Upper Deck Entertainment Forums

Since it is a paladin deck, it should not be too hard to find an ability that does unpreventable damage or can make your damage unpreventable. I don't have time to look for one right now because I'm at the office.

---

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

747828:

If some change is to be made, I would suggest the following:
If the match is going exceedingly long, with neither player warranting personal slow play penalties (that is, both are playing at an efficient pace), then the players should be offered the option to randomly determine a winner. If both players agree, then a random winner may be decided. If either player refuses, then slow play penalties will be given.

Personally, I'd never buy into that as a player. What was the point of even playing the round to begin with it it's just going to be determined by chance. We may as well just role dice instead of having people play each other. I don't mean to be harsh, but all the dice rolling solution comes off as is an "I don't know what to do, so, we're just going to do something totally random to fix the situation" and so if I refuse, I get penalized? Why should I be penalized because the judge couldn't come up with a reasonable solution to the problem?

---

Go Player ~ 22 Kyu

1733232:

Personally, I'd never buy into that as a player. What was the point of even playing the round to begin with it it's just going to be determined by chance. We may as well just role dice instead of having people play each other. I don't mean to be harsh, but all the dice rolling solution comes off as is an "I don't know what to do, so, we're just going to do something totally random to fix the situation" and so if I refuse, I get penalized? Why should I be penalized because the judge couldn't come up with a reasonable solution to the problem?

Because its better than a double-slow-play-loss? It seems like Ry is suggesting that if the match doesn't come to a reasonably timed end, that double-slow-play-penalties might be applied. As Spotsknight pointed out, double penalties shouldn't be given out when both players are doing everything in their power to comply with the rules. So, "one of us wins at random" seems better than "we both lose".

747828:

1733232:

Personally, I'd never buy into that as a player. What was the point of even playing the round to begin with it it's just going to be determined by chance. We may as well just role dice instead of having people play each other. I don't mean to be harsh, but all the dice rolling solution comes off as is an "I don't know what to do, so, we're just going to do something totally random to fix the situation" and so if I refuse, I get penalized? Why should I be penalized because the judge couldn't come up with a reasonable solution to the problem?

Because its better than a double-slow-play-loss? It seems like Ry is suggesting that if the match doesn't come to a reasonably timed end, that double-slow-play-penalties might be applied. As Spotsknight pointed out, double penalties shouldn't be given out when both players are doing everything in their power to comply with the rules. So, "one of us wins at random" seems better than "we both lose".

Considering that Ry works for UDE I think he's got a better say in what the proper procedure would be. Plus, I think his point was that regardless of what it list now, they were going to be updating the PG to include the double loss as the penalty for this situation. Yeah, giving a double loss sucks, but no one has forced the players to enter with those decks either. If they're entering with that deck, then they should be accepting the fact that this is a potential outcome.

At least in the double loss situation, I had a choice. I could have side-decked, I could have forfeited, I could have not entered with that deck. If we're just going to roll dice to determine outcomes, we may as well just start checking decklists before the round begins and if both players are playing this deck, then just roll a die instead of having them play at all, since that's effectively what we'd be doing.

---

Go Player ~ 22 Kyu

May I suggest that in this case, what Twanbon is trying to suggest is in fact the 'reasonable solution' that is mentioned earlier on this page.  The opposite situation to the one Farplane described above is what Twanbon is outlining; no one forced the two players to play each other, either.  Yes, it's random.  Yes, it's an incredibly corner case of the rules.  The bone of contention is that every time the phrase "randomly determine the outcome of the match" comes up, there is a visceral reaction to pull out the policy documents and remind everyone that such a thing is illegal.  I don't think that Twanbon is unaware of that fact at this point.  What is being missed, however, is that the rules as written are presently incapable of handling this case.  To suggest that two players are behaving in an unsportsmanlike manner when both are a) playing as efficiently as possible, b) trying with their best capabilities to win the match, c) are otherwise complying with all UDE guidelines, and d) are playing an otherwise perfectly viable deck seems to me like the consensus is to identify what the penalty should or needs to be before determining if the rules are truly appropriate to apply.  The broad definition of unsportsmanlike being an umbrella for "things that impede the tournament writ large or otherwise result in a negative play experience" makes this logically defensible, but in practice I think it's more of a square peg-round hole situation.

