Why are there five extra turns in tournament Magic?












20















In tournament Magic, once time is called in a round, the game stops and the players have a total of 5 "extra turns". If, after those five turns, the game is still not over, the match ends in a draw.



Why are there five extra turns? This rule seems like it gives the player who takes the first extra turn a large advantage - after all, that player has three more turns, while the opponent only has two. Why not six or some even number?










share|improve this question




















  • 5





    Is the question why there are exactly 5, not 4 or 6, extra turns, or why there are extra turns in general rather than the game just stopping when time runs out?

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:29






  • 1





    @xLeitix the former, although now that you mention it, the latter's also a good question.

    – Allure
    May 15 at 11:06
















20















In tournament Magic, once time is called in a round, the game stops and the players have a total of 5 "extra turns". If, after those five turns, the game is still not over, the match ends in a draw.



Why are there five extra turns? This rule seems like it gives the player who takes the first extra turn a large advantage - after all, that player has three more turns, while the opponent only has two. Why not six or some even number?










share|improve this question




















  • 5





    Is the question why there are exactly 5, not 4 or 6, extra turns, or why there are extra turns in general rather than the game just stopping when time runs out?

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:29






  • 1





    @xLeitix the former, although now that you mention it, the latter's also a good question.

    – Allure
    May 15 at 11:06














20












20








20


2






In tournament Magic, once time is called in a round, the game stops and the players have a total of 5 "extra turns". If, after those five turns, the game is still not over, the match ends in a draw.



Why are there five extra turns? This rule seems like it gives the player who takes the first extra turn a large advantage - after all, that player has three more turns, while the opponent only has two. Why not six or some even number?










share|improve this question
















In tournament Magic, once time is called in a round, the game stops and the players have a total of 5 "extra turns". If, after those five turns, the game is still not over, the match ends in a draw.



Why are there five extra turns? This rule seems like it gives the player who takes the first extra turn a large advantage - after all, that player has three more turns, while the opponent only has two. Why not six or some even number?







magic-the-gathering






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited May 15 at 8:05









Nij

2,7911926




2,7911926










asked May 15 at 6:17









AllureAllure

1,990622




1,990622








  • 5





    Is the question why there are exactly 5, not 4 or 6, extra turns, or why there are extra turns in general rather than the game just stopping when time runs out?

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:29






  • 1





    @xLeitix the former, although now that you mention it, the latter's also a good question.

    – Allure
    May 15 at 11:06














  • 5





    Is the question why there are exactly 5, not 4 or 6, extra turns, or why there are extra turns in general rather than the game just stopping when time runs out?

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:29






  • 1





    @xLeitix the former, although now that you mention it, the latter's also a good question.

    – Allure
    May 15 at 11:06








5




5





Is the question why there are exactly 5, not 4 or 6, extra turns, or why there are extra turns in general rather than the game just stopping when time runs out?

– xLeitix
May 15 at 10:29





Is the question why there are exactly 5, not 4 or 6, extra turns, or why there are extra turns in general rather than the game just stopping when time runs out?

– xLeitix
May 15 at 10:29




1




1





@xLeitix the former, although now that you mention it, the latter's also a good question.

– Allure
May 15 at 11:06





@xLeitix the former, although now that you mention it, the latter's also a good question.

– Allure
May 15 at 11:06










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















49














The imbalance is intentional. It gives every player an incentive to have the time limit hit during their opponent's turn, and therefore to finish their own turn quickly. As a result, it helps each tournament round stay within the time limit and reduces the need for turn extensions.



From the Tournament rules (pdf)




2.5 End-of-Match Procedure



If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn and five additional turns are played in total. This usually means that one player takes three turns and the other two, but a player taking extra turns may affect this. If a player has already passed priority in their end step when the time limit is reached, that is considered to be in their opponent’s next turn.




When the time limit hits, the currently active player finishes their turn and, as you correctly note, is disadvantaged by getting only two extra turns vs. the opponent's three. That means you do NOT want to be the active player when the time limit hits. The best way to not be the active player is to finish your turn, so you have an incentive to finish your turn as quickly as possible and pass that "hot potato" to your opponent.



Additionally, with an odd number turn extension, the non-active player also gets the last turn. In a damage race situation with creatures on both sides, the player who has the last turn does not have to plan for the opponent's backswing, and can go all out with the last attack.



