Decking with Arcane Lab

[warble]

I have a question that is very important to me continuing to play magic.  This question's answer will determine if I quit playing competitive magic altogether.

At Waterbury(yesterday) I resolved an Arcane Lab against Sensei Sensei(I lost game one, this is post-sb).  He proceeds over the next two turns to Intuition for AK and I let both AK for 3 and AK for 4 resolve.  Then, he tries to bounce Arcane Lab, REB it(meeting a wall of blue/ReBs), and I continue passing the turn in approximately 3-4 seconds per my turn.  He then realizes that my strategy will be to deck him of his deck, and his turns turn into 2-minute feats of HMM:

Me: Dude, just play
Him: Hmm... (for approximately one minute per turn)
Me: Come on dude, please, I know you're stalling
Him: Hmm... okay I pass the turn
Me: Draw, pass the turn (approx. 3 seconds)
Him: Hmm...okay I'll go to my draw step
Him: I draw a card
Him: Hmm... (for approximately one minute again)
Me: Come on dude, please
Him: Hmm...okay I pass the turn
Me: Draw, pass the turn (approx. 3 seconds)
Him: Play Intuition
Me: Okay, fine
Him: searches library for 2 minutes, reshuffles for another one
Me: Dude, I know you're stalling
Him: I have things to take care of arcane lab.  I have TONS of answers.
Me: Yes, and I have 2 REB,, 2 Mana Drain, and 3 Force of Will in my hand with 10 mana open.
Him: Hmm...(for another minute)

My question is, what recourse to I have against this clearly @$$hole play.  At the point that Arcane Lab resolved, our match had 40 minutes left before time would be called.  Can I call a judge over and have him rule that my opponent must play in 20-30 second turns?  I'm not a judge, and this was the first time I have encountered this amount of dicklessness in a magic tournament (waterbury nonetheless).  If the answer is that I have no recourse, I will quit playing magic.  My girlfriend already stated that if this is what tournaments are she refuses to drive me to them.  Please tell me what the appropriate action is, and if the answer is that I have no recourse I will quit playing magic.  (in this instance feel free to PM me offers for my Power, Bazaar, set of duals, etc.  I will quit playing)

[Necrologia]

If your opponent was taking so much time when there wasn't anything he could do, you should have called a judge over. He would likely watch the match for a few moments then issue a warning for slow play. Judges aren't just there to hand out match loses for Cadaverous Bloom in the lap style cheatery, they are there to make the event run smoothly. If you think your opponent is doing anything even slightly shady call a judge over. The worst that could happen is that the judge will do nothing. Don't let people rules monger you out of games.

[Komatteru]

You call a judge over for slow play.  It will then be up to the judge to determine whether he is actually stalling.  It would be unresonable for the judge to expect him to play in 30 second turns because there's an Arcane Lab on the table.  Doing so would be discrediting your opponent's deck (saying the game is basically over, while you still have to beat him).  In addition, from what you post here, it sounds like you're completely convinced that Arcane Lab has beaten your opponent and there's no possible way for him to get out of it.  If I were judging, I would not reward a player for that attitude, since as a combo player myself, I've played out of multiple chalices, arcane lab, and other miscellaneous hate cards, all of which hit the table with a big smile from my opponent who thought I was beat.  I comboed out with Desire in extended with a Chalice for 2 still on the table after my opponent dropped it and was like "You're beat."  More on this below.

This sorta came up in extended, but in a different note.  The big deal in extended was Solitary Confinement, which prevents all damage dealt and makes the player untargetable, and decks that could not deal with it at all (Joblins, RDW, etc.).  In this case, the only thing the locked deck could do was draw a card, play a land, toss some more men into play, and attack.  It was ruled that if this was all you could do, then you had to be going through those actions very quickly.  Some judges were tougher on it than others, depending on how much a judge wanted to reward the person who brought a deck that could not win until it ran its opponent out of card the hard way.