I would go so far as to say that it's a good thing that such a deck exists.  As the game grows, the rules and policy documents must grow and adapt accordingly.  To punish two creative players for the vagaries of MANTIS pairing them and then applying a double match loss penalty to correct the resulting niche case seems like a patch job at best and more of a travesty at worst.  Similarly, to force these players to make their deck sub-optimal at its intended function just to avoid having to come up with a more elegant or predetermined solution is definitely outside of the spirit of the game.  Interactions such as this are the lifeblood of competitive play.  Furthermore, what disincentive do we have for including something along the lines of "If there is no demonstrable way for either player to end the game in a timely fashion, an otherwise agreed-upon method of determining the outcome of the match will be allowed at the (arbitrary time) mark."  Judges with access to the deck lists and the official card texts will be able to determine if there is any way for the game to realistically end, or we could return to the previously discussed interview with the players strategy.  But as far as deciding the match is over because it's inconvenient to the tournament structure and rules as written suggests not that there is something flawed with the decks or players, but rather that the rules need to be updated.

There is agreement that something must give and rightly so, and we have Twanbon to thank for bringing it up ahead of time rather than in the heat of the moment, during a feature match, or in the top 8 of some event.  Twanbon is approaching this from the player's perspective, and not surprisingly the judges are approaching it from their perspective.  I believe that there has to be a way to wordsmith some construct that allows for a match like this one to end in a timely fashion without a) opening the Pandora's box of random determination of match outcome on a large scale or b) forcing players to accept a harsh and otherwise unjustified penalty that is not in keeping with a positive play atmosphere for all players, including those so affected.  It is almost certainly better to have cooly reasoned rules to fall back on rather than trying to cobble together a solution among whoever is present at the moment when the judge is called.

Let me try and recollect my thoughts here. What I'm arguing is this. I perfectly understand that it's no fault of the players that they got paired together, nor is it any fault that they are playing the exact same deck. Personally, I do feel, as someone who used to heavily play Self-Destruct Button (SDB is a card that automatically causes a draw in Yugioh, for those not in the know) That the player is completely aware that their deck could potentially create an endless draw situation. Now granted, the draw situation is a bit more specialized then SDB, however. In player several tournaments with an SDB deck, I was also aware of the complications that could arise from playing such a deck and was, in needed understanding and prepared to accept any penalties that could arise from playing such a deck.

The point is, sooner or later, the 2 players are going to realize it's a mirror match, sooner or later, they're going to realize that it's likely to only be able to receive a draw for their games. While it might not technically be against the rules, is it really in the spirit of "Sportsmanlike Conduct" to intentionally keep playing and delaying the event when you know that it's highly unlikely a match result will occur? I don't really think it is. I'm not saying they should be double loss'd because of their decks, or the random / Semi-random pairings. I'm saying they should be loss'd at some point due to an unsporting attitude in regards to respecting the time constraints of the venue and the event. I still ask the question? If we're just going to roll a dice because of what occurred, then what was the point in even having them play at all. Undoubtibly they're going to draw out the round and have a dice roll determine it. So why even play? Plus, doesn't the idea of determining a winner via dice roll go against the whole spirit of a tournament? The whole I idea is to build a strong deck and battle people to determine how strong I am. A dice roll doesn't prove anything, it just represents who got lucky.

The whole problem with this situation has nothing to do with the deck. The problem is that the actions and attitudes of the players are not, in and of themselves, a direct violation of the penalty guidelines. However, because you bring up the perspective that he's arguing as a player, and us as judges. Then lets be fair. Shouldn't we be considering the point of view of the venue owner?