By providing each player an individual incentive to play quickly (in addition to regular slow play infraction penalties), the whole tournament benefits. If the turn extension was an even number, no player would have this particular incentive to play quickly, because it wouldn't matter who the active player is at the time limit. The active player would also get the last turn, so it would be an overall benefit to the currently active player and therefore an incentive to play slowly.






share|improve this answer


























  • I don't doubt that you are right, but this is really only effective for a small subset of games where both players can realistically win in extra turns. In the vast majority of games, (at least) one player effectively plays for draw in extra turns. In these cases it is still better for the player playing for a draw to eat up clock time once time starts running out, even on the danger of them end up with the "hot potato" and one less extra turn in the end.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:34











  • (which is to say, the entirety of tournament rules around slow play and extra turns is largely held together by good faith and the, not always warranted, hope that players do the right thing)

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:36











  • Slow play in itself is punishable by the IPG, so good faith only applies when judges are not (being made) aware of slow play. You could consider the 5 extra turns rule as another measure against slow play, one that is independent of good faith or judge oversight, by providing a material advantage. Also, draws only exist in group stage, not single elimination stage: "In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. [..]"

    – Hackworth
    May 15 at 11:06











  • But it's simply not realistic to assume judges will be always be "made aware" or can even track all cases of slow play - and even if they are, you can always play slowly until your opponent calls the judge and then speed up while you are being watched. Added to this is that there is a large degree of uncertainty what actually is "too slow" for a given board state or scenario. In short, this aspect of the rules is much less cut-and-dry, and (at least in practice) assumes that players cooperate with the spirit of the rules.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 11:45






  • 3





    what you are not considering is that, it doesn't need to be your opponent calling a judge. If I'm sitting down at a GP and after my match I can see the person next to me and a player being really slow, I would simply alert a judge about it and they will slowly appear next to the player and watch him for a bit. Player is unlikely to notice the judge approaching tbh

    – fireshark519
    May 15 at 12:34



















5














The thing is, both players get 3 turns "after" time is called. The active player, or "Turn zero", as it were, will take the current turn, plus turns 2 and 4. The other player takes turns 1, 3, and 5. Yes, it is possible the current turn is only a partial turn if time is called, for example, during combat (or in the worst case, during the end step). It is also possible time is called during the untap step at which point the player is indeed getting a full turn. To account for the latter possibility, the number of extra turns is odd. In an alternate universe, the rules could account for the former possibility, in which case the extra turn count would be even.



As for the secondary question (asked in the comments), and disclaimer this is purely my opinion, it's likely because the clock is not always easily visible to all players, and "Ok, players, everyone synchronize their watches, ready, one, two, three, GO!" is not really practical in a tournament setting of any scale. The idea is that players who don't have access to the round clock have a bit of lead time to finish up whatever they're doing and aren't severely punished if they are, say, mid-sentence moving to lethal combat when time is called (to take an extreme position, while also recognizing that less extreme cases exist).






share|improve this answer
























  • I don't understand the assertion about turn zero, given the turn immediately ends when time is called (as if Sundial of the Infinite was activated). Then the next player in turn order begins turn 1 of 5. There's no "turn zero" past overtime. In regular REL that might get missed by players and go unenforced by a judge though.

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 15:36








  • 3





    @doppelgreener I'm sorry, I have never heard of such a ruling. I see you have provided a link, but I am unable to find the passage on that page which provides evidence of your claim. Can you be a bit more specific? It's possible you are misunderstanding something.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:48






  • 4





    Aha, upon rereading that page I see where the confusion arises: "If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn". Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but there is a difference between "...player...finishes their turn" and "the turn is finished". In the former, the player has agency to continue performing game actions on the turn until its natural conclusion. In the latter, as you stated, the turn is ended immediately. The former is the wording used.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:58








  • 3





    I'm a native English speaker and I understand them to mean the same thing. Maybe I've misunderstood. Let me ask a question on that... boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/…

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 16:07













  • @doppelgreener Out of respect, I am not going to answer your question, although I will keep an eye on the responses.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 16:14












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "147"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47252%2fwhy-are-there-five-extra-turns-in-tournament-magic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









49














The imbalance is intentional. It gives every player an incentive to have the time limit hit during their opponent's turn, and therefore to finish their own turn quickly. As a result, it helps each tournament round stay within the time limit and reduces the need for turn extensions.



