Previously, if time was called at the end of a round and the match was not completed, the turn player got to finish his or her turn, and then a judge would check for the following win conditions.

Has one player won two duels? If so, that player would win the match, regardless of the life point totals of the current duel. If neither player has won two duels, then the judge would check the players’ current life point totals. If one player has won one game and has more life points than his or her opponent, that player is declared the winner of the match. If both players have won one game (or no games at all), the winner is determined after the turn player has finished his or her turn, and the winner would be the player with the most life points when time was called. If the players are tied both in game wins and life points once time was called and the turn player completed the turn, then the first change in life points (either gain or loss) determines the winner. If the players are between duels and tied for game wins, they begin a new game and the first change in life points (either gain or loss) determines the winner. Additionally, this system allowed side decking between duels.

Under that policy, decks that were designed to force a series of draws to end the match and then side decked in cards that could inflict direct damage on the first turn became quite popular. If you’ve ever gotten knocked out of a tournament due to this kind of strategy, you were probably rather annoyed about it—all the skill and all your preparation could all be negated by bad luck. To avoid these unsatisfying “first blood” match wins, the procedure was changed to give both players an equal shot at a real win. Here’s the new procedure, which is in effect as of July 1.

“When time is called at the end of the round, the current turn of each game still in progress is completed. If a winner is not determined (meaning that one player has not reduced his or her opponent’s life points to 0, drawn all five pieces of Exodia, or fulfilled any other win condition) by the end of that turn, play will continue for an additional 3 turns, starting the count with the opponent’s turn. The play stops and the match winner is calculated using the following process:

If at the end of the additional three turns, a winner has not been determined, the player with greater life points wins that game. If life points are equal, continue play until the first change in life points. Always resolve all effects that are already on the chain before comparing the life points of the players.”

(This is worth noting—you don’t win or lose the instant that the life points change while resolving a chain. All effects on the chain must be allowed to resolve. So if you activate Ceasefire, and your opponent chains with Ceasefire, both Ceasefires will resolve before you compare life points. Both players will lose an equal amount of life points, so the score will still be tied and you’ll have to keep playing. However, this won’t prevent something, like an Exodia win, that can normally happen between steps in a chain.)

“After determining the winner of the game in progress, the player wins the match if he or she has more game wins than the opponent. If both players have an equal number of game wins, then they start a new game, which will last for a maximum of 4 turns, 2 for each player. Side decks may not be used before starting this game.” (Direct damage cards put in from side decks, specifically to win in sudden death on the first turn, are now useless.) “At the end of the fourth turn, the player with the greatest life points wins the match. If life points are equal, continue play until the first change in life points. Always resolve all effects that are already on the chain before comparing the life points of the players.”

“If players are between the games when time is called, and one player has a greater number of game wins, that player wins the match.”

That’s quite a difference—it’s a more equitable procedure. Losses due to stalling or forced draws, followed by sudden death, aren’t going to be nearly as common as they once were. What impact will it have on the game in general?

There will be some deck and side deck choices that will lose a lot of potency. Cards like Wave-Motion Cannon, Ceasefire, and even Sparks, popped up in the side decks of players who would never have considered playing them before. Players put in Barrel Behind the Door and Curse of Darkness as counter-measures, but it usually came down to a case of “getting your opponent before your opponent gets you.” The current procedure gives each player two turns, once time is called, to either win the duel outright or end with more life points than his or her opponent. That’s a lot more balanced than losing to an opponent who goes first and opens the game with Poison of the Old Man.

Stalling becomes a less viable strategy, since there’s less of a guarantee that you can manipulate the turns to end up ahead. Each player will get two extra turns after time is called, so keeping an eye on the clock to ensure you get the last turn isn’t going to work. Dragging out a game to force it to sudden death and having an arsenal of direct damage cards in your side deck won’t help either, because in addition to the two turns each, side decking isn’t allowed for the extra duels that happen after the round has ended.

Devaluing stalling as a strategy helps ease the primary concern for judges and TOs, namely, “Won’t this make the rounds last a lot longer?” True, if a match does go to time, it’s possible that requiring extra turns can drag out the time until the next round can begin. But with fewer players able to benefit from stalling, the number of matches that actually do go to time should decrease. At Nationals, there wasn’t an appreciable change in the length of the rounds when compared to similarly sized events that used the previous system.

This is the end of match procedure that will be implemented at the World Championship, and all competitors would be wise to focus on strategies that will perform well under this new policy. There have been several alterations to the end-of-match procedure over the course of Yu-Gi-Oh! Organized Play, and each one was intended to bring better balance to the game. This change prevents some of the more aggravating kinds of losses and removes the incentives for stalling, which should improve future tournament experiences for anyone who’s ever faced either of these strategies.