Now, if this was a regional or higher, maybe the extra time that we're using the event location isn't a huge issue. However, lets say this is a local store level event. If two players were playing this deck, it's probably more likely that they're going to get pair at this level. Let's say. As the store owner, I open shop at 9 am. Tourney starts at 3 pm. Lets say I've asked the TO to have the tournament over by 8pm at the latest so I can close up at 9 pm. Am I going to be happy if I find out at 7 pm the 3rd of say 6 rounds isn't even finished because 2 players are still delaying the event for over an hour now? Do you think I'm going to be willing to accept "I can't do anything, they're not violating the rules" as an answer? Sure, 8pm comes, i can say, finished or not, you're all getting kicked out. But can I really say that? Odds are, even though they're the ones delaying things, I'll be the bad guy because I'm not willing to stay an extra hour or so to finish the event.

Now you could say, start the event earlier? Well, if every other week, 1 to 8 was more then enough time to do things, with say, a lunch break halfway through, why should I assume any different this week? Now, obviously, the Store Owner point of view proves the whole, something needs to be written out to prevent this. What I'm trying to say is looking at all the trouble this is causing, can you really honestly say this isn't some type of unsportsmanlike conduct? Maybe it's not outlined in the PG, I won't disagree there. But in the spirit of Sportsmanlike conduct, shouldn't we be reminding them that they're not behaving in a sportsmanlike way? Almost any other way of acting unsportsmanlike is already a violation, why should this be any different?

Sure, whether I cheat, is in my control, whether I swear, argue, damage property, etc. That's all in my control. But. So is whether I choose to continue to extensively delay an event. Every time I start a new game, I'm choosing to delay the event. It's not matter a matter of random chance. I'm purposely making that choice. Like any unsporting choice, shouldn't this also fall under the same concept, at least in spirit?

---

Go Player ~ 22 Kyu

I apologize for double posting, but I was thinking. This whole situation is a problem due to the fact that matches are not allowed to end in a draw? While I don't really know the reason behind this, so I can't comment much, but maybe this instead warrant some discussion of changing the policy to allow match draws. Like I said, I don't really know much about this policy, so this could be a really bad idea, but thought I should at least toss it out there.

---

Go Player ~ 22 Kyu

First of all, I would have to say that, from the perspective of someone who has been both a player and a judge at large tournaments, Self-Destruct Button sounds like the most horrible idea for a card ever printed. Just a nightmare. Really, a card that just causes an auto-draw? One wonders what card designers are thinking sometime.

But I suppose your experience with Self-destruct button might be causing you to view this problem in quite a different way than we do. When you play Self Destruct Button in your deck, you are obviously INTENDING for some of your matches to come to a draw. Your deck is designed to draw. I understand why you believe that someone bringing such a deck to a tournament should potentially be punished with a double-loss if he cannot finish his matches in a reasonably timely manner.

However, this situation is quite different, this is a deck that honestly has no intention of drawing a single game, and only in a corner case would it ever come to a draw. As Fleckenstein said, when a double loss gets applies to people who are following the rules and doing everything in accordance with UDE policy, it looks like a patch job and is potentially a place where the rules could use some updating.

I think you dismiss Jim's arguments a bit too quickly. Random determination, while you might feel like its completely adverse to the goals of a tournament, is simply more fair than a double-loss. These players did nothing wrong to deserve a double loss.

And to top it all off, here's a main concern. If its known that this matchup winds up in a double-loss, do you know what's going to happen? When two people find themselves in such a matchup, they're going to find a way to determine a winner, one way or another. They might agree beforehand, that if the match winds up going to double-loss-overtime, that whoever won the initial die roll gets the win. Because no tournament player is going to happy about accepting a double-loss-penalty when they didn't do anything wrong. When I was telling some fellow players about this double-loss rule, they joked that they'd "drop a card" and play Rock Paper Scissors under the table to determine the winner.

If a player's fairest option is to break the rules, there's a problem with the rules.

747828:

First of all, I would have to say that, from the perspective of someone who has been both a player and a judge at large tournaments, Self-Destruct Button sounds like the most horrible idea for a card ever printed. Just a nightmare. Really, a card that just causes an auto-draw? One wonders what card designers are thinking sometime.

The activation requirements are fairly hard to meet. Essentially, you need to be hopelessly losing the game in order to activate that card.

If I get this right, then the mirror match is obviously a really bad matchup for this deck. So where exactly is the problem in adding some cards to the Side Deck which can deal some (unpreventable) damage, drastically improving the matchup in the rare case of a mirror match?

As to matches ending in a draw: How would you record this? Obviously, it shouldn't be a double loss, but issuing a double win for drawn matches will likely result in many manipulations (reaching from bribery/collusion to outright tournament manipulations), considering that overtime procedures will likely change as well to fit the possibility for match draws.
Believe me, this idea is really hard to implement...

1750316:

747828:

First of all, I would have to say that, from the perspective of someone who has been both a player and a judge at large tournaments, Self-Destruct Button sounds like the most horrible idea for a card ever printed. Just a nightmare. Really, a card that just causes an auto-draw? One wonders what card designers are thinking sometime.

The activation requirements are fairly hard to meet. Essentially, you need to be hopelessly losing the game in order to activate that card.

Actually. No, it's not. Activate Wall of Revealing Light, pay 7000 points, chain with Self-Destruct Button. Unless they chain with something that does 1000 points of damage, which never did happen to me, or play something to negate SBD, happened a few times, then it's done. Simple as that. You don't even have to be losing, if I draw those 2 in my opening hand, which believe me, has happened many times, I can pretty much garuntee a draw if I choose.

---

Go Player ~ 22 Kyu

So, to return to the conversation at hand...Twanbon's last argument is still floating out there.  I think his last sentence sums it up perfectly.

As for the suggestion that these players be forced to include some sort of unpreventable damage, it'd also have to be uninterruptable.  And to be honest, what's materially different from the judges looking at deck lists and realizing it's an unrealistic expectation that either player actually kill the other and the judges forcing an individual to either a) remove specific parts of their deck or b) include certain cards in their side deck for this incredible corner case?  If we legislate too narrowly, we'll have to revisit this issue for the next similarly esoteric mirror match situation and have this conversation all over again.  The vastly more elegant solution is creating a rule that explains how to handle cases wherein the normal end of match procedures fail.  As additional cards enter the pool, there will be more potential holes for creative deckbuilders to slip through.  This isn't really any different than the first time it was discovered someone could go infinite with some iterative loop; a rule had to be devised to address it, it was implemented, and the game moves on.

http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/wow/en/news/article.aspx?aid=6638

The "offending" deck just had a front-page article written about it. 

1914511:

http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/wow/en/news/article.aspx?aid=6638

The "offending" deck just had a front-page article written about it. 

Great, it should be loads of fun for people who decide to bring this deck to their local tournament, only to be told "Sorry, you're getting a double-match-loss because the rules never considered what should happen in this scenario". Then, when they ask, "well can't we at least flip a coin or something so we don't both get screwed?" they'll be told "No, sorry, random methods of determining a winner are against the rules, to preserve the fairness of the tournament".
I have a feeling that particular scenario would leave those players feeling like they didn't exactly get a "fair" result.

747828:

1914511:

http://entertainment.upperdeck.com/wow/en/news/article.aspx?aid=6638

The "offending" deck just had a front-page article written about it. 

Great, it should be loads of fun for people who decide to bring this deck to their local tournament, only to be told "Sorry, you're getting a double-match-loss because the rules never considered what should happen in this scenario". Then, when they ask, "well can't we at least flip a coin or something so we don't both get screwed?" they'll be told "No, sorry, random methods of determining a winner are against the rules, to preserve the fairness of the tournament".
I have a feeling that particular scenario would leave those players feeling like they didn't exactly get a "fair" result.

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.

---

Go Player ~ 22 Kyu

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.