From the Tournament rules (pdf)




2.5 End-of-Match Procedure



If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn and five additional turns are played in total. This usually means that one player takes three turns and the other two, but a player taking extra turns may affect this. If a player has already passed priority in their end step when the time limit is reached, that is considered to be in their opponent’s next turn.




When the time limit hits, the currently active player finishes their turn and, as you correctly note, is disadvantaged by getting only two extra turns vs. the opponent's three. That means you do NOT want to be the active player when the time limit hits. The best way to not be the active player is to finish your turn, so you have an incentive to finish your turn as quickly as possible and pass that "hot potato" to your opponent.



Additionally, with an odd number turn extension, the non-active player also gets the last turn. In a damage race situation with creatures on both sides, the player who has the last turn does not have to plan for the opponent's backswing, and can go all out with the last attack.



By providing each player an individual incentive to play quickly (in addition to regular slow play infraction penalties), the whole tournament benefits. If the turn extension was an even number, no player would have this particular incentive to play quickly, because it wouldn't matter who the active player is at the time limit. The active player would also get the last turn, so it would be an overall benefit to the currently active player and therefore an incentive to play slowly.






share|improve this answer


























  • I don't doubt that you are right, but this is really only effective for a small subset of games where both players can realistically win in extra turns. In the vast majority of games, (at least) one player effectively plays for draw in extra turns. In these cases it is still better for the player playing for a draw to eat up clock time once time starts running out, even on the danger of them end up with the "hot potato" and one less extra turn in the end.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:34











  • (which is to say, the entirety of tournament rules around slow play and extra turns is largely held together by good faith and the, not always warranted, hope that players do the right thing)

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:36











  • Slow play in itself is punishable by the IPG, so good faith only applies when judges are not (being made) aware of slow play. You could consider the 5 extra turns rule as another measure against slow play, one that is independent of good faith or judge oversight, by providing a material advantage. Also, draws only exist in group stage, not single elimination stage: "In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. [..]"

    – Hackworth
    May 15 at 11:06











  • But it's simply not realistic to assume judges will be always be "made aware" or can even track all cases of slow play - and even if they are, you can always play slowly until your opponent calls the judge and then speed up while you are being watched. Added to this is that there is a large degree of uncertainty what actually is "too slow" for a given board state or scenario. In short, this aspect of the rules is much less cut-and-dry, and (at least in practice) assumes that players cooperate with the spirit of the rules.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 11:45






  • 3





    what you are not considering is that, it doesn't need to be your opponent calling a judge. If I'm sitting down at a GP and after my match I can see the person next to me and a player being really slow, I would simply alert a judge about it and they will slowly appear next to the player and watch him for a bit. Player is unlikely to notice the judge approaching tbh

    – fireshark519
    May 15 at 12:34
















49














The imbalance is intentional. It gives every player an incentive to have the time limit hit during their opponent's turn, and therefore to finish their own turn quickly. As a result, it helps each tournament round stay within the time limit and reduces the need for turn extensions.



From the Tournament rules (pdf)




2.5 End-of-Match Procedure



If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn and five additional turns are played in total. This usually means that one player takes three turns and the other two, but a player taking extra turns may affect this. If a player has already passed priority in their end step when the time limit is reached, that is considered to be in their opponent’s next turn.




When the time limit hits, the currently active player finishes their turn and, as you correctly note, is disadvantaged by getting only two extra turns vs. the opponent's three. That means you do NOT want to be the active player when the time limit hits. The best way to not be the active player is to finish your turn, so you have an incentive to finish your turn as quickly as possible and pass that "hot potato" to your opponent.



Additionally, with an odd number turn extension, the non-active player also gets the last turn. In a damage race situation with creatures on both sides, the player who has the last turn does not have to plan for the opponent's backswing, and can go all out with the last attack.



By providing each player an individual incentive to play quickly (in addition to regular slow play infraction penalties), the whole tournament benefits. If the turn extension was an even number, no player would have this particular incentive to play quickly, because it wouldn't matter who the active player is at the time limit. The active player would also get the last turn, so it would be an overall benefit to the currently active player and therefore an incentive to play slowly.






share|improve this answer


























  • I don't doubt that you are right, but this is really only effective for a small subset of games where both players can realistically win in extra turns. In the vast majority of games, (at least) one player effectively plays for draw in extra turns. In these cases it is still better for the player playing for a draw to eat up clock time once time starts running out, even on the danger of them end up with the "hot potato" and one less extra turn in the end.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:34











  • (which is to say, the entirety of tournament rules around slow play and extra turns is largely held together by good faith and the, not always warranted, hope that players do the right thing)

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:36











  • Slow play in itself is punishable by the IPG, so good faith only applies when judges are not (being made) aware of slow play. You could consider the 5 extra turns rule as another measure against slow play, one that is independent of good faith or judge oversight, by providing a material advantage. Also, draws only exist in group stage, not single elimination stage: "In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. [..]"

