It’s interesting to note, the original floor rule revisions proposed the 5/3 point split. And there was a substantial outcry on the PT forums against it (for the reasons I identified above). Even a 5-4-0 split would be preferable.
Question: What does 5-3-0 achieve that 5-4-0 would not achieve?
I guess it’s your call, since it’s your show. I think it’s pretty terrible, but I’m only one person :).
It was felt that 5-4-0 did not represent sufficient threat to someone playing a stall deck as someone going X-0 with a stall deck would still make any cut at an event. 5-3-0 actually makes it that a stall deck is highly unlikely to make a cut.
If anyone is suspected of spite stalling a judge should be called. Over the coming few weeks and months I hope to put on the forum a Judges guide, Within this guide will be a section on how to deal with stalling.
Please do not think that we are not listening to you as any and all feedback we get is greatfully recieved and will be taken into consideration on future decisions
It’s disappointing to hear that the possibility for an undefeated deck to not make the cut is considered a feature and not a failure of the tournament rules.
I don’t quite understand your point about newcomers Pr0digy. You’d like the game to be more friendly toward them (by coddling maybe?), but still want to win at time without costing you points? Or is it that you’d like to give newbies (who might play slower) full credit for any win? The latter makes sense to me, the former not so much.
As for the specific floor rules, my only input is that any attempt to make the game more accessible is wise. While I will personally revel in all expansions, I think the challenge PBE faces is attracting new players. If they see stall decks as a barrier to entry, well, let them use all the tools at their disposal.
@bithlord : I agree that the ideal situation is a balanced environment based on good card design, but the whole purpose of floor rules is to modulate; tighten up an otherwise loose/casual game into a competitive scene. It seems to me that tournament procedures, by necessity, shape the meta.
Both, actually. I want to be able to help the new player along as we play, and answer whatever questions come about instead of being completely tight-lipped any worrying about winning at time. And there have been times that I’ve played as fast as I could in a tournament against a new player, and was CLEARLY winning for the last 20+ minutes, but just couldn’t finish out the game because of the slow pace. Personally I will still be as helpful as I can in that situation (even if I’m a little frustrated), but I can see less-patient people getting upset.
Folks keep saying you can just call a judge over when you think they are playing too slowly. First off, unless it’s painfully obvious the person is stalling I will never do that (and I know lots of folks who won’t, either) and secondly, it’s a terrible feeling as a new person to have a judge called over on you because you aren’t fast enough.
All these things can lead to bad experiences for new(ish) folks, and resentment of the new players by the veteran players.
Maybe this is too complicated for organized play, but what if the penalty for winning at time (currently 2 point penalty) only kicked in at the 2nd or 3rd game won at time? First game is free (5 points), 2nd game you only get 4 points, and the rest of your games at time get 3 points? That would have to depend on total rounds, I suppose, but just tossing an idea out there. At least it would have the desired effect of punishing habitually win-at-time decks, and not punish everyone who happens to either play against a slow player or who happens to have an epic, super close match.
You guys throw up some very interesting suggestions, which are all being banked in our “what if we have it wrong and need to change” repository, many thanks
Community,
In light of the discussion here, I wanted to run by how I intend to run my OP Kit Tournaments in a way that accommodates both curious new players and traveling veterans.
For new players:
If we get an odd number of new players, I will pair with them for the first round to help learn the mechanics and strategies of the game.
If we get an even number, I will step out of the tournament and help the pairings learn the ropes similarly.
On subsequent rounds, I will offer help with rules questions (only).
For veterans:
Standard tournament rules with one deviation. When time is called, the current player finishes their noon play, then their opponent gets on final noon play, then sundown is enforced.
All other Floor Rules (v1.1) will be in full effect.
…
In short, the support is intended to create a welcoming environment for new players (help with rules), while at the same maintain the integrity of a friendly competitive environment (faster play in encouraged).
Thoughts?
Looks sensible and thumbs up to helping any new/less experienced players. We did a bit of this at the recent Edinburgh sheriff and it was great. 
Giving someone the last action can drive a large control point swing, particularly when they’re certain it’s the last action. For that reason I like slightly towards just following the standard rules for calling time but can see arguments for either. The new 55 minute rounds make going to time significantly less likely. 
Other things that might be worth considering:
Later on in the Pinebox era it might be worth considering restricted format tournaments: 2x Base Set then allowing each player one pinebox and one saddle bag? Or 2x Base Set, one expansion and 4x one other card etc. This can help level the playing format between players by both shifting the environment (so experience matters less!) and lowering the entry barriers (by requiring fewer expansions).
Jordan, I think that is a fantastic way to run an OP tourney. They aren’t meant to be super competitive in the first place, so nobody will complain about the pre-matched pairs. Overall, given the current floor rules, I think that’s a good mix of being friendly to new players and also keeping it at last somewhat competitive.
Really, though, with OP kits you should just be doing whatever your particular crowd thinks is best - I’m sure they were meant to be pretty flexible. But when it comes to the Sheriff/Outlaw/Marshal tournament, that model clearly doesn’t work quite the same. What to do in those cases?
In a related tangent, I played in an OP tourney this weekend, using the blessed deck I’ve been tuning on and off since Tolarios was introduced. I went to time in 2/3 of my games. One was just a game that was a little slow paced, but overall just didn’t see much action one way or the other. The other was against a less experienced player, so naturally things will go slower. At the very end of that game all I wanted to do for the last 5 minutes was simply move a guy from my home to an adjacent deed, then call out her dude. That whole time I was able to move my dude, and that’s it.
It just really highlights the frustration of not getting at least ONE action after a slow opponent runs out the clock. In this case I really did not care as it was a very casual OP tournament, and I was actually really happy when we counted the totals and she won (“maybe she’ll come back for more” I thought!) but, for the purpose of this discussion, I had no chance to react. If you are slow and you run out the clock, you block your opponent from any action. That’s far worse than getting the final action and somehow sneaking in a last second victory. Chances are that time will be called during the slow players turn (not always, of course, but odds are with that), so it’s only fair to give the other person one last chance to react.
Basically at this point I never want to play (in a more serious tournament) blessed, gadgets, or any other deck that takes time to build up before going for the win. The 5-3-0 penalty for winning at time is just too steep and too likely to happen even if both players play at a moderate pace. Like bithlord mentioned, it’s better to go 2-1 before time than 3-0 at time.
This sort of point system will likely be largely inconsequential with tournaments of 8-16 people, since there aren’t a lot of rounds (and thus your chances of playing multiple slow/newer folks or having a very close game are lower). So maybe this is largely inconsequential, but for larger tournaments I bet over time there would be a very heavy leaning to the decks that are geared toward turn 1 shootouts and town square camping.
Maybe I’m just particularly unlucky with games going to time. I’m definitely far from a slow player and I don’t play slide, fortress, or showboating type decks, so I don’t know. I hope if there is a higher level competitive series, like the Outlaw, that we can keep track of which & how many games go to time to see how (or if) it affects things. I just fear that with the 5-3-0 floor rules that we might be throwing a whole bunch of decks under the bus along with the pure slide/showboating/stalling decks.