MtG: Tourney info request
Charles J Poirier
I want to try holding a Magic: the Gathering tournament...
Actually, if there's interest, I have ambitions to hold
semi-regular mini-tournaments. ...
Anyone who can advise me on how to get one going, please send email.
Also, I may regret asking for it, but I will read anyone's free advice
on:
a) deck-building strictions
b) style of elimination or other player rotations
c) entry fees
d) buying in for cards
e) prizes
f) antes
g) stakes
h) concessions
i) tee shirts
j) site acquisition
Cheers,
Charles Poirier
tom allison
>
>I want to try holding a Magic: the Gathering tournament...
>Actually, if there's interest, I have ambitions to hold
>semi-regular mini-tournaments. ...
>
>Anyone who can advise me on how to get one going, please send email.
>Also, I may regret asking for it, but I will read anyone's free advice
>on:
>
>a) deck-building strictions
I am also trying to get something going for a local con. here in the spring.
Some ideas I've toyed with for deck restrictions included divisions, where
players could use limited numbers of cards on up to an unlimited division
where (almost) any deck goes. I'm also thinking of a four player partners
tournament too.
>b) style of elimination or other player rotations
I planned on just using single elimination, single game duels up until the
quarterfinal, where players would play sets, and a match for the final. I
haven't thought about how to 'seed' players yet, or if some players may
need byes and so forth, I think I'll see how much interest I can generate
first.
>c) entry fees
>d) buying in for cards
>e) prizes
>f) antes
My thought was to make antes mandatory, so that no cards need be removed from
a person's deck. I will leave it up to the players as to where the ante goes
at the completion of the game.
>g) stakes
>h) concessions
>i) tee shirts
>j) site acquisition
Most of the stuff I didn't answer on like fees, prizes and the site are being
set up by the local gaming club for the con., so I don't have to deal with
them. As for a place to hold it, you might try university game clubs if
you know students willing to help get you rooms or set up a club for magic
players. Local hobby stores sometimes also have in store gaming, you might
convince them to allow you to hold a regular tournament along side some of
their regular stuff, I'm sure they wouldn't mind potential customers visiting
their store.
Hope this at least gives you a couple of ideas.
>
>Cheers,
>Charles Poirier
Tom Allison all...@cs.colostate.edu
nicholas.j.sauer
>
>[Asks for advice on running MtG tornamnets]
When I run Magic tournaments, here is what I am going to do. First,
I am planning to have different tournament classes. The three I have in
mind right now are the following.
Actually, before I go into the classes I want to cover the rules that
would apply to all three classes. All are single elimination tournamnets
with a player being eliminated after losing one set (best of five games).
Both players must ante cards. However, this is a "gentlemen's" ante and
these cards will return to their owner's at the end of the duel unless
both players agree (before the set begins) to use the real ante rules.
Unlimited: No limits on deck construction at all. If I end up dropping a
tourney category this would be the one. The reason for not bothering with
this is that I really don't need to see multiple decks consisting of 13
Fireballs, 13 Channels, and 14 Black Lotus win the tournament. Actually,
this is probably exactly the reason to run it. The tournament would easily
finish in less than an hour with a bunch of these "first turn kill" decks
present.
Semi-limited: Total maximum on number of cards in your library that you
can bring in (probably something like 300 cards total). Minimum deck size
is 60 cards. Before each set each player must announce the most common
color of cards in their deck. Artifacts count as their own "color" for
this announcement. If you have more than one color tied for most common
color in your deck then you must announce all such colors. Then before
the set begins, each player gets five minutes to alter his or her deck
in any way they wish but, the alterations cannot change the deck to the
point that it would alter the color(s) they announced previously. Finally,
all 0 casting cost artifacts have a casting cost of 1 for the tournament.
Limited: Some set of rules that follows the ones I see posted alot. Something
like minimum 60 card decks with no more than 4 of any one card (except for
basic lands), no repeat artifacts and, a maximum of five artifacts in your
deck. Also, the deck you walk in with is the one you play for the whole
tournament (i.e. no mid-tourney deck alterations allowed).