    – Hackworth
    May 15 at 11:06











  • But it's simply not realistic to assume judges will be always be "made aware" or can even track all cases of slow play - and even if they are, you can always play slowly until your opponent calls the judge and then speed up while you are being watched. Added to this is that there is a large degree of uncertainty what actually is "too slow" for a given board state or scenario. In short, this aspect of the rules is much less cut-and-dry, and (at least in practice) assumes that players cooperate with the spirit of the rules.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 11:45






  • 3





    what you are not considering is that, it doesn't need to be your opponent calling a judge. If I'm sitting down at a GP and after my match I can see the person next to me and a player being really slow, I would simply alert a judge about it and they will slowly appear next to the player and watch him for a bit. Player is unlikely to notice the judge approaching tbh

    – fireshark519
    May 15 at 12:34














49












49








49







The imbalance is intentional. It gives every player an incentive to have the time limit hit during their opponent's turn, and therefore to finish their own turn quickly. As a result, it helps each tournament round stay within the time limit and reduces the need for turn extensions.



From the Tournament rules (pdf)




2.5 End-of-Match Procedure



If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn and five additional turns are played in total. This usually means that one player takes three turns and the other two, but a player taking extra turns may affect this. If a player has already passed priority in their end step when the time limit is reached, that is considered to be in their opponent’s next turn.




When the time limit hits, the currently active player finishes their turn and, as you correctly note, is disadvantaged by getting only two extra turns vs. the opponent's three. That means you do NOT want to be the active player when the time limit hits. The best way to not be the active player is to finish your turn, so you have an incentive to finish your turn as quickly as possible and pass that "hot potato" to your opponent.



Additionally, with an odd number turn extension, the non-active player also gets the last turn. In a damage race situation with creatures on both sides, the player who has the last turn does not have to plan for the opponent's backswing, and can go all out with the last attack.



By providing each player an individual incentive to play quickly (in addition to regular slow play infraction penalties), the whole tournament benefits. If the turn extension was an even number, no player would have this particular incentive to play quickly, because it wouldn't matter who the active player is at the time limit. The active player would also get the last turn, so it would be an overall benefit to the currently active player and therefore an incentive to play slowly.






share|improve this answer















The imbalance is intentional. It gives every player an incentive to have the time limit hit during their opponent's turn, and therefore to finish their own turn quickly. As a result, it helps each tournament round stay within the time limit and reduces the need for turn extensions.



From the Tournament rules (pdf)




2.5 End-of-Match Procedure



If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn and five additional turns are played in total. This usually means that one player takes three turns and the other two, but a player taking extra turns may affect this. If a player has already passed priority in their end step when the time limit is reached, that is considered to be in their opponent’s next turn.




When the time limit hits, the currently active player finishes their turn and, as you correctly note, is disadvantaged by getting only two extra turns vs. the opponent's three. That means you do NOT want to be the active player when the time limit hits. The best way to not be the active player is to finish your turn, so you have an incentive to finish your turn as quickly as possible and pass that "hot potato" to your opponent.



Additionally, with an odd number turn extension, the non-active player also gets the last turn. In a damage race situation with creatures on both sides, the player who has the last turn does not have to plan for the opponent's backswing, and can go all out with the last attack.



By providing each player an individual incentive to play quickly (in addition to regular slow play infraction penalties), the whole tournament benefits. If the turn extension was an even number, no player would have this particular incentive to play quickly, because it wouldn't matter who the active player is at the time limit. The active player would also get the last turn, so it would be an overall benefit to the currently active player and therefore an incentive to play slowly.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited May 15 at 17:24

























answered May 15 at 7:14









HackworthHackworth

29.9k283134




29.9k283134













  • I don't doubt that you are right, but this is really only effective for a small subset of games where both players can realistically win in extra turns. In the vast majority of games, (at least) one player effectively plays for draw in extra turns. In these cases it is still better for the player playing for a draw to eat up clock time once time starts running out, even on the danger of them end up with the "hot potato" and one less extra turn in the end.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:34











  • (which is to say, the entirety of tournament rules around slow play and extra turns is largely held together by good faith and the, not always warranted, hope that players do the right thing)

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:36











  • Slow play in itself is punishable by the IPG, so good faith only applies when judges are not (being made) aware of slow play. You could consider the 5 extra turns rule as another measure against slow play, one that is independent of good faith or judge oversight, by providing a material advantage. Also, draws only exist in group stage, not single elimination stage: "In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. [..]"

