Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: I can't stand how tiebreakers work

  1. #1

    I can't stand how tiebreakers work

    I don't know if this is standard everywhere - I was told this is how WizKids does it and has it said to do... I didn't bother looking it up because either way, if they do say to do it this way, they're dumb, and if not, the other person is, and either way, you can't fight City Hall (or the Judge who takes it as a personal affront when a ruling or general idea is questioned, as if you just insulted their mother - none of that in this situation, everyone was pretty cool, it's just the actual rule I have a problem with)

    Anyway... plenty of teams rely on going down to low life and then swinging hard at the right time.

    In fact, just look at Silver Surfer - Sky Rider, there's even a card directly made for that strategy.

    Anyway, I was playing in a draft and it wasn't smart to attack, but I could've gotten him down to possible even life (we were on turns), and then it ended at like, 11 to 7 or something, and I automatically lost because he had more life.

    That's ridiculous, and if what I'm told is indeed true, it applies to constructed as well?

    It all ties back into how you aren't allowed to go over 20 life either, which is just stupid, and I think a shortsighted result of WizKids not wanting to have to re-make mats and have mad customers who don't want to buy another, and claim that their mat isn't "perfect" anymore - I really don't know, obviously.

    What I do know though, is that with the current rules setup, it literally encourages you to play to the clock/turns, and not how you normally would, and it completely ****s with anything that's not straight aggro, because I had planned on going to a lower life and letting his dudes go into used, and then attacking back. I think lots of people plan on that.

    If you just start going to turns and whoever has the most life at the end wins, that's a mockery of the past 30+ minutes I just spent playing trying to set up, and even if it's a timed game, nobody should have to build for that... worst case scenario IMO is to have a tiebreaker of who had the harder schedule (basically, add up the wins and losses of the opponents of each of the two people playing in the tied game, and give the win to the person who played people with more wins than the other person).

    This, though... it's just actively telling me that certain types of decks and cards are completely useless if I have an opponent that knows how to stall without being obvious, which really isn't hard; it also tells me that playing anything but aggro is stupid, and basically cuts off a whole percentage of potential cards that I will ever play when going to a timed tournament from now on.

    I really don't mind losing - I do it a lot, just look at my ladder record on this site. I'm bothered by incompletely and poorly thought through rules. I'm bothered by playing very judiciously and carefully to set up the big one, to have my opponent realize they can then just get me to a lower life than they're at when turns are called, doing something they wouldn't normally do if there weren't turns, because they would end up dying the next turn if they really did that move taking me to just below them in life and I had a chance to retaliate, or vice versa - I wouldn't like winning like that.

    There just... has to be a better way. They need to simply make each round 45 minutes and have it be the best 2/3 with chess clocks set to 7.5 minutes each per round, or 22.5 minutes for all 3 games, or whatever the time limit is, divided in two.

    Also, it just really ruins your night (it's happened to me, I've seen it happen to almost everyone else) when you have an opponent that you can tell is moving just slow enough that you'd be called a jerk if you tried to call them out; the couple of times I have called someone out, more time was taken out of the game (not just Dice Masters) trying to figure it all out and sort it out, than if I'd just continued to play and have the person stall.

    I just have a really bad taste in my mouth the way that they literally have you put "points" on the score sheet you sign, as if your ending life being higher than your opponents', when you haven't killed them, is any indicator of having a better team.
    Last edited by SlapsterMcFlash; 05-26-2015 at 10:37 PM.

  2. #2

  3. #3
    If you had evened out your life totals that would have made it a tie game correct? Wouldn't that have been better than losing? As for the way time is called, that is entirely up to the location running the event, but the industry standards are very similar to what you have described, across most CCG/CDGs including Magic.

    Yes this can benefit the aggro teams, but if you know the ax is coming it's all about playing to that new win condition. Flexibility of pilot and strategy is just as much a test of a deck as "can I win THIS way?". Sure, you can win going first, lose going second, but can you win in X amount of time in game 3? If not, here's the new win conditions based on the clock and turns. If a turns warning is called, be sure to turn up your aggression, plan your big swing and take it. If you can't win in 2-3 turns (assuming 2-3 turns have already occurred) then you are either missing important dice rolls or your deck is just not at the speed of some other decks. There are many a deck that wins in 5-6 turns, and I'm talking control types as well as pure aggro types.

    Not to say you didn't do everything you could, and I understand the frustration of others taking their turns slower than you, but remember, it's just a game. If they want to stall out and waste time, turn the tables on them. Start talking casually like you don't care how long they are taking. Use the conversation to throw them off their game. Don't be aggressive or confrontational because then they know they are getting under your skin. Instead be smooth and play it like you've already counted 5 steps ahead and they're playing into your trap. This will make them second guess themselves and take a wrong move. Or, cause them to waste even more time and others will notice that they are taking an exorbitant amount of time. Once others start noticing, then it becomes them holding up everyone instead of you appearing to be the one complaining in a "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

    Remember, play it cool and smug, they might think you're a bit of a know-it-all, but at least they don't think you're complaining. Then if they beat you they will feel like they bested a challenging opponent and be friendlier to you. It has worked for me in every game I've learned to play.