Arcane Lab is very, very different from what I mentioned above.  Arcane Lab is not a lock. It just allows each player to only play one spell per turn.  Either player can very much win without removing the lab, which is not the case in my above example above (since you cannot win with creatures or burn when there is Solitary Confinement on the table).  Now, with Arcane Lab, the thing is, if the dude has spells in his hand, there's nothing stopping him from playing them, and it is reasonable for him to plan out how to play the spells.  It is likely he might have a red blast in hand/deck, or chain of vapor, or something like that. If he can figure out how to play the other stuff in his hand and run you out of countermagic, then he can remove the lab and win.  Or, for example, if he plays something and you Mana Drain it, if you play a spell off the mana, then he can destroy or bounce the lab EOT and you can't do anything about it.  Or, if he gets you to Mana Drain stuff, you could burn, down to the point where you can't pitch to Force of Will or use fetchlands, or you die to like Joblin Welder beatdown.  So, yeah, he does have quite a bit to think about.  In fact, he has more to consider because he can only do one thing a turn.  If he plays the wrong thing, he essentially sacrifices an entire turn.  He doesn't know that you have 11 counterspells in your hand, and you're actually not allowed to reveal your hand to opponents in the course of a game unless a card instructs you to do so.  Just because you are playing your turns in 3 seconds and not even remotely considering doing anything that might put a win condition on the board doesn't mean your opponent has to do the same.  You still have to beat your opponent, and if you expect him to concede to you, then you're crazy, and no judge will enforce a "well, the opponent can't do anything to win, so he has to concede."  If all your doing is taking turn after turn after turn without actually winning or trying to win, you're prolonging the game.  If you're honesty trying to run him out of cards the hard way, then expect a 40 minute game, because you chose an extremely slow strategy to win the game.  It's legitimate, but you cannot expect your opponent to buckle into it and not think about what he's going to play, since it can indeed matter, perhaps 20 turns down the road.  I never concede to an Arcane Lab.  I make my opponent beat me.

For Intuition, the rules say 30 seconds are allowed for simple searches (like Vampiric Tutor or a fetchland), and more time is alloted for more complex searches, such as Gifts or Intuition.  A minute is a pretty reasonable search time for a complicated Intuition.  I know I've spent like 2 minutes on it before at PTQs when I had to pick the exact 3 right cards to win.

One last thing: it is in your best interest to finish the game as quickly as possible.  By not doing anything on your turns, you're not helping yourself at all.  If that game goes to time (and unless you play a win condition, and risk losing the lab and the game) and no one wins, then your opponent gets credit for the match win.  The best way to finish a game as quickly as possible is to win the game, and not get a judge to rule that your opponent has to play in 30 second turns.  In fact, if you take 15 seconds for your turn and he takes 30 seconds, and there's 40 cards left in your libraries, and neither player can get a win condition down, the game will not end for another 30 minutes, and that's playing really fast.

[ElyasMachera]

So what you failed to mention is that he had Jester Capped away all your decks win conditions (I know this kid).  So the only way for him to win was playing slow, and for you it was playing fast.  I fail to see how this is that big a deal.  You were both in no real position to win.  Also, the time frame you gave is off according to him, but thats really doesnt matter.

[warble]

If you know this kid, I suggest you stop right here.  Your story is completely off because you AND him are combo players, meaning you both "wish" for the same ruling.  What I'm asking for is an actual impartial ruling.  Is there a judge in the haus?  *mutters something about stupid combo players all being the same*

Also, playing slow did NOT allow him to win.  It allowed him to DRAW the game and win the match 1-0-1.  There's a difference there.

[ElyasMachera]

First off, i played stax up untill the restrictions and havent really played much since and sensi is combo the way tog was, which is not really. 

The real point of this is that you should have tried to play as fast as possibe and he should have tried to play as slow as possible, with out stalling. 

Also, the fact that he capped all your stuff does make a diff and should have been in the original post.  If you thought there was a problem you should have called a judge, but he was doing exactly what any tournment player should do in that situation. 