    – Hackworth
    May 15 at 11:06











  • But it's simply not realistic to assume judges will be always be "made aware" or can even track all cases of slow play - and even if they are, you can always play slowly until your opponent calls the judge and then speed up while you are being watched. Added to this is that there is a large degree of uncertainty what actually is "too slow" for a given board state or scenario. In short, this aspect of the rules is much less cut-and-dry, and (at least in practice) assumes that players cooperate with the spirit of the rules.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 11:45






  • 3





    what you are not considering is that, it doesn't need to be your opponent calling a judge. If I'm sitting down at a GP and after my match I can see the person next to me and a player being really slow, I would simply alert a judge about it and they will slowly appear next to the player and watch him for a bit. Player is unlikely to notice the judge approaching tbh

    – fireshark519
    May 15 at 12:34



















  • I don't doubt that you are right, but this is really only effective for a small subset of games where both players can realistically win in extra turns. In the vast majority of games, (at least) one player effectively plays for draw in extra turns. In these cases it is still better for the player playing for a draw to eat up clock time once time starts running out, even on the danger of them end up with the "hot potato" and one less extra turn in the end.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:34











  • (which is to say, the entirety of tournament rules around slow play and extra turns is largely held together by good faith and the, not always warranted, hope that players do the right thing)

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 10:36











  • Slow play in itself is punishable by the IPG, so good faith only applies when judges are not (being made) aware of slow play. You could consider the 5 extra turns rule as another measure against slow play, one that is independent of good faith or judge oversight, by providing a material advantage. Also, draws only exist in group stage, not single elimination stage: "In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. [..]"

    – Hackworth
    May 15 at 11:06











  • But it's simply not realistic to assume judges will be always be "made aware" or can even track all cases of slow play - and even if they are, you can always play slowly until your opponent calls the judge and then speed up while you are being watched. Added to this is that there is a large degree of uncertainty what actually is "too slow" for a given board state or scenario. In short, this aspect of the rules is much less cut-and-dry, and (at least in practice) assumes that players cooperate with the spirit of the rules.

    – xLeitix
    May 15 at 11:45






  • 3





    what you are not considering is that, it doesn't need to be your opponent calling a judge. If I'm sitting down at a GP and after my match I can see the person next to me and a player being really slow, I would simply alert a judge about it and they will slowly appear next to the player and watch him for a bit. Player is unlikely to notice the judge approaching tbh

    – fireshark519
    May 15 at 12:34

















I don't doubt that you are right, but this is really only effective for a small subset of games where both players can realistically win in extra turns. In the vast majority of games, (at least) one player effectively plays for draw in extra turns. In these cases it is still better for the player playing for a draw to eat up clock time once time starts running out, even on the danger of them end up with the "hot potato" and one less extra turn in the end.

– xLeitix
May 15 at 10:34





I don't doubt that you are right, but this is really only effective for a small subset of games where both players can realistically win in extra turns. In the vast majority of games, (at least) one player effectively plays for draw in extra turns. In these cases it is still better for the player playing for a draw to eat up clock time once time starts running out, even on the danger of them end up with the "hot potato" and one less extra turn in the end.

– xLeitix
May 15 at 10:34













(which is to say, the entirety of tournament rules around slow play and extra turns is largely held together by good faith and the, not always warranted, hope that players do the right thing)

– xLeitix
May 15 at 10:36





(which is to say, the entirety of tournament rules around slow play and extra turns is largely held together by good faith and the, not always warranted, hope that players do the right thing)

– xLeitix
May 15 at 10:36













Slow play in itself is punishable by the IPG, so good faith only applies when judges are not (being made) aware of slow play. You could consider the 5 extra turns rule as another measure against slow play, one that is independent of good faith or judge oversight, by providing a material advantage. Also, draws only exist in group stage, not single elimination stage: "In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. [..]"

