Game time limits at tournaments

I played at a small tournament yesterday and the time limit for matches was 55 minutes.

That seemed too short to me.

I thought the standard was 65 minutes.

What is the standard?


It depends entirely on the venue. FFG does 65, but depending on the time a venue actually has available that can be shortened.

55 minutes probably should be enough time to play for anyone but the most aggravating of slow players. Just be happy someone was willing to put a cap on the maximum amount of misery you had to endure.

The Tournament Rules 1.6 state:

65 minute rounds (the TO may adjust this time by +/- 10
minutes at his discretion before the tournament begins)


The round limit at Quinn’s second Netrunner tournament was 55mins and I (and others) also felt that this was too short. I believe he increased the time limit at the next one.

1 Like

Yeah, I think 55 is too short if anybody is player a Corp taxing deck strategy. I played a taxing Tenin and went to time once, and got hurried into running into a flatline another time. I was moving fast and even pressuring the opponent to speed up (once), which is uncomfortable. I had just been in another tournament where I was playing Nasir and Tenin (with 60 min rounds) and I knew that would not fly, so switched out my runner for Kit.

Seems like 55 min rounds just pushes the meta to less taxing corp decks, which means that runners can tech to fast NEH and rush attackers. If you try to meta against that runner with a taxing corp, then you will not win the tournament because of your timed-win disadvantage. I guess there still is Blue Sun, which can rush.

1 Like

I, too, have had several tournament matches go to time playing taxing Tennin. I don’t remember how long the rounds were, though.

55 should be enough? For both sides? What if both people run, for example, a redcoats type deck? Even one of @mediohxcore 's commentated Stimhack league matches (Kit vs BS) took about 45 minutes, and that was for one side… For 55 minutes, make sure you play your corp game first and then, depending on the time, feel fully justified in going balls-to-the-wall as runner and try and get ahead by the gong.

1 Like

65 is just enough, I think.

If everyone takes 15 seconds a click (very generous for everything except a run), then a round should take 1.75 minutes. At that rate 25.7 rounds would have taken place.

unique accesses on bottom (think single draw), percent chance of win on left, asssumed taking turns scoring 2 point agendas

That would have put that game slightly ahead of the curve on the worst possible 2 point agenda spread (not likely since blue sun, probably some 3 pointers in there). I should actually time actions vs runs to see what’s more realistic, but that game would have had to been very tight or an outlier in terms of where agendas were to really be justified at 45 minutes.

If the game didn’t finish off with near equal agenda points then there was definitely some slow play going on.

3 points scoring, more likely probably? would have been more like this at worst:


The Future Perfect is a card.

1 Like

Yes, but any agenda “accessed” in the graph above is could be scored by either player; the jinteki player could try to score The Future Perfect now that they have access to it which would advance the game. And no one was playing The Future Perfect in the blue sun match up.

My point is that agendas don’t necessarily get scored or stolen when drawn. Sometimes they just sit around not getting stolen, sometimes they get shuffled back in with Jackson, etc etc. Stuff like NAPD, TFP, and Jackson make the games take much longer than if they weren’t in anyone’s deck.


And, fetal AI can sit unadvanced and unchecked on the table for the entire game.

1 Like

While there are things in the game that can slow its progress, they don’t need to. If a player is unwilling to score an NAPD, put it in a remote and score it yourself or use it to open a scoring window. If you have jackson, you’re liking speeding the pace of the game by drawing more with it. Future perfect is a bit of a special case.

I doubt that any one or two of these cards adds more than 2 minutes to the length of the average game… aside from possibly TFP.

Still if you’re taking 15 seconds to decide to take a credit or draw a card, you’ve probably identified an area in your game where you could speed up.

I don’t see how these graphs are any more than loosely correlated with game time. Number of accesses by runners doesn’t equal turns. Number of agendas accessed by corps doesn’t equal scoring.

A better measure of number of turns is that measured directly on OCTGN. Slaghund data puts the average number of turns between 13 and 16 (that is turn cycle I assume). The turn data is skewed slightly to the right, which implies more than 50% of the games go longer than 13-16 turns.

Now, of course, you don’t want to set your tournament at the time it takes less than half to finish, so I did some crunching of the latest OCTGN data dump I could find (4/2014) and it turns out that 90% of games finished by turn 20. Was 4/2014 before the arrival of Redcoats and RP/ELP/Ash/Caprice? Anyway, seems like if you want most people to be able to finish 2 games in the time allotted you probably want to allow time for 35-40 turns.

Now, how long a turn takes is all that needs to be figured.


Depends if your opponent freebases between rounds.

You’re dead wrong. Think about all the games lost in 5-10 minutes due to agenda flood that jackson turned into a 40 minute glacierfest.


65 feels solid to me but one of the venues I have events at is 55 because they’re on weekday nights and we need to finish before the store closes. We have some matches go to time but it’s just one of those things you need to deal with.

If you have time, you should play 65, I think.

I feel like there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what average means (pun intended).

1 Like

Something fundamentally wrong with my statement, besides the fact that I wrote “data is” rather than “data are”?