Timeouts in Finals: Do they happen too often?

as such as 13 card retrival from ash heap

You are VASTLY overestimating the amount of decision-making it takes to dig up 13 cards. And if it's not, you're not ready to play Ashur decks which should give a judge even more incentive to tell you to move on instead of making everyone else wait.

Even in final a judge can't force a player to set aside his cards in advance for a future AT

A jugde can *certainly* force a player to complete his Ashur cycle in ~90 seconds. If that means said player needs to start earlier, then so be it.

I just don't understand why most VTES players are so protective of disruptively slow play. I'd guess it's because judges are afraid to piss off players and end up with even less turnup in tournaments.

Anecdotal, this weekend I was watching the M:TG Return to Ravnica pro-tour events. Obviously, it being the pro-tour there is a lot more at stake than an entry in Jeff's TWDA and some boosters you don't really need.

There was a French player who was playing a rather technical deck and was facing a fairly complicated situation where he had some tough decisions to make. The guy was *genuinly* considering his options and trying to make the best play given the situation, but it was taking ages.

BAM! Without warning, a judge comes in, gives him his (second) slowplay warning of the day and with it a loss in that game. In game five (of a best of five) he gets ANOTHER warning and it took the head judge to not transform that into another game loss.

I mean, sure, that might be on the harsh side but that's what good judges should be doing. I don't agree with Kevin a lot, but here he's 100% spot-on: get better judges.

Izaak wrote:

I mean, sure, that might be on the harsh side but that's what good judges should be doing. I don't agree with Kevin a lot, but here he's 100% spot-on: get better judges.

It's a question of what tournament are for. If you believe that the focus is on player skill (like in MTG big tournament), it's perfectly fine. If you believe that the tournament are a way to meet up and play, then it's not.

It's a question of what tournament are for. If you believe that the focus is on player skill (like in MTG big tournament), it's perfectly fine. If you believe that the tournament are a way to meet up and play, then it's not.

What I think tournaments are doesn't matter. Tournaments are by their very nature a way to pit players against one another in a competitive environment. You can have your "meet up and play" at friday night, like everyone else.

And even then, if I play a tournament for my enjoyment and/or meet players (which is certainly part of reason I'm attending whichever I can) I expect to have a good times. If someone is taking 5 minutes for his master phase, then I'm not having a good time because he's playing obnoxiously slow.

I'm just ackowledging a fact: many people tend to play slow,

Yes, this is a fact and I'm fairly sure that was more or less my first response in this thread. People just play slow in general. Slower than they should.

certain cards (such as AT) are just a call to play even slower
Period

That is not a fact. That is your opinion.

It is my opinion (as well as experience) that if you know what you're doing, Ashur Tablets don't take up a disproportionate amount of time. When you're just throwing Ashur Tablets in a deck because all the cool kids do so while you don't really have a reason, or a clue as to why, how or when use then, then yes they take up a disproportionate amount of time. But then again, ANYTHING those players do take up stupid amounts of time.

KevinM wrote:

You mean high SEED. Everyone in the final below #1 needs to continue to play offensively until either they have 2vp or are #1 seed themselves.

Yes, #1 becomes a "defensive" and not offensive player in the finals, but since everyone knows who #1 is, that player should have 3-4 predators, unless the rest of the players at the table are complete amateurs.

While not as certain as for the top seed, anyone can win with 1.5VP as long as only lower seeds have scored any and managed to stayed alive. In a 1.5-0.5-0.5-0.5-0 split, the 1.5 always wins, no matter what his seed is.

What you say suggests another system: if the game times out without a GW (so not in the case of a 2-2 draw), then the winner is the highest seed still alive, irrespective of VPs scored. That would work much closer to what you describe. It would probably favor offensive play, but wouldn't it warp the table dynamics too much?