– Hackworth
May 15 at 11:06





Slow play in itself is punishable by the IPG, so good faith only applies when judges are not (being made) aware of slow play. You could consider the 5 extra turns rule as another measure against slow play, one that is independent of good faith or judge oversight, by providing a material advantage. Also, draws only exist in group stage, not single elimination stage: "In single-elimination rounds, matches may not end in a draw. [..]"

– Hackworth
May 15 at 11:06













But it's simply not realistic to assume judges will be always be "made aware" or can even track all cases of slow play - and even if they are, you can always play slowly until your opponent calls the judge and then speed up while you are being watched. Added to this is that there is a large degree of uncertainty what actually is "too slow" for a given board state or scenario. In short, this aspect of the rules is much less cut-and-dry, and (at least in practice) assumes that players cooperate with the spirit of the rules.

– xLeitix
May 15 at 11:45





But it's simply not realistic to assume judges will be always be "made aware" or can even track all cases of slow play - and even if they are, you can always play slowly until your opponent calls the judge and then speed up while you are being watched. Added to this is that there is a large degree of uncertainty what actually is "too slow" for a given board state or scenario. In short, this aspect of the rules is much less cut-and-dry, and (at least in practice) assumes that players cooperate with the spirit of the rules.

– xLeitix
May 15 at 11:45




3




3





what you are not considering is that, it doesn't need to be your opponent calling a judge. If I'm sitting down at a GP and after my match I can see the person next to me and a player being really slow, I would simply alert a judge about it and they will slowly appear next to the player and watch him for a bit. Player is unlikely to notice the judge approaching tbh

– fireshark519
May 15 at 12:34





what you are not considering is that, it doesn't need to be your opponent calling a judge. If I'm sitting down at a GP and after my match I can see the person next to me and a player being really slow, I would simply alert a judge about it and they will slowly appear next to the player and watch him for a bit. Player is unlikely to notice the judge approaching tbh

– fireshark519
May 15 at 12:34











5














The thing is, both players get 3 turns "after" time is called. The active player, or "Turn zero", as it were, will take the current turn, plus turns 2 and 4. The other player takes turns 1, 3, and 5. Yes, it is possible the current turn is only a partial turn if time is called, for example, during combat (or in the worst case, during the end step). It is also possible time is called during the untap step at which point the player is indeed getting a full turn. To account for the latter possibility, the number of extra turns is odd. In an alternate universe, the rules could account for the former possibility, in which case the extra turn count would be even.



As for the secondary question (asked in the comments), and disclaimer this is purely my opinion, it's likely because the clock is not always easily visible to all players, and "Ok, players, everyone synchronize their watches, ready, one, two, three, GO!" is not really practical in a tournament setting of any scale. The idea is that players who don't have access to the round clock have a bit of lead time to finish up whatever they're doing and aren't severely punished if they are, say, mid-sentence moving to lethal combat when time is called (to take an extreme position, while also recognizing that less extreme cases exist).






share|improve this answer
























  • I don't understand the assertion about turn zero, given the turn immediately ends when time is called (as if Sundial of the Infinite was activated). Then the next player in turn order begins turn 1 of 5. There's no "turn zero" past overtime. In regular REL that might get missed by players and go unenforced by a judge though.

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 15:36








  • 3





    @doppelgreener I'm sorry, I have never heard of such a ruling. I see you have provided a link, but I am unable to find the passage on that page which provides evidence of your claim. Can you be a bit more specific? It's possible you are misunderstanding something.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:48






  • 4





    Aha, upon rereading that page I see where the confusion arises: "If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn". Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but there is a difference between "...player...finishes their turn" and "the turn is finished". In the former, the player has agency to continue performing game actions on the turn until its natural conclusion. In the latter, as you stated, the turn is ended immediately. The former is the wording used.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:58








  • 3





    I'm a native English speaker and I understand them to mean the same thing. Maybe I've misunderstood. Let me ask a question on that... boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/…

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 16:07













  • @doppelgreener Out of respect, I am not going to answer your question, although I will keep an eye on the responses.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 16:14
















5














The thing is, both players get 3 turns "after" time is called. The active player, or "Turn zero", as it were, will take the current turn, plus turns 2 and 4. The other player takes turns 1, 3, and 5. Yes, it is possible the current turn is only a partial turn if time is called, for example, during combat (or in the worst case, during the end step). It is also possible time is called during the untap step at which point the player is indeed getting a full turn. To account for the latter possibility, the number of extra turns is odd. In an alternate universe, the rules could account for the former possibility, in which case the extra turn count would be even.



