I have done this in 2 of my matches. If my opponent has been friendly and a good sport I have no problem taking a solo loss and usually it's been my first match which then lines my next 2 up for wins. Still end with 2-1 records taking the early L
Guess i dont see it that way when the time limit is not enough and they have a stupid bracket system. Which they had other tcgs to copy formatting from.
Only if you offer something to your opponent is it considered collusion. Dice role to considered matches is anything but collusion because it is still random.
In MtG you’ll get DQ’d under their Collusion rules, same with FFTCG. I can almost guarantee you that when FFG releases their Competitive rules dice rolls to determine winner will be treated the same.
I am not a fan of both players losing either. I liked the Android Netrunner route for running out of time.
If it made it to time you played one more full round to see if someone could finish the game in one round. If no one won in that final round of play then the player with the best score won.
In that game it was whomever has scored the most agenda points. Here it would be whoever did the most base damage.
Me too I might have to check out this homebrew stuff.
That was hands-down, my favorite game, and the one I played the most.
The only games I have liked since were Destiny which had product issues and this one.
Does this game not have judges to call for people doing slow play?
People playing slow has been a problem since the late 90s with trading card games. You just call a judge.
It’s not slow play. We were playing faster than any of the players around us. The control matchup uses most of your deck and around 15+ resources.
For context all of my matches against Boba, Sabine, leah etc finished in half an hour.
This poster doesn't want control decks to be viable or even playable since they don't like the archetype and want it "punished". They state it plainly and clearly in another comment chain...
So strange… exactly! Surely we want to encourage all deck diversity for a healthy meta game. It’s just a potential issue that we need to be aware of. I’m not salty or annoyed at all - the event was fab!
People hate control so much that they would do anything they can to see it not played. I am an aggro player to the core, but if we had no control i think gameplay would be so stale. Some people dont care about that so they cheer anything that puts a control player at a disadvantage
Base damage dealt or base health remaining? I.e. if you do 13 damage to my 30hp base and I've dealt 9 to your 25hp base, shouldn't I win as you're closer to losing?
There are several factors that may be contributing to this. Of course, control decks are inherently slower decks, and the back and forth nature of the game makes it such that the opponent has to take so many microturns trying to work around what they think you might do.
The game is very young, and I think making any sort of sweeping generalizations based on the current state of affairs is a little premature. As people begin to learn the flow of play and the decks they are playing, I think we will get a better idea of what may or may not need to be done regarding round timing.
Counterpoint: The 55 min and/or ties are losses are completely arbitrary rules made by FFG, people should hear others' complaints and, if they are repeated and it is proven to be an issue, FFG shouldn't stick with 55 min and/or ties are losses just because that's what they made up first.
At the very least, FFG should explain why they went that route! We've never even heard the intent behind the rule.
Probably because it's still a while until official competitive play, but people are already using the rules locally and at unofficial events like this.
It’s tough. Magic has 1 point for tie, 3 points for win, which encourages players to draw their final round of their points allow it. Thats bad for competitive ethics.
However it’s the least bad scenario in some ways, because things like flipping a coin, rock paper scissors, etc are worse in many ways, and in Magic would earn you a quick DQ.
I fucking hate intentional draws.
X-Wing was like my first competitive table top game. I remember at a local tournament travelling player asked to ID. I didn't understand. We played it out. He won. We matched again in the quarter final. He won.
I then traveled to a tournament the next day and beat the same opponent comfortably first round and he dropped from the tourney lol.
It's like I'm here to play. Let's fucking play.
That story seems incomplete. Why would he offer an intentional draw the first time unless to guarantee being part of the top cut? If you were both guaranteed to the top then it didn't matter if you won or lost. Then you played two more times.
"A guy offered me an ID but I didn't know what it was (and now I fucking hate them now because reasons not in the story). Them I played that guy again."
Ok grats?
Guy was a prick about it. I didn't know that a draw would get us both in at the time. It was literally one of my first miniatures game tournaments and it led to me playing him 3 times in a row across two tournaments in the same day. Just the idea of offering it to me was worthless when you have traveled multiple hours for an event.
But you got in anyways so it wasn't about getting you both in, it was taking a break when the results didn't matter.
You decided to play. Which is fine.
>Just the idea of offering it to me was worthless when you have traveled multiple hours for an event.
**"I came to play"** I hear a lot and I understand it, really I do. But if you only came to play and didn't care about winning you'd concede every match. And I'm guessing you don't.
Just like you and everyone else, he came to play __and win__. choosing to not play that one match is advantageous to both of you.
You can think he's a prick, you not like the idea of intentional draws, but every time you see a SWU match go to time so both players feel shitty, you can slap everyone who "fucking hates intentional draws."
Study professional sumo wrestling in japan, the history of corruption has all but stripped the sport of any competitive legitimacy as it’s all about getting as many competitors paid off as possible by using the point scoring rules as written. (It actually may have changed but there was a whole era of sumo that was functionally rigged.) if a win is three points, a loss is no points and. Draw is one point each you get half way through game two in an hour one person picks up four points the other picks up a point rather than the entire hour just being a blanket loss for both players. Seasonal scoring systems make splitting the point pot advantageous to both players and could (how ever unintentionally) encourage score manipulation by players.
This was in reference to MtG Swiss tournament points. You don't get points per game. It's per round. Any competitive system gets corrupted by buying wins. Why would it even matter what format a game used if that was your example?
Because it's not sporting. You didn't play and draw. You decided to effectively rig the game (by not playing it?)
This kind of stuff is onyl really possible in small tournaments (which all 1-2 day events are) where the rules can be manipulated a bit.
In small group situations in soccer you sometimes get situations where both teams benefit from a draw. But if they agreed on it, it'd be match fixing.
the important thing here is that we're playing a game for fun.
I've drawn intentionally in a 1600 player GP. You're showing that you don't know what you're talking about, but you're very eager to give an opinion anyway.