[MadManiac21]

I (Caleb Rozwenc) was the player who you were playing against yesterday when this “asshole play” emerged. To begin with you left out several important details.

Game one had taken approximately twenty five minutes (leaving about the same for game two). Taking into consideration sideboarding, and shuffling, that left about twenty minutes or so for game two. To think that, once you had cast Arcane Lab on turn FOUR, that enough turns would pass in the allotted time left in the round to deck me (i.e. have me take forty or so turns in twenty minutes) is quite ridiculous.

Additionally, the deck I was playing (Sensei’s Divining Top) is not strictly a combo deck; it has all the elements (draw spells and hard counters) of any control deck in the format. To think that a CONTROL player is only going to take twenty seconds per turn when he or she has multiple decisions to make between casting spells, discarding to certain affects, or activating certain abilities (like using Top’s viewing feature) is gross negligence on your behalf.

Also, on the turn following your Arcane Lab I proceeded to Cap away every single one of your win conditions. This meant besides for decking me, you had no viable option of play/winning. This would obviously prompt your excessively quick play, as it was the only sensible choice for what was left available for you. I, on the other hand, was not planning on winning by decking you as I still had ALL of my win conditions left in my deck or in my hand. To think that I am going to rush my play because of your own agenda boggles my mind.

Further more, you forgot a very important sentence in the above dialogue (which is a rudimentary attempt at recreating) what was said. Once you took the jab at me to call me a cheater/”slow playing for the win”, I immediately said it was your prerogative to call over a judge to watch us play if you felt that I was being unfair or that an “injustice” was being done.

Personally I do not see why you are attacking my character at all. You could have called a judge, you chose not to. In hindsight you can ask the question, but there is no need to flame me.

On an overall basis I consider myself an outstanding member of the magic community. Any of the people I test with on my team, compete against, or generally hang out with (Steve Houdlette, Ben Kowal, Dave Eastman, Mike(atog), Keith Johnson, Brian Phelon, Ray Robilliard, Jeff Green, Aaron Kerz, Chris Kitzmiller,) are also outstanding members of this community. I would care to think that their assessment of me as a person who they would be friends/play with would stand stronger than the label of “asshole combo player”.

[Kerith]

He doesn't know that you have 11 counterspells in your hand, and you're actually not allowed to reveal your hand to opponents in the course of a game unless a card instructs you to do so.

Err .. since when exactly are you no longer allowed to reveal your hand? That would be a dumb rule that could not be enforced either.
Of course you can show your opponent your hand as long and as often as you wish.

[Komatteru]

Err .. since when exactly are you no longer allowed to reveal your hand? That would be a dumb rule that could not be enforced either.
Of course you can show your opponent your hand as long and as often as you wish.

I can't find it in the comprehensive rules (I swear it's in there, or was in there), but the reason it was done was so that you couldn't reveal certain cards from your hand in an attempt to influence your opponent, or something like that.  Of course, I might be talking out of my ass on this, but I thought I saw it in there somewhere (or maybe it was on Saturday school).

To think that, once you had cast Arcane Lab on turn FOUR, that enough turns would pass in the allotted time left in the round to deck me (i.e. have me take forty or so turns in twenty minutes) is quite ridiculous.

I figured something like this had happened.  The peril of Arcane Lab that no one seems to remember is that you have to play a win condition first, otherwise Arcane Lab reads "Congratulations on never playing another sorcery/creature for the rest of the game.  Now how do you plan to win?"

[warble]

Caleb Rozwenc is the worst magic player I have EVER played against.  The way he played against me (refusal to scoop because he ran the time) is the reason I will likely quit competitive Type 1 play.  If a judge could just confirm what he's saying (that it's fine to stall) I will glady resign from playing in tournaments of type 1.

[ElyasMachera]

You wanted him to scoop because you had an arcane lab in play and time was running out when he was up 1-0 in games?  God, someone please lock this thread.

