Time limit variant for finals
Yomyael wrote: During the final, everyone is under a lot of pressure and tries to think everything through to the end before taking any action, maybe even discussing a few minutes over possible outcomes before anouncing anything. So, naturally, turns take more time. And there are no further chances.
The existing tournament rules account for that possibility by allowing the final to have a different time limit than the preliminary rounds.
It's also worth bearing in mind that the players in the final round will (in general, factoring in luck and players bringing experimental decks etc.) be the better players at the tournament, so a number of things will go quicker - less need for players to pick up and read cards they've not seen before as an inexperienced new player might.
Yomyael wrote: It is that game, that moment, and loosing it because a clock says you have to stop now... I would find that very unsatisfying.
This will continue to happen under the proposed variant - it will just sometimes happen at a different time.
Yomyael wrote: This will not happen during finals, even though the other player would take the game - sometimes even a few minutes would be enough.
And this will continue to happen under the proposed variant. A player might be able to mop up the rest of the table if there are 15 extra minutes from each oust but not if there are 10, because she needs the extra five minutes to oust her prey (a formidable wall) before going on to everyone else.
First of all, I personally think that it is great that we can test different systems for finals, as I believe the system is not perfect as it is, and its good that there is something happening in order to change that.
The problem is that the issue with the finals system is not that straight forward, and not only about the time limit. This is something we have talked about a lot in Finland. Earlier this summer, in the 10th Hiekkaharju Nightmares tournament, there was a situation in the finals, where the top seed could have back ousted his predator, who already had a VP, just to get 10 more minutes to play, and secure his VP. And get 10 more minutes to play etc. After long discussion about what happened there, we came into a conclusion that this change can be ultimately very unhealthy for the game, as it can change the dynamics of the game hugely. The thing is, that with each oust giving more time to finish the game, it becomes a viable strategy for the top seed, to start giving VPs to his grand predators one by one, and winning the tournament like that. It is true that this is not possible with every deck, and has been a strategy that could have been used before too, longer time just makes it actually viable in some cases. Even as a possibility this seems very abusive and can break the game totally in the finals. Making the most important game of the tournament kind of a "non game" in the first place.
There is also other problems with the system. Getting more play time for ousts makes decks and cards that slow down the game considerably more rewarding, as if you can slow down the game, and be consistent, it can become really hard for anyone else to do anything relevant. And when the time is getting low, you can just start ousting people and getting more time to get more people down. So this doesn't really even solve the issue of top seed playing slow just to win by time. The change even makes it more viable strategy, as there is less of a risk of losing to some one else lunging successfully.
Both of these examples favor same kind of decks. Decks that are consistent and can play slow, and have the possibility of some kind of table control. Namely wall decks, MMPA decks and combat decks in some cases.
Prince of Joensuu, Finland