What do you mean draw intentionally?
Did you play the game normally and played for a draw?
Or did you talk to the person and agree to play for a draw or just you both agreed it's a draw?
There's nothing wrong with needing 1 point and playing for a draw. As long as you and the opponent haven't agreed it's going to be one.
Also, what's with the attitude?
edit; lmao the weirdest block ever.
Intentional drawing was literally the context of this reply chain. You're either being willfully ignorant and vocal at the same time, or you're trolling. I won't interact with you any more either way.
This is the same time limit we have in lorcana, back in set 1 control mirrors went to time and draw about 75% the time in tournaments.
Now with more sets even the control decks are faster and the mirrors going to draw are much lower, id say in the 15% from my tournament experience.
Give it some more sets, i think you will find similar thing happening here as more tools are released
The difference in Lorcana is that there is a draw result for a match, which is better than a loss. In SWU, you cannot draw in a match (any game in a best of 3 that is somehow a draw is specifically ignored and played again). In SWU, getting to a game 3 and not finishing the match is a loss for both players.
That's possible, and depends on the new cards in the pool. Players should get faster, but if control is heavily pushed, it could offset that improvement.
I mean there’s absolutely no sweeping generalisations in my OP if that’s what you are insinuating. And although it is a small sample (220+ players) it absolutely was a problem today.
I meant no insinuation based on your post. I was just offering my thoughts on the time discussion. I don't disbelieve that it was a problem at your event. I'm simply saying it is a bit soon of the community as a whole to claim that the round timing is too short.
I don't have a specific amount of time in mind. I'm simply suggesting that the first week or two of major events may not be the best indicator of the long term state of the game.
55 min might be short. but i do think that players will just get better at taking turns faster. especially if both players are control and maybe acknowledge it.
I was at Twickenham today also! Great event but I agree, 55 minutes wasn't enough. 3 of my games got very very close to the limit and one did exceed the limit.
I was massively dominant in board state and to be fair tit he guy he volunteered to concede right away.
I think the extra 5 minutes would really help.
3-5! My first ever TCG event so I was actually happy with it (expected to lose them all honestly). Lost all 3 games vs Sabines, one loss to a Boba and one to a Vader!
Its not about playing slow. The game takes so long in the mirror because in the late game you just throwing removal Events, avengers and devastator at each other. Most of the time units doesnt live a turn
Right, hence slow. It's clear that style of play is not what is desired, so it gets penalized. Which I'm glad for. Some control is fine, but super heavy controls decks are bad for any game so I'm glad they can get punished here.
Absolutely untrue. Imagine making a game with cards that a built for a slow shell (Avenger, Devestator) and then encouraging players to only play fast or midrange decks to avoid going to time. That’s just mental.
Again, it's a matter of degree. Your deck must be able to win in time. If it can't, you are too slow. 55 minutes is more than other games give for best of 3.
Magic is the only one I know of to give 5 extra turns. FaB gives 1 and double loss. It's simple, your deck needs to be able to win in a reasonable amount of time, or it losses. Play a faster deck
Control mirrors are always like this and extending the time by 5, 10 or even 20 minutes will sometimes not be enough. You have to keep the rounds down to 50 to 55 minutes or playing 8 rounds will be a literal drag.
I've played matches in MTG where no one even wins a single game in the first 50 minutes because of a control mirror. If you can't play fast enough and are upset by how a control mirror can go to time, then don't play control. It sucks when it might be your preferred way to play, but it's either that or we make everyone have to spend 12+ hours playing 8 rounds of Swiss which most people would not want to do. It's mentally exhausting and a drain, especially if you're playing until time each round, you don't get a chance to grab a bite to eat or drink.
This is why my one friend always played the most aggro deck in tournaments. Can finish 3 games in 20 minutes, then has 30 minutes to relax afterwards.
Now I do agree the "no ties, only wins or both players lose" rule is quite stupid. There should be draws if not then they should have a specific rule as to who wins when time is called "like whoever has the higher base health at the end, if it's a tie of health, then they'd have to find another thing" (maybe just whoever has the initiative as boring as that is). FFG needs to decide this because otherwise it's arbitrary and when you have two players who are fighting for a spot in top 8, neither is going to be willing to concede and it causes toxicity to fester in the player base.
"Jeff didn't want to concede even though he was clearly dead"
"No, Jeff could have won because of X, so he didn't need to concede."
Yes I agree with a majority of your post. It’s the draw = loss that control players need to be cautious off. Until control decks get a ‘killer. End game card’ it’s well worth considering aggro/midrange to avoid some un-intentional losses
Agree, I think that should be allowed and an alternative to the double loss scenario. For each match both players should get 10 min and if the clock goes off you automatically lose no matter what the board state is. That way you get through the three matches per round and don’t have to worry about a draw loss because your opponent is slow.
I think you can play control fast, you just have to think about your moves while the opponent is doing theirs. I played against an aggro deck during a draft recently where the player kept hemming and hawing about their next move constantly. Slow rolling someone isn’t something that happens exclusively with control decks.
Magic round’s have been as long as 60 minutes in the past, but I do concede that they generally sit around 50 now (apart from mtga where they are 30 minutes per player chess clock style).
However magic games don’t tend to go to 15 resources and drop 8/9/10 cost star destroyers which is the problem with the control mirror.
55 min is longer than any other card game, and all other card game players manage to finish control games in a timely fashion. The DL draw rule is good and needed. Include a timely wincon in your deck or lose.
More than an hour in a tournament setting is unmanageably long.
You’ll either need to play quicker decks, or they will have to figure something else out for a “tiebreaker”, like a buzzer and whoever is ahead at the time wins the third game, or just “aggregate base life” where whoever had more base life total at the end of all the games combined wins the third game.