    To summarize; the rules you describe sound like standard fare for the competitive environment across multiple games. The best way to handle people who stall their turns is to chat with them, distract them more and bring others to the table to watch your match. They will see, without you having to tell them, just how slow your opponent is going. When it's not your turn, be friendly, conversational and confident, others will see that you are taking the game seriously, and are confident you will win or perform well. If you lose others will respect you more for not complaining, and if you win others will see you as skilled and may even ask you for advice.

  4. #4
    I just read the website rules and it says: "1.2.3
    Ties in Matches: Players may tie a best of 3 series in Dice Masters in a number of ways:
     Both players have won the same number of games and have equal life totals after time is called and any extra turns or
    time extensions have concluded.
     Both players have won the same number of games and all other games in their best of 3 series end in a tie.
    1.2.4
    Victory: Victory in each game is determined as described in the latest Dice Masters Rulebook and any official errata or
    clarifications. A win is worth three points, a draw is worth one point, and a loss worth zero points." on http://dicemasters.com/wp-content/up...t-Document.pdf ,

    but I know they don't JUST mean it's a tie if each person has the same umber of points - that's a classic Wizkids typo/grammar mistake. Otherwise, the chance of a game ending in both players with the same life is so low, to put it in such a prominent position is just silly.

    I would really love some help clarifying this.

  5. #5
    You cannot draw a game. You can only draw a round.

  6. #6
    Oh, and, what is described is the WizKids official way of doing it.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmeld View Post
    If you had evened out your life totals that would have made it a tie game correct? Wouldn't that have been better than losing? As for the way time is called, that is entirely up to the location running the event, but the industry standards are very similar to what you have described, across most CCG/CDGs including Magic.

    Yes this can benefit the aggro teams, but if you know the ax is coming it's all about playing to that new win condition. Flexibility of pilot and strategy is just as much a test of a deck as "can I win THIS way?". Sure, you can win going first, lose going second, but can you win in X amount of time in game 3? If not, here's the new win conditions based on the clock and turns. If a turns warning is called, be sure to turn up your aggression, plan your big swing and take it. If you can't win in 2-3 turns (assuming 2-3 turns have already occurred) then you are either missing important dice rolls or your deck is just not at the speed of some other decks. There are many a deck that wins in 5-6 turns, and I'm talking control types as well as pure aggro types.

    Not to say you didn't do everything you could, and I understand the frustration of others taking their turns slower than you, but remember, it's just a game. If they want to stall out and waste time, turn the tables on them. Start talking casually like you don't care how long they are taking. Use the conversation to throw them off their game. Don't be aggressive or confrontational because then they know they are getting under your skin. Instead be smooth and play it like you've already counted 5 steps ahead and they're playing into your trap. This will make them second guess themselves and take a wrong move. Or, cause them to waste even more time and others will notice that they are taking an exorbitant amount of time. Once others start noticing, then it becomes them holding up everyone instead of you appearing to be the one complaining in a "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

    Remember, play it cool and smug, they might think you're a bit of a know-it-all, but at least they don't think you're complaining. Then if they beat you they will feel like they bested a challenging opponent and be friendlier to you. It has worked for me in every game I've learned to play.

    To summarize; the rules you describe sound like standard fare for the competitive environment across multiple games. The best way to handle people who stall their turns is to chat with them, distract them more and bring others to the table to watch your match. They will see, without you having to tell them, just how slow your opponent is going. When it's not your turn, be friendly, conversational and confident, others will see that you are taking the game seriously, and are confident you will win or perform well. If you lose others will respect you more for not complaining, and if you win others will see you as skilled and may even ask you for advice.
    The problem is that the store is running it without the 0 point loss, 1 point tie, 3 point win. When it says points on the scoresheets above winner where they initial, it means 0, 1, or 3, or else it would say life.

    Also, that quote from the rulebok says "in a number of ways," but then lists only two, which is a classic case of WizKids editing.

    Either way, I've never played at a store like this before.

    And yes, I know all about playing to the whatever - but it shouldn't be that way. We simply should have each received one point, otherwise it makes a mockery of the actual game.

    And yes, it's funny to joke around if you think someone is stalling (not saying it happened here), but really, it's not when they end up controlling the game and who gets what final say.

    I just have a real problem with the idea that somebody wouldn't understand why solving ties with life left is just moronic - I can't mince words, because that is, in the nicest way, how I feel. It just seems so obvious to me, especially when looking at every other successful competitive event in the world how things are run and run well, that this is a shortsighted, one-sided way of making decisions, demonstrating a clear lack of critical thinking ability on the part of the person deciding to decide games in that manner. Just how I feel.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    Oh, and, what is described is the WizKids official way of doing it.
    Well, I guess I have a problem with how WizKids does it. It's just so obvious to me how many better ways there are to go about it, that it baffles the mind. The game isn't 100% set up where loss of life is the sole indicator of who is winning or is going to win, nor do they give many opportunities to gain life, and you still can't go over 20, so there's a litany wrong in this situation and I appreciate that my home store doesn't play those games.