EDIT:  Ok, I need to explain my self more then this.  You said it yourself, this is competitive type 1.  The nature of the game is that there has to be time limits put on rounds and there are certain strategy's that come with this.  Neither of you had a win condition left, so you chose to use the decking rule to try and win while he choose to use the time constraint rule to force and draw and there fore win. 
You wanted him to scoop after you shut down his decks win condition, but then why didn't you scoop after he took all of your decks win conditions?
If he was stalling then call a judge, but stop bitching and flaming because you lost 1 game.

[Nazdakka]

Caleb Rozwenc is the worst magic player I have EVER played against.  The way he played against me (refusal to scoop because he ran the time) is the reason I will likely quit competitive Type 1 play.  If a judge could just confirm what he's saying (that it's fine to stall) I will glady resign from playing in tournaments of type 1.

He doesn't HAVE to scoop, that's the point. Why should he? He's in a favorable position, 1-0 up with a stalled position.
He's required by the rules to play at a reasonable speed, which can't be enforced with calling a judge, but you've still got to beat him. This was a call which required a judge, and as you didn't call one, nothing can be enforced. If you had called a judge, then perhaps he might have called your opponent for stalling. Or perhaps not. If you don't call a judge, you'll never get a ruling in your favour, and given you didn't, you've got no justification to complain.

Rule #1 of competitive Magic: If in doubt, call a judge.

[xrizzo]

Caleb Rozwenc is the worst magic player I have EVER played against.  The way he played against me (refusal to scoop because he ran the time) is the reason I will likely quit competitive Type 1 play.  If a judge could just confirm what he's saying (that it's fine to stall) I will glady resign from playing in tournaments of type 1.

Why didn't you quit when you had no more win conditions in your deck?  Isn't that the same thing you are asking this community of your oponent?  (who doesn't sound like a dick - he sounds like a well informed reasonable player)

Anyway, everyone gets frustrated when they lose, so I would recommend not selling your stuff, come back strong to the next tourney, and you might feel differently.

[BigChuck]

All the jokes that we make about Caleb aside, he's not a bad guy. He wasn't cheating in any way, shape, or form. You're allowed X amount of time to take your actions, regardless of wether or not they are meaningful. If anything, arcane lab makes all your decisions take even longer because you have to allow for the fact that you can only do one thing, and you need to make the most of that opportunity. The LAST thing arcane lab will do is speed UP a match of control vrs. control. In any game, there are certain strategies that come with the fact that their are time constraints(say, running the ball at the end of a football game to kill the clock). If you don't like them, this isn't the game for you.

[Godder]

The Solitary Confinement thread JDizzle mentioned:
http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=273948

An article spawned by that thread, and its feedback thread:
http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/expandnews.php?Article=8977
http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=274262

141. Slow Play—Playing Slowly

Definition
Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaging in slow play. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, that player is guilty of Cheating—Stalling (section 162).

Example
(A) A player is unsure of which creatures to block with and spends an unreasonable amount of time trying to decide.
(B) A player takes an unreasonable amount of time choosing how to divide the piles when resolving Fact or Fiction.
(C) A player spends time writing down the contents of an opponent's deck when resolving Haunting Echoes.

Philosophy
Slow-play penalties do not require a judge to determine whether a player is intentionally stalling. All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so that their opponents are not at a significant disadvantage because of the time limit.

Penalty
A three-minute time extension is included with this penalty. If slow play has significantly affected the result of the match, the judge should upgrade the penalty as appropriate.

Slow Play—Playing Slowly
REL 1 REL 2 REL 3 REL 4 REL 5
Caution Caution Warning Warning Warning

162. Cheating—Stalling

Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. Refer to section 161 for unintentional slow play.

Example
(A) A player has two lands in his hand, no options available to significantly affect the game, and spends several minutes "thinking" about what to do.

Philosophy
If it is clear that a player is stalling, he or she should face a serious penalty.