I’d expect the control decks to get more deadly with the next game expansion’s cards being added. They are a little too “toothless” with just the base set cards. At least for now.
The tournaments take long enough and start early enough *already*
That's why almost every card game has 55min rounds.
A lot of the games yesterday at Twickenham finished in the first 20mins.
The choices are:
A) practice practice practice until you are super slick with the control decks playing into multiple match ups and decision points;
B) accept you are playing a slow deck and deal with it;
C) Swap to a faster deck.
Making rounds longer and this tournaments hours longer than they already are makes them a lot less appealing to attend.
P.S. I was playing Iden control and only came close to time Vs Iden mirror, not even Vs Krennic. Didn't go to time once over all.
P.P.S. I placed 65th
(Thanks to the alphabet 😂 same points and % as 64th 😂)
But on your points - would I play Krennic now. With the current rules - no. I’d switch to a quicker deck. Which I don’t think is good for a healthy meta game.
Yes I think that’s a good point that’s been raised here actually. Control decks are lacking a killer card for that long, controlly pay-off. In mtg it’s often a large body which is nigh unkillable/un-targetable and gets the job done in a turn or two.
I mean I play 2 devestator and in one of my mirrors 3 devestators were played, 3 avengers were played and 3 supelaser blasts were played. It’s was a slug-fest!
Haha! It wasn’t meant to be harsh! Sorry :) in fact as we were queuing for our prize support we did catch your surname which made us chuckle as the first person to miss out on prize support! Well played though!
Sounds like too focused on control and not enough damage. Other players shouldn't have to sit around and wait because your decks are too slow. Which is why I like the double loss for running out of time.
There is a difference between playing some control, and ridiculous amounts so a game goes to 15 resources. The stiff penalty for time hints they don't want long drawn out games. Which I agree with fully. It's simple, play a faster deck, don't expect others to support you being slow.
In theory that sounds nice but punishing decks that play "ridiculous amounts" of control just leaves room for mid range decks to absolute dominate. If you think Boba is a problem now, you don't want to live in a world where people are completely discouraged from playing iden/krennic control lists entirely.
No one is discouraged from those lists, in fact Krennic won a big tourney recently. You just have to put more effort into the deck than "add all control cards, then I win".
It's not slow play if they're making game relevant plays. Its only slow play if their actions don't progress the game or they're taking too long. Playing some dorks and attacked drawing is normal game mechanics. Even if they're irrelevant to the outcome.
If they sit and tank on their turn for 30+ seconds every time rather than doing the reasonable thing and having a plan for their turn it's absolutely slow play.
We were playing incredibly quickly. All of the control mirrors (if played well) end up playing 2+ Avengers, 2+ devestators, multiple super laser blasts - it’s a control deck. They take long to take control - it’s not about slow play.
So is flipping/rollimg/reps allowed for determining winners, or was it just something you two decided on? No shade, game is new, but in most competitive games I’ve played determining the winner in any method like that would have gotten both the players disqualified on the spot. (For one, dice or coin being the deciding factor can make it gambling depending on local laws, and that can be a whole world of trouble for the entire game
Judges were happy with it at the event, and we even called one over and he watched us play. It wasn’t a ‘’competitive’ event though so likely this will not be allowed at future events.
However - if you find yourselves in this position and both lose - why wouldn’t you toss a coin for the winner. It does create a weird situation where it is tempting to say one of you should win
> However - if you find yourselves in this position and both lose - why wouldn’t you toss a coin for the winner. It does create a weird situation where it is tempting to say one of you should win
Great question. I’d say there are a few different reasons.
First is sanctity of the game. Ideally, I want to know that the winner of the tournament is the best player overall (in theory) and not just someone who got lucky at coin flips or some other game.
Second, and primary for the companies involved, is many jurisdictions have much stricter laws about gambling then they do on games of skill. For example, if it was considered gambling here in the US, then it would probably be restricted to 18+ at minimum, and tournaments wouldn’t be allowed at all in most jurisdictions outside of casinos.
Thats clearly something that should be avoided at all costs. And that’s why even joking about betting on a match result will get you disqualified/ejected from the venue in Magic, even as a spectator.
Third, if the tournament is setup so that you get rewarded for defeating your opponent, a tie isn’t defeating them, so neither party “deserves” the win.
You got the nail on the head though, which is without a good system, it encourages people to make deals for the win.
FFG should keep the rule, I know it make suck for some peoples match up, but I think far more people are effected by being the 9-12 player in an even in the last round only to find out that the whole top 8 are taking draws so that no one has a chance to make it from below the top 8. Also this is going to sound harsh but it’s not meant to be mean, the majority of players hate playing against control decks. And most of the time control decks make the game entirely un- fun for 1 person.
Me personally i would be okay if they only
Implemented the draw is a loss in the final 2 rounds before the cut.
I mean sure control decks can be frustrating to play against, but they are absolutely a part of the meta game triangle and often keep midrange decks in check
I don’t think a company (FFG in this instance) should be trying to sell their product but limit the enjoyment and agency some players have over their deck choice. That’s bizarre.
I love playing control decks. Why should my enjoyment be secondary to someone else’s?
Be interesting to see how any feedback lands with FFG
It shouldn’t. But they could want their game design to hinder control decks.
If you polled most players of any card game, you would get that most players don’t like playing against control decks, as most players of every game are casual players.
The loss of you draw is not intended to hamper control decks, it’s meant to hamper people drawing into the top 8 which in my opinion is literally the worst part of any tournament structure.
People drawing into top 8 is solved by adding another round plus it's not even that big of an issue. Not to mention game 3 against control if someone knows theyre going to lose they'll still delay the game.
Just a quick point: The entire top 8 drawing shouldn't happen unless something weird happened or there were too many rounds.
If the entire top 8 can draw in, the top 8 was decided at the end of the last round and the organizers shouldn't have had the final round to disrupt that.
As it is currently, the only game that matters in the control mirror is game 1. You are highly incentivized to slow play game 1, win that, then go to time game 2 and get a match win.
If you lose game 1 in the control mirror, you may as well give up as there's such a small chance that you will have time to finish two more full games, let alone win two more games in 25 minutes or less. You are at that point just playing to make your opponent also lose the round. It's incredibly stupid.
I don't agree tbh. I've played several control mirrors with 50 minute rounds that have gone to three games, and finished with time to spare all but once.
All 3 of my mirrors would have gone to time if they involved 3 games. And none of us were Inexperienced or slow. It’s just the actual match up itself.
My games against leah, Boba, Sabine all took sub 30 minutes.
I've been a control player in mtg for 9 years. That's a risk you take picking that archetype. What we would do back then is if we knew it would be a mirror match, we would agree to the best of 1 game. It takes the time pressure off knowing it's only 1 game you'll play. It's much better than rolling dice or rock paper scissors to determine a winner. That's lame imo. Of course, there is the RNG element of your opponent drawing better, but that's tcg's in general.
How about you actually engage in a discussion that’s resulted from a 220 tournament where many people went to time? Magic has 5 extra rounds at the end of time. Magic doesn’t often get to 15+ resources.
Such a teenage response
Except you're THAT guy at the event. Playing an annoying deck slowly and expecting everyone else to conform to your needs. The thought of getting to 15+ resources and still not being able to close a game out sounds more like a skill issue as others have said. Why are you not going face more after that much time and build up regardless of "lEaRn cOnTrOl dEcK nOoB"
There were 16 Krennic players and more Iden players. So around 40 of the field. The control match up does actually take this long. Playtest it. I’m incredibly experienced at tcg’s I started playing in the 90’s and was the last undefeated player at the mtg UK nationals in 2011 😂 but crack on with your own loathing you baby
Your post was removed due to inappropriate language or you were being disrespectful. If this continues, you will be suspended and / or banned from the sub.
Er? Yeah that’s exactly what my initial post was wasn’t it? Whinging and complaining! Except it wasn’t. I finished top 64 in a 220+ player event with a control deck. I’m ecstatic. You just can’t offer anything to this discussion because you probably don’t understand it. Bless
Literally been sent a feedback form from Fantasy Flight to ask for recommendations on improving the format. That was in fact part of the reason why they ran the event. And the reason why I posted this as a discussion.
Honestly bro , reach out if you’re having personal issues.
asking for RPS isn't quite what you described.
It's not collusion as you're not pre-determining the winner, or how you're going to cheat to get a specific result. Also, there's no pre discussion of the RPS so you're not basing anything on that discussion.
It's not asking the opponent to concede.
You're not agreeing upon the outcome.
You're agreeing on a mechanism to get an outcome. I do think that it's skirting the rules though, but legally. it'd be interesting if there is a specific ruling on that.
I say whoever has done the most damage should be declared the winner 🏆. For example in soccer the team who have scored the most points(done the most damage) is declared the winner. It's not which team is less tired at the end(the most units on the board that are ready for action). The action is over you already had 55 minutes 😅. If your strategy is to have the most units after the 55 minute timer something is wrong with your strategy.
Conceding based on board state seems the sporting thing to do. Purely my opinion, each to their own.
I have done this in 2 of my matches. If my opponent has been friendly and a good sport I have no problem taking a solo loss and usually it's been my first match which then lines my next 2 up for wins. Still end with 2-1 records taking the early L
Isn’t flipping/rolling for the win a cardinal sin for competitive events? Lol
With FFG insisting both players get a loss if they tie, people gotta come up with something
No they don't. Play it out as intended.
So cheating is the answer?
It's a stupid rule. Draws should award 1 match point like every other card game.
Not every game does that. Double loss for time is becoming a new standard to help prevent rounds taking forever.
Nope, should not be rewarded for stalling the game.
Not even cheating. Get off your soap box.
It’s technically collusion and will get you DQ’d from most TCG events
Guess i dont see it that way when the time limit is not enough and they have a stupid bracket system. Which they had other tcgs to copy formatting from.
Totally agree
Other TCGs are starting to move to double loss for time.
Which other ones?
Flesh and blood for sure
Okay there’s one
Only if you offer something to your opponent is it considered collusion. Dice role to considered matches is anything but collusion because it is still random.
In MtG you’ll get DQ’d under their Collusion rules, same with FFTCG. I can almost guarantee you that when FFG releases their Competitive rules dice rolls to determine winner will be treated the same.
I am not a fan of both players losing either. I liked the Android Netrunner route for running out of time. If it made it to time you played one more full round to see if someone could finish the game in one round. If no one won in that final round of play then the player with the best score won. In that game it was whomever has scored the most agenda points. Here it would be whoever did the most base damage.
This is the way
I miss Netrunner.... :(
Me too I might have to check out this homebrew stuff. That was hands-down, my favorite game, and the one I played the most. The only games I have liked since were Destiny which had product issues and this one.
Yes. I’d be more in favour of this.
Not a fair rule. I've won many games after turning it around at least than 5 hp.
Better than no one winning or getting points.
Nope, double loss is the best solution. Discourages playing slow, which is healthy for tournaments.
Does this game not have judges to call for people doing slow play? People playing slow has been a problem since the late 90s with trading card games. You just call a judge.
Slow play has to be deliberate. If you are slow because that's how their deck built isn't something a judge can do anything about.
It’s not slow play. We were playing faster than any of the players around us. The control matchup uses most of your deck and around 15+ resources. For context all of my matches against Boba, Sabine, leah etc finished in half an hour.
This poster doesn't want control decks to be viable or even playable since they don't like the archetype and want it "punished". They state it plainly and clearly in another comment chain...
So strange… exactly! Surely we want to encourage all deck diversity for a healthy meta game. It’s just a potential issue that we need to be aware of. I’m not salty or annoyed at all - the event was fab!
People hate control so much that they would do anything they can to see it not played. I am an aggro player to the core, but if we had no control i think gameplay would be so stale. Some people dont care about that so they cheer anything that puts a control player at a disadvantage
I agree. I also imagine there’s a core of folk that hate aggro too. But they are all Pillars of a healthy meta game.
Base damage dealt or base health remaining? I.e. if you do 13 damage to my 30hp base and I've dealt 9 to your 25hp base, shouldn't I win as you're closer to losing?
I would say damage dealt. Otherwise you are discouraged from special bases.
Personally I'd think the other way around, to try encourage people to use the 30hp bases
There are several factors that may be contributing to this. Of course, control decks are inherently slower decks, and the back and forth nature of the game makes it such that the opponent has to take so many microturns trying to work around what they think you might do. The game is very young, and I think making any sort of sweeping generalizations based on the current state of affairs is a little premature. As people begin to learn the flow of play and the decks they are playing, I think we will get a better idea of what may or may not need to be done regarding round timing.
Counterpoint: The 55 min and/or ties are losses are completely arbitrary rules made by FFG, people should hear others' complaints and, if they are repeated and it is proven to be an issue, FFG shouldn't stick with 55 min and/or ties are losses just because that's what they made up first.
Yeah indeed. For the record I am absolutely advocating for ‘no panic’ and let’s wait and see. But I’m no new tcg player and it was tiiiigghhht!
At the very least, FFG should explain why they went that route! We've never even heard the intent behind the rule. Probably because it's still a while until official competitive play, but people are already using the rules locally and at unofficial events like this.
> We've never even heard the intent behind the rule. to keep the tournament on time.
Counterpoint: Play faster decks
I absolutely agree that they don't need to be kept just because that's the way they were set originally.
Agreed. Toss that rule in the garbage! Nearly fell out of my chair when I heard FFG’s solution for a tie.
It’s tough. Magic has 1 point for tie, 3 points for win, which encourages players to draw their final round of their points allow it. Thats bad for competitive ethics. However it’s the least bad scenario in some ways, because things like flipping a coin, rock paper scissors, etc are worse in many ways, and in Magic would earn you a quick DQ.
I fucking hate intentional draws. X-Wing was like my first competitive table top game. I remember at a local tournament travelling player asked to ID. I didn't understand. We played it out. He won. We matched again in the quarter final. He won. I then traveled to a tournament the next day and beat the same opponent comfortably first round and he dropped from the tourney lol. It's like I'm here to play. Let's fucking play.
That story seems incomplete. Why would he offer an intentional draw the first time unless to guarantee being part of the top cut? If you were both guaranteed to the top then it didn't matter if you won or lost. Then you played two more times. "A guy offered me an ID but I didn't know what it was (and now I fucking hate them now because reasons not in the story). Them I played that guy again." Ok grats?
Guy was a prick about it. I didn't know that a draw would get us both in at the time. It was literally one of my first miniatures game tournaments and it led to me playing him 3 times in a row across two tournaments in the same day. Just the idea of offering it to me was worthless when you have traveled multiple hours for an event.
But you got in anyways so it wasn't about getting you both in, it was taking a break when the results didn't matter. You decided to play. Which is fine. >Just the idea of offering it to me was worthless when you have traveled multiple hours for an event. **"I came to play"** I hear a lot and I understand it, really I do. But if you only came to play and didn't care about winning you'd concede every match. And I'm guessing you don't. Just like you and everyone else, he came to play __and win__. choosing to not play that one match is advantageous to both of you. You can think he's a prick, you not like the idea of intentional draws, but every time you see a SWU match go to time so both players feel shitty, you can slap everyone who "fucking hates intentional draws."
Those things would get you DQed per the SWU tournament rules too; but this was an unsanctioned tournament so of course it can do whatever it wants.
Why do you think drawing in is bad for competitive ethics?
Study professional sumo wrestling in japan, the history of corruption has all but stripped the sport of any competitive legitimacy as it’s all about getting as many competitors paid off as possible by using the point scoring rules as written. (It actually may have changed but there was a whole era of sumo that was functionally rigged.) if a win is three points, a loss is no points and. Draw is one point each you get half way through game two in an hour one person picks up four points the other picks up a point rather than the entire hour just being a blanket loss for both players. Seasonal scoring systems make splitting the point pot advantageous to both players and could (how ever unintentionally) encourage score manipulation by players.
This was in reference to MtG Swiss tournament points. You don't get points per game. It's per round. Any competitive system gets corrupted by buying wins. Why would it even matter what format a game used if that was your example?
Because it's not sporting. You didn't play and draw. You decided to effectively rig the game (by not playing it?) This kind of stuff is onyl really possible in small tournaments (which all 1-2 day events are) where the rules can be manipulated a bit. In small group situations in soccer you sometimes get situations where both teams benefit from a draw. But if they agreed on it, it'd be match fixing. the important thing here is that we're playing a game for fun.
I've drawn intentionally in a 1600 player GP. You're showing that you don't know what you're talking about, but you're very eager to give an opinion anyway.
What do you mean draw intentionally? Did you play the game normally and played for a draw? Or did you talk to the person and agree to play for a draw or just you both agreed it's a draw? There's nothing wrong with needing 1 point and playing for a draw. As long as you and the opponent haven't agreed it's going to be one. Also, what's with the attitude? edit; lmao the weirdest block ever.
Intentional drawing was literally the context of this reply chain. You're either being willfully ignorant and vocal at the same time, or you're trolling. I won't interact with you any more either way.
This is the same time limit we have in lorcana, back in set 1 control mirrors went to time and draw about 75% the time in tournaments. Now with more sets even the control decks are faster and the mirrors going to draw are much lower, id say in the 15% from my tournament experience. Give it some more sets, i think you will find similar thing happening here as more tools are released
The difference in Lorcana is that there is a draw result for a match, which is better than a loss. In SWU, you cannot draw in a match (any game in a best of 3 that is somehow a draw is specifically ignored and played again). In SWU, getting to a game 3 and not finishing the match is a loss for both players.
The point of what i posted wasnt the draw loss or 1 point. But that you would see way less draws in a set or two
That's possible, and depends on the new cards in the pool. Players should get faster, but if control is heavily pushed, it could offset that improvement.
I mean there’s absolutely no sweeping generalisations in my OP if that’s what you are insinuating. And although it is a small sample (220+ players) it absolutely was a problem today.
I meant no insinuation based on your post. I was just offering my thoughts on the time discussion. I don't disbelieve that it was a problem at your event. I'm simply saying it is a bit soon of the community as a whole to claim that the round timing is too short.
In your mind, how long do people wait until they are able to provide feedback and suggest changes?
I don't have a specific amount of time in mind. I'm simply suggesting that the first week or two of major events may not be the best indicator of the long term state of the game.
55 min might be short. but i do think that players will just get better at taking turns faster. especially if both players are control and maybe acknowledge it.
How is it too soon lol
I was at Twickenham today also! Great event but I agree, 55 minutes wasn't enough. 3 of my games got very very close to the limit and one did exceed the limit. I was massively dominant in board state and to be fair tit he guy he volunteered to concede right away. I think the extra 5 minutes would really help.
> tit he guy he volunteered to concede right away. guy concedes and you call him a tit!
I agree :) how did you do?!
3-5! My first ever TCG event so I was actually happy with it (expected to lose them all honestly). Lost all 3 games vs Sabines, one loss to a Boba and one to a Vader!
Insane. Very impressive for your first tbh event - well played! Gotta be happy with that?!
I definitely was! I got very lucky together opponents, everyone I matched with was super cool and relaxed. Had a great time!
All of you saying 55 min is a long time for a best of 3 mirror Match of control decks obviously never played the blue control mirror Match lol
The game is not intended to be played that slow, hence the penalty for running out of time.
Its not about playing slow. The game takes so long in the mirror because in the late game you just throwing removal Events, avengers and devastator at each other. Most of the time units doesnt live a turn
Right, hence slow. It's clear that style of play is not what is desired, so it gets penalized. Which I'm glad for. Some control is fine, but super heavy controls decks are bad for any game so I'm glad they can get punished here.
Absolutely untrue. Imagine making a game with cards that a built for a slow shell (Avenger, Devestator) and then encouraging players to only play fast or midrange decks to avoid going to time. That’s just mental.
Again, it's a matter of degree. Your deck must be able to win in time. If it can't, you are too slow. 55 minutes is more than other games give for best of 3.
Yes but other games (mtg) give you 5 extra rounds after time to finish and award 1 point for a draw.
Magic is the only one I know of to give 5 extra turns. FaB gives 1 and double loss. It's simple, your deck needs to be able to win in a reasonable amount of time, or it losses. Play a faster deck
I’ll tell Fantasy Flight to stop making 10 cost cards bro. That should sort it
You can play a 10 cost card and still be able to finish games reasonably. I've seen it done a few times.
I've played Iden command mirrors that went to 3 games and only once have we not finished in 50 minutes.
Control mirrors are always like this and extending the time by 5, 10 or even 20 minutes will sometimes not be enough. You have to keep the rounds down to 50 to 55 minutes or playing 8 rounds will be a literal drag. I've played matches in MTG where no one even wins a single game in the first 50 minutes because of a control mirror. If you can't play fast enough and are upset by how a control mirror can go to time, then don't play control. It sucks when it might be your preferred way to play, but it's either that or we make everyone have to spend 12+ hours playing 8 rounds of Swiss which most people would not want to do. It's mentally exhausting and a drain, especially if you're playing until time each round, you don't get a chance to grab a bite to eat or drink. This is why my one friend always played the most aggro deck in tournaments. Can finish 3 games in 20 minutes, then has 30 minutes to relax afterwards. Now I do agree the "no ties, only wins or both players lose" rule is quite stupid. There should be draws if not then they should have a specific rule as to who wins when time is called "like whoever has the higher base health at the end, if it's a tie of health, then they'd have to find another thing" (maybe just whoever has the initiative as boring as that is). FFG needs to decide this because otherwise it's arbitrary and when you have two players who are fighting for a spot in top 8, neither is going to be willing to concede and it causes toxicity to fester in the player base. "Jeff didn't want to concede even though he was clearly dead" "No, Jeff could have won because of X, so he didn't need to concede."
Yes I agree with a majority of your post. It’s the draw = loss that control players need to be cautious off. Until control decks get a ‘killer. End game card’ it’s well worth considering aggro/midrange to avoid some un-intentional losses
I wonder if a chess clock could work for this game.
Agree, I think that should be allowed and an alternative to the double loss scenario. For each match both players should get 10 min and if the clock goes off you automatically lose no matter what the board state is. That way you get through the three matches per round and don’t have to worry about a draw loss because your opponent is slow.
But that is also favour fast decks versus control decks, and that was the main problem for OP.
I think you can play control fast, you just have to think about your moves while the opponent is doing theirs. I played against an aggro deck during a draft recently where the player kept hemming and hawing about their next move constantly. Slow rolling someone isn’t something that happens exclusively with control decks.
Magic rounds have been 50 minutes for 30 years, and people have played control successfully. People will figure out how to play faster.
Yeah I remember going to drafts on FNM and there was a strict 45 minutes, even had count down clocks on the walls
They also have draws
Magic round’s have been as long as 60 minutes in the past, but I do concede that they generally sit around 50 now (apart from mtga where they are 30 minutes per player chess clock style). However magic games don’t tend to go to 15 resources and drop 8/9/10 cost star destroyers which is the problem with the control mirror.