    It's honestly insulting to anybody who plays any other competitive sport or game, and sees how real brackets and whatnot work. Especially because the game is self professed, simply by looking at the available cards, meant to have decks that take life and go lower winning.

    But I was wrong, oh well.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    You cannot draw a game. You can only draw a round.
    You can actually tie a game, it's in the rule book.

    Pg. 11 of the AoU rulebook:
    WINNING
    As soon as your opponent’s life reaches zero, the game ends and you
    win! If both players would reach zero at the same time, the game ends
    in a tie.

  10. #10
    "You cannot draw a game. You can only draw a round."

    The points are for Rounds, not games.

    And you can only draw a round if it is best of three, you only play two, and it's one win each.

    It's all detailed in the WizKids tournament rules.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmeld View Post
    You can actually tie a game, it's in the rule book.

    Pg. 11 of the AoU rulebook:
    You CAN'T reach zero at the same time!

    The active player always chooses the order that simultaneous effects resolve in.

  12. #12
    Umm.. Fireball BAC would resolve the damage simultaneously. There is no order. it does damage to both players at the same time as the same effect.

  13. #13

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmeld View Post
    Umm.. Fireball BAC would resolve the damage simultaneously. There is no order. it does damage to both players at the same time as the same effect.
    Hmmm... Good point...

    So when did they change it?

    I know for sure that it explicitly states that the 'active player chooses' rule is to prevent a tied game in at least the AvX and UXM rule books.

  15. #15
    D&D did not have that line you mention, nor the line about a tie. DC did mention a tie.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by SlapsterMcFlash View Post
    The problem is that the store is running it without the 0 point loss, 1 point tie, 3 point win. When it says points on the scoresheets above winner where they initial, it means 0, 1, or 3, or else it would say life.

    Also, that quote from the rulebok says "in a number of ways," but then lists only two, which is a classic case of WizKids editing.

    Either way, I've never played at a store like this before.

    And yes, I know all about playing to the whatever - but it shouldn't be that way. We simply should have each received one point, otherwise it makes a mockery of the actual game.

    And yes, it's funny to joke around if you think someone is stalling (not saying it happened here), but really, it's not when they end up controlling the game and who gets what final say.

    I just have a real problem with the idea that somebody wouldn't understand why solving ties with life left is just moronic - I can't mince words, because that is, in the nicest way, how I feel. It just seems so obvious to me, especially when looking at every other successful competitive event in the world how things are run and run well, that this is a shortsighted, one-sided way of making decisions, demonstrating a clear lack of critical thinking ability on the part of the person deciding to decide games in that manner. Just how I feel.
    I agree, when a game goes to time and the final turn is done. The only way you should be declared the winner is if your opponent is at 0 life or less. The only exception is in single elimination brackets when having a tie isn't feasible. Those are the only times I feel a lower life total is an acceptable alternative. I will however stipulate that this would need to be explained to the players before the start of their single elimination matches.

  17. #17
    Assuming that playing the game out is not possible with store/venue time constraints. In competitive play, what is the alternative to granting the player with more life at the end of turn five the winner?

  18. #18
    This certainly isn't the only game that looks at life total when time is called.

    And if you're going to beat up WizKids for some pretty standard rules in that way we may need to shut the thread.

  19. #19
    I am actually okay with the rule as I think it puts a lot of pressure on each player as the clock winds down. We had a match come down to this last week and it was interesting/exciting enough that everyone else gathered around to watch, essentially making that game center stage. This does seem pretty standard to me in terms of many games as well and I do like that it puts a bit of a limit on some of the stall teams (let's be honest, if you could go above 20, a lot of games wouldn't end given the use of characters like Beast and other life-adders).

    Plus, this is a much better way than, say, rolling off sidekicks to break a tie!

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PurdueBrad View Post
    Plus, this is a much better way than, say, rolling off sidekicks to break a tie!
    Truth!

  21. #21

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    This certainly isn't the only game that looks at life total when time is called.

    And if you're going to beat up WizKids for some pretty standard rules in that way we may need to shut the thread.
    I feel like I can say that I think a rule is dumb without "beating up" Wizkids.

    Like, I think it really limits the game, and would hope for it to be changed.

  23. #23
    Go to them with a better solution.

    Coming on here and just saying a rule is "dumb" and "stupid" is going to come across as attacking WizKids' way of doing things.

  24. #24
    I don't mind the way tiebreakers work. I think it prevents players from walling up and just waiting until time expires. The current format could reward risk taking as the turns are winding down. I like that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •