opponent's play pace). As a result, I now check this time with a watch myself. So no, I don't think it unreasonable for a game official to do the same. Especially if specifically asked to observe a match.

Also, we have Realm Championships coming up in a few short weeks. Seems to me that now is as good a time as any to further develop rules in this area if possible. That way, a situation like I described above can potentially be avoided at a high level tourney.

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."