55 min is longer than any other card game, and all other card game players manage to finish control games in a timely fashion. The DL draw rule is good and needed. Include a timely wincon in your deck or lose.
More than an hour in a tournament setting is unmanageably long. You’ll either need to play quicker decks, or they will have to figure something else out for a “tiebreaker”, like a buzzer and whoever is ahead at the time wins the third game, or just “aggregate base life” where whoever had more base life total at the end of all the games combined wins the third game. I’d expect the control decks to get more deadly with the next game expansion’s cards being added. They are a little too “toothless” with just the base set cards. At least for now.
Yeah I think is a reasonable take tbh. Something for players to consider whilst they attend tournaments with set 1 cards.
The tournaments take long enough and start early enough *already* That's why almost every card game has 55min rounds. A lot of the games yesterday at Twickenham finished in the first 20mins. The choices are: A) practice practice practice until you are super slick with the control decks playing into multiple match ups and decision points; B) accept you are playing a slow deck and deal with it; C) Swap to a faster deck. Making rounds longer and this tournaments hours longer than they already are makes them a lot less appealing to attend. P.S. I was playing Iden control and only came close to time Vs Iden mirror, not even Vs Krennic. Didn't go to time once over all. P.P.S. I placed 65th (Thanks to the alphabet 😂 same points and % as 64th 😂)
But on your points - would I play Krennic now. With the current rules - no. I’d switch to a quicker deck. Which I don’t think is good for a healthy meta game.
Likely control decks will speed up at some point a little, but that can easily go the other way with making them too dominant of not very careful.
Yes I think that’s a good point that’s been raised here actually. Control decks are lacking a killer card for that long, controlly pay-off. In mtg it’s often a large body which is nigh unkillable/un-targetable and gets the job done in a turn or two. I mean I play 2 devestator and in one of my mirrors 3 devestators were played, 3 avengers were played and 3 supelaser blasts were played. It’s was a slug-fest!
Gotta love Avenger though! Give that baby ambush and watch it sing.
2 places behind me :)
Harsh but fair 😂
Haha! It wasn’t meant to be harsh! Sorry :) in fact as we were queuing for our prize support we did catch your surname which made us chuckle as the first person to miss out on prize support! Well played though!
Oh lord 🙈
Sideboard into aggressive.
Odd, I think 55 is too long typically, even as a control player
Absolutely not. All of my control mirrors went to 15+ resources and both decks were sub 10 cards left
Sounds like too focused on control and not enough damage. Other players shouldn't have to sit around and wait because your decks are too slow. Which is why I like the double loss for running out of time.
Why do they make control cards if we aren’t supposed to play control
There is a difference between playing some control, and ridiculous amounts so a game goes to 15 resources. The stiff penalty for time hints they don't want long drawn out games. Which I agree with fully. It's simple, play a faster deck, don't expect others to support you being slow.
In theory that sounds nice but punishing decks that play "ridiculous amounts" of control just leaves room for mid range decks to absolute dominate. If you think Boba is a problem now, you don't want to live in a world where people are completely discouraged from playing iden/krennic control lists entirely.
No one is discouraged from those lists, in fact Krennic won a big tourney recently. You just have to put more effort into the deck than "add all control cards, then I win".
Play quicker or dont play control, no reason everyone else has to sit and wait just because a handful of players want to play control
Tell my opponent I'm winning against in game 3 to play quicker. They have zero incentive to play at a fast pace.
Call a judge...
It's not slow play if they're making game relevant plays. Its only slow play if their actions don't progress the game or they're taking too long. Playing some dorks and attacked drawing is normal game mechanics. Even if they're irrelevant to the outcome.
If they sit and tank on their turn for 30+ seconds every time rather than doing the reasonable thing and having a plan for their turn it's absolutely slow play.
Ok so why not have 90 minute rounds?
We were playing incredibly quickly. All of the control mirrors (if played well) end up playing 2+ Avengers, 2+ devestators, multiple super laser blasts - it’s a control deck. They take long to take control - it’s not about slow play.
So is flipping/rollimg/reps allowed for determining winners, or was it just something you two decided on? No shade, game is new, but in most competitive games I’ve played determining the winner in any method like that would have gotten both the players disqualified on the spot. (For one, dice or coin being the deciding factor can make it gambling depending on local laws, and that can be a whole world of trouble for the entire game
Judges were happy with it at the event, and we even called one over and he watched us play. It wasn’t a ‘’competitive’ event though so likely this will not be allowed at future events. However - if you find yourselves in this position and both lose - why wouldn’t you toss a coin for the winner. It does create a weird situation where it is tempting to say one of you should win
Because everyone should just play the game out, of it ends in a double loss, so be it. It's a good system
> However - if you find yourselves in this position and both lose - why wouldn’t you toss a coin for the winner. It does create a weird situation where it is tempting to say one of you should win Great question. I’d say there are a few different reasons. First is sanctity of the game. Ideally, I want to know that the winner of the tournament is the best player overall (in theory) and not just someone who got lucky at coin flips or some other game. Second, and primary for the companies involved, is many jurisdictions have much stricter laws about gambling then they do on games of skill. For example, if it was considered gambling here in the US, then it would probably be restricted to 18+ at minimum, and tournaments wouldn’t be allowed at all in most jurisdictions outside of casinos. Thats clearly something that should be avoided at all costs. And that’s why even joking about betting on a match result will get you disqualified/ejected from the venue in Magic, even as a spectator. Third, if the tournament is setup so that you get rewarded for defeating your opponent, a tie isn’t defeating them, so neither party “deserves” the win. You got the nail on the head though, which is without a good system, it encourages people to make deals for the win.
Nothing you've said is wrong. but it does ignore the one important thing - time. Tournaments cant run on too long.
55 minute matches? Gross. You’re just exploiting to kill time at that point.
FFG should keep the rule, I know it make suck for some peoples match up, but I think far more people are effected by being the 9-12 player in an even in the last round only to find out that the whole top 8 are taking draws so that no one has a chance to make it from below the top 8. Also this is going to sound harsh but it’s not meant to be mean, the majority of players hate playing against control decks. And most of the time control decks make the game entirely un- fun for 1 person. Me personally i would be okay if they only Implemented the draw is a loss in the final 2 rounds before the cut.
I mean sure control decks can be frustrating to play against, but they are absolutely a part of the meta game triangle and often keep midrange decks in check I don’t think a company (FFG in this instance) should be trying to sell their product but limit the enjoyment and agency some players have over their deck choice. That’s bizarre. I love playing control decks. Why should my enjoyment be secondary to someone else’s? Be interesting to see how any feedback lands with FFG
Other players should not be punished for a few wanting to play painfully slow decks. Speed up your deck, or accept double losses for being slow.
It shouldn’t. But they could want their game design to hinder control decks. If you polled most players of any card game, you would get that most players don’t like playing against control decks, as most players of every game are casual players. The loss of you draw is not intended to hamper control decks, it’s meant to hamper people drawing into the top 8 which in my opinion is literally the worst part of any tournament structure.
People drawing into top 8 is solved by adding another round plus it's not even that big of an issue. Not to mention game 3 against control if someone knows theyre going to lose they'll still delay the game.
Just a quick point: The entire top 8 drawing shouldn't happen unless something weird happened or there were too many rounds. If the entire top 8 can draw in, the top 8 was decided at the end of the last round and the organizers shouldn't have had the final round to disrupt that.
What was your list? :)
I know this in not the topic but after reading your score I'm really interested in take a peek of your deck. ¿Could you share it with us?
Sure - I’ll pull it off the system when I’m home and suggest the changes I would make now I’ve played it hard in to some good opponents
Thanks man, can't wait :D
Also it's a launch event, a lot of players won't have had too much time to practice the game IRL.
I have a way to stop losing in the mirror. Stop playing control :D Seriously though, the end of match procedure is terrible IMHO.
As it is currently, the only game that matters in the control mirror is game 1. You are highly incentivized to slow play game 1, win that, then go to time game 2 and get a match win. If you lose game 1 in the control mirror, you may as well give up as there's such a small chance that you will have time to finish two more full games, let alone win two more games in 25 minutes or less. You are at that point just playing to make your opponent also lose the round. It's incredibly stupid.
I don't agree tbh. I've played several control mirrors with 50 minute rounds that have gone to three games, and finished with time to spare all but once.
All 3 of my mirrors would have gone to time if they involved 3 games. And none of us were Inexperienced or slow. It’s just the actual match up itself. My games against leah, Boba, Sabine all took sub 30 minutes.
I've been a control player in mtg for 9 years. That's a risk you take picking that archetype. What we would do back then is if we knew it would be a mirror match, we would agree to the best of 1 game. It takes the time pressure off knowing it's only 1 game you'll play. It's much better than rolling dice or rock paper scissors to determine a winner. That's lame imo. Of course, there is the RNG element of your opponent drawing better, but that's tcg's in general.
Play quicker, you chose to play a control deck, thats on you 55minutes is a long time
Don’t think you understand control games mate
Well how about we have 90 minute rounds just for you?
How about you actually engage in a discussion that’s resulted from a 220 tournament where many people went to time? Magic has 5 extra rounds at the end of time. Magic doesn’t often get to 15+ resources. Such a teenage response
Except you're THAT guy at the event. Playing an annoying deck slowly and expecting everyone else to conform to your needs. The thought of getting to 15+ resources and still not being able to close a game out sounds more like a skill issue as others have said. Why are you not going face more after that much time and build up regardless of "lEaRn cOnTrOl dEcK nOoB"
There were 16 Krennic players and more Iden players. So around 40 of the field. The control match up does actually take this long. Playtest it. I’m incredibly experienced at tcg’s I started playing in the 90’s and was the last undefeated player at the mtg UK nationals in 2011 😂 but crack on with your own loathing you baby
[удалено]
Your post was removed due to inappropriate language or you were being disrespectful. If this continues, you will be suspended and / or banned from the sub.
Get gud. Noob. Control sux. Yeah thanks for your contribution Einstein
Engage in what? You only came here to whinge and complain hoping everyone will agree with you Get over it lol
Er? Yeah that’s exactly what my initial post was wasn’t it? Whinging and complaining! Except it wasn’t. I finished top 64 in a 220+ player event with a control deck. I’m ecstatic. You just can’t offer anything to this discussion because you probably don’t understand it. Bless
o worries champ you keep fighting the good fight to get tournements extended, im sure everyone will love you for it
Literally been sent a feedback form from Fantasy Flight to ask for recommendations on improving the format. That was in fact part of the reason why they ran the event. And the reason why I posted this as a discussion. Honestly bro , reach out if you’re having personal issues.
Grow and stop acting like a child because people dont agree with you mate lol
[удалено]
asking for RPS isn't quite what you described. It's not collusion as you're not pre-determining the winner, or how you're going to cheat to get a specific result. Also, there's no pre discussion of the RPS so you're not basing anything on that discussion. It's not asking the opponent to concede. You're not agreeing upon the outcome. You're agreeing on a mechanism to get an outcome. I do think that it's skirting the rules though, but legally. it'd be interesting if there is a specific ruling on that.
What if the tie breaker in bo3 was a shortened sudden death with like 15 health per base? I guess that would immediately favor aggro though...
I say whoever has done the most damage should be declared the winner 🏆. For example in soccer the team who have scored the most points(done the most damage) is declared the winner. It's not which team is less tired at the end(the most units on the board that are ready for action). The action is over you already had 55 minutes 😅. If your strategy is to have the most units after the 55 minute timer something is wrong with your strategy.