As for the secondary question (asked in the comments), and disclaimer this is purely my opinion, it's likely because the clock is not always easily visible to all players, and "Ok, players, everyone synchronize their watches, ready, one, two, three, GO!" is not really practical in a tournament setting of any scale. The idea is that players who don't have access to the round clock have a bit of lead time to finish up whatever they're doing and aren't severely punished if they are, say, mid-sentence moving to lethal combat when time is called (to take an extreme position, while also recognizing that less extreme cases exist).






share|improve this answer
























  • I don't understand the assertion about turn zero, given the turn immediately ends when time is called (as if Sundial of the Infinite was activated). Then the next player in turn order begins turn 1 of 5. There's no "turn zero" past overtime. In regular REL that might get missed by players and go unenforced by a judge though.

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 15:36








  • 3





    @doppelgreener I'm sorry, I have never heard of such a ruling. I see you have provided a link, but I am unable to find the passage on that page which provides evidence of your claim. Can you be a bit more specific? It's possible you are misunderstanding something.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:48






  • 4





    Aha, upon rereading that page I see where the confusion arises: "If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn". Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but there is a difference between "...player...finishes their turn" and "the turn is finished". In the former, the player has agency to continue performing game actions on the turn until its natural conclusion. In the latter, as you stated, the turn is ended immediately. The former is the wording used.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:58








  • 3





    I'm a native English speaker and I understand them to mean the same thing. Maybe I've misunderstood. Let me ask a question on that... boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/…

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 16:07













  • @doppelgreener Out of respect, I am not going to answer your question, although I will keep an eye on the responses.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 16:14














5












5








5







The thing is, both players get 3 turns "after" time is called. The active player, or "Turn zero", as it were, will take the current turn, plus turns 2 and 4. The other player takes turns 1, 3, and 5. Yes, it is possible the current turn is only a partial turn if time is called, for example, during combat (or in the worst case, during the end step). It is also possible time is called during the untap step at which point the player is indeed getting a full turn. To account for the latter possibility, the number of extra turns is odd. In an alternate universe, the rules could account for the former possibility, in which case the extra turn count would be even.



As for the secondary question (asked in the comments), and disclaimer this is purely my opinion, it's likely because the clock is not always easily visible to all players, and "Ok, players, everyone synchronize their watches, ready, one, two, three, GO!" is not really practical in a tournament setting of any scale. The idea is that players who don't have access to the round clock have a bit of lead time to finish up whatever they're doing and aren't severely punished if they are, say, mid-sentence moving to lethal combat when time is called (to take an extreme position, while also recognizing that less extreme cases exist).






share|improve this answer













The thing is, both players get 3 turns "after" time is called. The active player, or "Turn zero", as it were, will take the current turn, plus turns 2 and 4. The other player takes turns 1, 3, and 5. Yes, it is possible the current turn is only a partial turn if time is called, for example, during combat (or in the worst case, during the end step). It is also possible time is called during the untap step at which point the player is indeed getting a full turn. To account for the latter possibility, the number of extra turns is odd. In an alternate universe, the rules could account for the former possibility, in which case the extra turn count would be even.



As for the secondary question (asked in the comments), and disclaimer this is purely my opinion, it's likely because the clock is not always easily visible to all players, and "Ok, players, everyone synchronize their watches, ready, one, two, three, GO!" is not really practical in a tournament setting of any scale. The idea is that players who don't have access to the round clock have a bit of lead time to finish up whatever they're doing and aren't severely punished if they are, say, mid-sentence moving to lethal combat when time is called (to take an extreme position, while also recognizing that less extreme cases exist).







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered May 15 at 14:32









Ertai87Ertai87

4176




4176













  • I don't understand the assertion about turn zero, given the turn immediately ends when time is called (as if Sundial of the Infinite was activated). Then the next player in turn order begins turn 1 of 5. There's no "turn zero" past overtime. In regular REL that might get missed by players and go unenforced by a judge though.