Penalty
Cheating—Stalling
All Levels
Disqualification without prize

I (Caleb Rozwenc) was the player who you were playing against yesterday when this “asshole play” emerged. To begin with you left out several important details:

Game one had taken approximately twenty five minutes (leaving about the same for game two). Taking into consideration sideboarding, and shuffling, that left about twenty minutes or so for game two. To think that, once you had cast Arcane Lab on turn FOUR, that enough turns would pass in the allotted time left in the round to deck me (i.e. have me take forty or so turns in twenty minutes) is quite ridiculous.

Additionally, the deck I was playing (Sensei’s Divining Top) is not strictly a combo deck; it has all the elements (draw spells and hard counters) of any control deck in the format. To think that a CONTROL player is only going to take twenty seconds per turn when he or she has multiple decisions to make between casting spells, discarding to certain effects, or activating certain abilities (like using Top’s viewing feature) is gross negligence on your behalf.

Also, on the turn following your Arcane Lab I proceeded to Cap away every single one of your win conditions. This meant besides for decking me, you had no viable option of play/winning. This would obviously prompt your excessively quick play, as it was the only sensible choice for what was left available for you. I, on the other hand, was not planning on winning by decking you as I still had ALL of my win conditions left in my deck or in my hand. To think that I am going to rush my play because of your own agenda boggles my mind.

There are no penalties for "excessively quick play", other than self-inflicted penalties in the form of rightly-punished bad play. Capping all his other win conditions is fine, but decking by draw step is still a legal win condition (albeit not the quickest).

Further more, you forgot a very important sentence in the above dialogue (which is a rudimentary attempt at recreating) what was said. Once you took the jab at me to call me a cheater/”slow playing for the win”, I immediately said it was your prerogative to call over a judge to watch us play if you felt that I was being unfair or that an “injustice” was being done.

Personally I do not see why you are attacking my character at all. You could have called a judge, you chose not to. In hindsight you can ask the question, but there is no need to flame me.

On an overall basis I consider myself an outstanding member of the magic community. Any of the people I test with on my team, compete against, or generally hang out with (Steve Houdlette, Ben Kowal, Dave Eastman, Mike(atog), Keith Johnson, Brian Phelon, Ray Robilliard, Jeff Green, Aaron Kerz, Chris Kitzmiller,) are also outstanding members of this community. I would care to think that their assessment of me as a person who they would be friends/play with would stand stronger than the label of “asshole combo player”.

Fair point, abusing players is bad form, and calling a judge early was the right play. I have a question for MadManiac, though:
What was your gameplan once Arcane Lab hit? I assume that removal of the Lab is the first step, but what ways did you have to achieve that goal?

[MadManiac21]

I actually chose to let lab resolve, as my team and myself saw during testing that we could essentially just keep building our mana bases under the lab before bouncing it/blowing it up EOT before going off.

To remove the Lab I had sided in 3x ReB and 1x Echoing Truth, along with another Echoing Truth in the SB (3 C.Wishes MD).

[Nova442]

So if he showed you several counterspells there would be no way to win or anything to think about?

[crazynlazy]

as long as the combo player has a way to kill arcane lab and the control player has a bunch of counters in hand the control player can't cast a win condition because the combo player will bounce/ kill the lab once control has played their spell. I don't see why you are complaining he was doing stuff that is completely legal if he annoys you just think that he's stupid (and I'm not saying that you are.)

[warble]

162. Cheating—Stalling

Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. Refer to section 161 for unintentional slow play.

Example
(A) A player has two lands in his hand, no options available to significantly affect the game, and spends several minutes "thinking" about what to do.

Philosophy
If it is clear that a player is stalling, he or she should face a serious penalty.

Penalty
Cheating—Stalling
All Levels
Disqualification without prize

calling a judge early was the right play.

Sounds like Caleb was just blatantly cheating.  I should have called a judge over, point conceded.  I will know in the future that Magic does punish cheaters!  Yay.