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 15:36








  • 3





    @doppelgreener I'm sorry, I have never heard of such a ruling. I see you have provided a link, but I am unable to find the passage on that page which provides evidence of your claim. Can you be a bit more specific? It's possible you are misunderstanding something.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:48






  • 4





    Aha, upon rereading that page I see where the confusion arises: "If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn". Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but there is a difference between "...player...finishes their turn" and "the turn is finished". In the former, the player has agency to continue performing game actions on the turn until its natural conclusion. In the latter, as you stated, the turn is ended immediately. The former is the wording used.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:58








  • 3





    I'm a native English speaker and I understand them to mean the same thing. Maybe I've misunderstood. Let me ask a question on that... boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/…

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 16:07













  • @doppelgreener Out of respect, I am not going to answer your question, although I will keep an eye on the responses.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 16:14



















  • I don't understand the assertion about turn zero, given the turn immediately ends when time is called (as if Sundial of the Infinite was activated). Then the next player in turn order begins turn 1 of 5. There's no "turn zero" past overtime. In regular REL that might get missed by players and go unenforced by a judge though.

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 15:36








  • 3





    @doppelgreener I'm sorry, I have never heard of such a ruling. I see you have provided a link, but I am unable to find the passage on that page which provides evidence of your claim. Can you be a bit more specific? It's possible you are misunderstanding something.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:48






  • 4





    Aha, upon rereading that page I see where the confusion arises: "If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn". Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but there is a difference between "...player...finishes their turn" and "the turn is finished". In the former, the player has agency to continue performing game actions on the turn until its natural conclusion. In the latter, as you stated, the turn is ended immediately. The former is the wording used.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 15:58








  • 3





    I'm a native English speaker and I understand them to mean the same thing. Maybe I've misunderstood. Let me ask a question on that... boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/…

    – doppelgreener
    May 15 at 16:07













  • @doppelgreener Out of respect, I am not going to answer your question, although I will keep an eye on the responses.

    – Ertai87
    May 15 at 16:14

















I don't understand the assertion about turn zero, given the turn immediately ends when time is called (as if Sundial of the Infinite was activated). Then the next player in turn order begins turn 1 of 5. There's no "turn zero" past overtime. In regular REL that might get missed by players and go unenforced by a judge though.

– doppelgreener
May 15 at 15:36







I don't understand the assertion about turn zero, given the turn immediately ends when time is called (as if Sundial of the Infinite was activated). Then the next player in turn order begins turn 1 of 5. There's no "turn zero" past overtime. In regular REL that might get missed by players and go unenforced by a judge though.

– doppelgreener
May 15 at 15:36






3




3





@doppelgreener I'm sorry, I have never heard of such a ruling. I see you have provided a link, but I am unable to find the passage on that page which provides evidence of your claim. Can you be a bit more specific? It's possible you are misunderstanding something.

– Ertai87
May 15 at 15:48





@doppelgreener I'm sorry, I have never heard of such a ruling. I see you have provided a link, but I am unable to find the passage on that page which provides evidence of your claim. Can you be a bit more specific? It's possible you are misunderstanding something.

– Ertai87
May 15 at 15:48




4




4





Aha, upon rereading that page I see where the confusion arises: "If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn". Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but there is a difference between "...player...finishes their turn" and "the turn is finished". In the former, the player has agency to continue performing game actions on the turn until its natural conclusion. In the latter, as you stated, the turn is ended immediately. The former is the wording used.

– Ertai87
May 15 at 15:58







Aha, upon rereading that page I see where the confusion arises: "If the match time limit is reached before a winner is determined, the player whose turn it is finishes their turn". Perhaps you are not a native English speaker, but there is a difference between "...player...finishes their turn" and "the turn is finished". In the former, the player has agency to continue performing game actions on the turn until its natural conclusion. In the latter, as you stated, the turn is ended immediately. The former is the wording used.

– Ertai87
May 15 at 15:58






3




3





I'm a native English speaker and I understand them to mean the same thing. Maybe I've misunderstood. Let me ask a question on that... boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/…

– doppelgreener
May 15 at 16:07







I'm a native English speaker and I understand them to mean the same thing. Maybe I've misunderstood. Let me ask a question on that... boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/47262/…

– doppelgreener
May 15 at 16:07















@doppelgreener Out of respect, I am not going to answer your question, although I will keep an eye on the responses.

– Ertai87
May 15 at 16:14





@doppelgreener Out of respect, I am not going to answer your question, although I will keep an eye on the responses.

– Ertai87
May 15 at 16:14


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fboardgames.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47252%2fwhy-are-there-five-extra-turns-in-tournament-magic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bruad Bilen | Luke uk diar | NawigatsjuunCommonskategorii: BruadCommonskategorii: RunstükenWikiquote: Bruad

What is the offset in a seaplane's hull?

Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029