I will probably run them at different times just so one player could play in
all three if he or she liked. I am going with the free-market idea here and,
am dying to see which one draws the most players.
Nick Sauer
H. Scott Buckwalter - Baltimore
: I want to try holding a Magic: the Gathering tournament...
: Cheers,
: Charles Poirier
I've run a couple tournaments, here are the rules I use:
> 60 cards or more.
> No more than 3 duplicates of any card.
> Unlimited land. (Arabian Nights Land has 3 duplicates maximium)
> No altering deck after tournament starts. If a card is removed from
your deck through normal play, it is added again after the current
game ends. The same goes for cards added during play, they are removed.
> 3 artifact. Three of the same artifact counts as your 3 artifacts.
> Yes, do have an ante. At the end of the game, all antes goes back into
the decks which they came from. (This makes the Jeweled Bird and Darkpact
have a purpose.)
> Ramdom partners. Note: Players do not play the same person twice
in a row if possible, rechoose if it happens.
> 2 loss elimination.
> If a match has no winner, than both players take a loss.
> Arguing about the rules in an uncuth manner gets you thrown out of the
tournament. Discussion of the rules / complaints / clairification of
rules welcome. Judges desision is final.
- Scott
Charles & Marsy Sumner
>I've run a couple tournaments, here are the rules I use:
>> 60 cards or more.
>> No more than 3 duplicates of any card.
>> Unlimited land. (Arabian Nights Land has 3 duplicates maximium)
>> No altering deck after tournament starts. If a card is removed from
> your deck through normal play, it is added again after the current
> game ends. The same goes for cards added during play, they are removed.
>> 3 artifact. Three of the same artifact counts as your 3 artifacts.
>> Yes, do have an ante. At the end of the game, all antes goes back into
> the decks which they came from. (This makes the Jeweled Bird and Darkpact
> have a purpose.)
Ahh, but not all ante related cards have a purpose if you are giving the
ante back after the round. Demonic Attourny, for example, would be pointless
in this situation (unless you happen to know what both players next cards
will be) and Jeweled Bird is only good if you want to (and can) bring your
ante back from the graveyard. Darkpact is only useful if your opponents
ante is likely to be better for the current game then your next card.
Perhaps a solution if you want to play with ante is for the loser to lose
the card to the tournement judges and get it back at the end of the day.
Or maybe, don't play with ante at all.
>> Ramdom partners. Note: Players do not play the same person twice
> in a row if possible, rechoose if it happens.
>> 2 loss elimination.
>> If a match has no winner, than both players take a loss.
>> Arguing about the rules in an uncuth manner gets you thrown out of the
> tournament. Discussion of the rules / complaints / clairification of
> rules welcome. Judges desision is final.
What do people think about putting time limits on matches (using a chess
timer, perhaps)?
--
Charles Sumner "Frighteningly, at any given moment,
Emerald City Productions an hour has just passed."
sum...@acs.bu.edu - Actual Facts!
bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov
> What do people think about putting time limits on matches (using a chess
> timer, perhaps)?
Time limits are an "iffy" thing. One of my favorite decks is "The Deck
of Defense" where I just build Walls and use Counter Spells to block
you. Hopefully, I can win by tossing out a Feedback or two and waiting.
This deck takes a bit more time and effort to play it correctly. Putting
a time limit on this deck would needlessly handicap a perfectly good
strategy.
By the same token, it takes no brains to put together and play a Fireball/
Lightning Bolt/Stone Rain/Etc. deck. This deck would play extremely
fast (no real decisions to make) and would be favored by having time
limits.
Playing a Shaharazad card or two would severely eat into time limits.
Time limits would be nice. I know I've played in a few games that I
would have liked to speed up a lot, but it would not be fair to
handicap "slowplay" options like Stasis, Forcefield, Meekstone,
Mana Barbs, Smoke, Winter Orb, and others.
-- Bill
H. Scott Buckwalter - Baltimore
: Ahh, but not all ante related cards have a purpose if you are giving the
: ante back after the round. Demonic Attourny, for example,would be pointless
: in this situation (unless you happen to know what both players next cards
: will be) and Jeweled Bird is only good if you want to (and can) bring your
: ante back from the graveyard. Darkpact is only useful if your opponents
: ante is likely to be better for the current game then your next card.
: Perhaps a solution if you want to play with ante is for the loser to lose
: the card to the tournement judges and get it back at the end of the day.
: Or maybe, don't play with ante at all.
True, but I like to allow ALL cards in my tournaments. Not having an ante
means certain cards are not allowed. True, most, if not all, of the cards
dealing with antes are next to useless if you can't keep the ante, but if
a player want's to use them, then I want to let them.
: What do people think about putting time limits on matches (using a chess
: timer, perhaps)?
Time limits is both a good Idea and a bad one. I don't like to be rushed
and I don't like to wait around while someone finsihes a 2 hour game.
Is small tournaments (10-50 players) I wait for all to finish. In larger
tournaments (50 - 150 players) I choose who each player will be playing
for the next three games and then have all players play at their own rate
for the three games. I set a time that the next round of games will start
and go about things in rounds of 3 games each. This keeps most people happy
and allows them to do other stuff at the cons. It also allows them to
plan their schedule around the games.
As a side question, at the last con, I played in a 12 person game for fun.
It was real interesting how alliances were formed and broken. Has anybody
played in a larger game?
-Scott
Timothy M. Schreyer
|>
|> As a side question, at the last con, I played in a 12 person game for fun.
|> It was real interesting how alliances were formed and broken. Has anybody
|> played in a larger game?
|>
with two people sometimes, and aside from that I'm a person who likes to
figure out the optimal thing to do in any circumstance and this surely
would have fried my brain! :-)
We have played the five-player, one-color-per-player, in-the-circle-like-
on-the-cardback, defeat-your-two-opposites-to-win game a few times (with
30 life to start) and that was really a neat way to play. It takes a
while though and we don't do it often since most of our playing occurs
before and after our Dungeons & Dragons game every Monday. Has any one
found a good name for this multi-player game? I've heard it called the
Rainbow game, but I don't like that name since I think it applies better
to a Rainbow DECK which has all five colors in it. How about "The Big Duel"?
"Opposites"? A "Primal Forces" game? ("The Primal Order" :-)
Have people tried the teams face-to-face style play? How does that go?
Tim
--
Timothy M. Schreyer sch...@vfl.paramax.com
Software Technology R&D (215) 648-2475
Unisys Government Systems Group FAX: (215) 648-2288
PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
H. Scott Buckwalter - Baltimore
: We have played the five-player, one-color-per-player, in-the-circle-like-
: on-the-cardback, defeat-your-two-opposites-to-win game a few times (with
: 30 life to start) and that was really a neat way to play. It takes a
: while though and we don't do it often since most of our playing occurs
: before and after our Dungeons & Dragons game every Monday. Has any one
: found a good name for this multi-player game? I've heard it called the
: Rainbow game, but I don't like that name since I think it applies better
: to a Rainbow DECK which has all five colors in it. How about "The Big Duel"?
: "Opposites"? A "Primal Forces" game? ("The Primal Order" :-)
How about "Pentagram" game? Each vertex has 2 lines pointing to who you
are supposed to attack. There's other parallels there.
-Scott
Charles J Poirier
>: We have played the five-player, one-color-per-player, in-the-circle-like-
>: on-the-cardback, defeat-your-two-opposites-to-win game a few times (with
>: 30 life to start) and that was really a neat way to play. It takes a
(If you object to the playing time, why extend it by playing with 30 life?)
I played three games of this style, solitaire (but with standard 20 life).
A player wins if he is still alive when the two colors/players opposite him,
are killed. I think of it as the "Dual Opposites Duel" but the name needs
work. I confirm that this makes for a very interesting contest.
The strategies are very subtle and shifting, despite that you
nominally know your allies. In fact, your two allies are opponents!
Sometimes I had the White player casting healing and such on Blue, to
protect him from Green!
I suspect the same victory conditions in a multi-color game (i.e., five
players, each with a "normal" deck) has the same strategic complexity.
>How about "Pentagram" game?
>-Scott
Personally I try to avoid associating the five colors with the Pentagram.
Black, if anything in particular; see Unholy Strength.
Cheers,
Charles Poirier
H. Scott Buckwalter - Baltimore
: >-Scott
: Personally I try to avoid associating the five colors with the Pentagram.
: Black, if anything in particular; see Unholy Strength.
I sugested "Pentagram" due to the how it associated with the contest, and
not for any one color. Is there a better name? "Duel oppisites duel"
seems too long, but appropriate. Starting with 30 does change the game.
I like to play green. I keep a Giant Growth and a Berserk in hand. Take
a Craw Worm and attack another player with lots of little beasts that
seem to regenerate a lot. The other play throws a 1/1 regenerating in
front of the worm, I then Giant Growth it followed by Berserk. The worm
now does 18 trample and being blocked by a 1/1 (only). 17 damage goes
to player, usually enough to kill them this late in the game. This doesn't
happen as much in a 30 point game. Yes, this happens 2 out of 3 times
I play green. It has won me a tournament even.
-Scott
Lee Short
|> >Timothy M. Schreyer (sch...@gvls1.vfl.paramax.com) wrote:
|> >: We have played the five-player, one-color-per-player, in-the-circle-like-
|> >: on-the-cardback, defeat-your-two-opposites-to-win game a few times (with
|> >: 30 life to start) and that was really a neat way to play. It takes a
|> >: while though and we don't do it often ...
|>
|> A player wins if he is still alive when the two colors/players opposite him,
|> are killed. I think of it as the "Dual Opposites Duel" but the name needs
|> work. I confirm that this makes for a very interesting contest.
|>
|> The strategies are very subtle and shifting, despite that you
|> nominally know your allies. In fact, your two allies are opponents!
|> Sometimes I had the White player casting healing and such on Blue, to
|> protect him from Green!
|>
|> I suspect the same victory conditions in a multi-color game (i.e., five
|> players, each with a "normal" deck) has the same strategic complexity.
|>
This last is true, and IMHO improves the game immeasurably. The
seating-by-color game is extremely liable to be disrupted by a Karma,
Flashfires, Tsunami, etc. Imagine a 40-card deck stacked with 5
Karmas when you *know* you'll be playing against Black [who, of course,
has no way to get rid of the Karma]. This is just not fun at all.
It's much more fun to just have 5 players and use the same
victory-condition-by-seating rules, and drop the color restrictions.
This leaves all of the same ally/opponent strategies, and eliminates
the decks obviously stacked against particular colors.
In fact, I was once saved by my ally using Reverse Damage to keep
me alive, so he could kill off his last opponent and win.
Lee
Lee Short le...@asf.com The marathon is a theater for heroism,
Software Janitor the common man, and an uncommon challenge.
Hughes Training, Inc. It shows the extraordinary powers
Minneapolis, MN of ordinary people. -- Dr. George Sheehan 1919-1993
Jabberwock
>This last is true, and IMHO improves the game immeasurably. The
>seating-by-color game is extremely liable to be disrupted by a Karma,
>Flashfires, Tsunami, etc. Imagine a 40-card deck stacked with 5
>Karmas when you *know* you'll be playing against Black [who, of course,
>has no way to get rid of the Karma]. This is just not fun at all.
You have to set some rules down before playing this type of game, that's
all. The first time I played a color duel, the white player was able to get
Karma out early. We had not discussed the crippling power of this card in
this type of game. In fact, it hadn't even occurred to us. In the interest
of a good game, I promptly played Tranquility (even though I was opposed to
black.)
Simply put, you need to make sure certain cards get set aside in order to
keep the game balance. I suggest that the following cards should be removed
from a 5-way color duel:
Artifacts: Kormus Bell
Black: Deathgrip
Gloom
Blue: Lifetap
Volcanic Eruption
Green: Lifeforce
Tsunami
Red: Flashfires
White: Conversion
Karma
Circles of Protection
IMHO These are the only cards that truly render an opponent powerless.
Bottom Line: Before playing this type of game, make sure all of the players
have established the ground rules before starting.
Jabberwock...
Lee Scott
H. Scott Buckwalter - Baltimore <sc...@clark.net> wrote:
>: >How about "Pentagram" game?
>: >-Scott
>
>: Personally I try to avoid associating the five colors with the Pentagram.
>: Black, if anything in particular; see Unholy Strength.
>
>I sugested "Pentagram" due to the how it associated with the contest, and
>not for any one color. Is there a better name? "Duel oppisites duel"
>seems too long, but appropriate. Starting with 30 does change the game.
Actually, in my circle (or should that be coven :-) ), we just
call it a five-player game. Pretty simple, huh?
-Lee Scott
>-Scott
Timothy M. Schreyer
|> Simply put, you need to make sure certain cards get set aside in order to
|> keep the game balance. I suggest that the following cards should be removed
|> from a 5-way color duel:
|>
[list of hose your opposite color spells omitted]
|>
|> IMHO These are the only cards that truly render an opponent powerless.
|>
|> Bottom Line: Before playing this type of game, make sure all of the players
|> have established the ground rules before starting.
|>
I think it is important to leave these cards in. It inspires comraderie
among the players to your left and right. They are more than likely to
help you get rid of the Enchantment that ruins you because it is likely
giving one of THEIR opposites a great advantage, because now, having
essentially eliminated you for a while, they can concentrate on your
neighbor.
These cards are also an engineered part of the game and often are not killing
but merely crippling, especially in the Opposites game where you are
attacking and defending two opponents at once. Once you're crippled, the
game dynamics change a lot, often to the extent that the non-handicapped
(players with land of the right color :-) are battling it out and leaving
you alone. If I were to make any ground rules about these cards, it would
probably be just to limit their appearance in any deck to 2, or something.
Other positive effects of these cards is that they can help drive these
games to an end in less than two hours. Without these cards I see VERY
long duels likely.
Also, more along the engineering comments above, if you remove these cards
where do you draw the line. Red has Red Elemental Blasts that are only
good against blue. Blue has Blue Elemental Blasts and all those counterspells.
Do you take these away? Blue can be frustrating to the same degree as having
all your land removed or changed in color, but you probably wouldn't argue
to take its counterspells away.
I say leave these cards in and watch how people start helping their
enemies. ;-)
Dan Reynolds
|> You have to set some rules down before playing this type of game, that's
|> all. The first time I played a color duel, the white player was able to get
|> Karma out early. We had not discussed the crippling power of this card in
|> this type of game. In fact, it hadn't even occurred to us. In the interest
|> of a good game, I promptly played Tranquility (even though I was opposed to
|> black.)
|> Simply put, you need to make sure certain cards get set aside in order to
|> keep the game balance. I suggest that the following cards should be removed
|> from a 5-way color duel:
|>
|> Artifacts: Kormus Bell
|> Black: Deathgrip
|> Gloom
|>
|> Blue: Lifetap
|> Volcanic Eruption
|>
|> Green: Lifeforce
|> Tsunami
|>
|> Red: Flashfires
|>
|> White: Conversion
|> Karma
|> Circles of Protection
|>
|> IMHO These are the only cards that truly render an opponent powerless.
Hmmmm...maybe not; there are effective counters to each of these and I, for one,
would not exclude them because they "render an opponent powerless".
Kormus Bell Disenchant & Shatter, a timely Siren's Call or Magical Hack
[Interesting that you excluded the Kormus Bell but not Living Lands]
Deathgrip Gaea's Liege [hard to power a Deathgrip when you run out of swamp]
Disenchant [since Green is nominally an ally of White]
Northern Paladin [ditto]
Hack or Sleight of Mind [particularly if Black is winning]
Mana Short [in exchange for a timely Tranquility to lose that
Magnetic Mountain and CoP:Blue]
Gloom Why? White can't get off a Disenchant?
Lifetap Stoke up on Mox Emeralds, Elves & Mana Birds; use Tranquility
Volcanic Eruption This one I don't figure: the main target [Red] has a direct
counter in the Red Elemental Blast so why is this one too potent?
I don't see Armageddon on the list but I can guarantee you that
'un will peel your nosehairs back when it comes out!
Lifeforce Depends on whether my Demonic Hordes is out or not :)
Tsunami Only Blue cares and he has numerous effective counters to this
spell. My favorite is to Hack his Tsunami to forests and put in
a call to the local conservation group. :)
Flashfires So Consecrate some of your Plains.
Conversion Sunglasses of Urza and Celestial Prism
Karma Cyclopean Tomb and use it on White :) :)
CoP:whatever Effective? yes. Decisive: no.
|> Bottom Line: Before playing this type of game, make sure all of the players
|> have established the ground rules before starting.
|>
|> Jabberwock...
I agree. I suspect that most MtG groups develop an etiquette as decks evolve
and players become more skillful. In my group, it is strictly taboo to build
Decks of (more or less) Instant Death but that doesn't preclude someone from
playing with Channel and Fireball.
May all your MtG draws be good ones!
--
Dan Reynolds Internet: d...@chpc.utexas.edu
Systems Group Phonenet: (512) 471-2472
Center for High Performance Computing Snailnet: 10100 Burnet Road
The University of Texas System Austin, Texas 78758
Jabberwock
> I think it is important to leave these cards in. It inspires comraderie
> among the players to your left and right. They are more than likely to
> help you get rid of the Enchantment that ruins you because it is likely
> giving one of THEIR opposites a great advantage, because now, having
> essentially eliminated you for a while, they can concentrate on your
> neighbor.
And just how do you suggest Blue and Red help Black get rid of Karma?
(Don't even say Magical Hack. The notion of using a rare card to counter an
uncommon is ridiculous, not to mention the actual likelihood of Blue wasting
such a great card just to save Black.)
Also, if you look at the scenario I presented with Karma, I was playing
GREEN. White was not my opposite, so realistically, I had no reason to help
Black. Talk all you want about Comraderie, but in a good color duel, a
player's only source of help shouldn't be one of his opposing colors.
> Also, more along the engineering comments above, if you remove these cards
> where do you draw the line. Red has Red Elemental Blasts that are only
> good against blue. Blue has Blue Elemental Blasts and all those counterspells.
> Do you take these away? Blue can be frustrating to the same degree as having
> all your land removed or changed in color, but you probably wouldn't argue
> to take its counterspells away.
Counterspells are NOT color specific, and they do not have continuous
effects. Red and Blue elemental blasts affect ONE card. Where do I draw
the line? Don't stack your deck with these cards. A couple of blasts
(maybe four or five) would be acceptable, but no more than that.
Like I said before, the idea is to have a fun, challenging game where every
player has a legitimate chance of winning. The thoughts above are only my
opinions, but I do speak from experience.
Jabberwock...
Timothy M. Schreyer
|> In <1994Jan12.1...@VFL.Paramax.COM> sch...@gvls1.vfl.paramax.com (Timothy M. Schreyer) writes:
|>
|> > I think it is important to leave these cards in. It inspires comraderie
|> > among the players to your left and right. They are more than likely to
|> > help you get rid of the Enchantment that ruins you because it is likely
|> > giving one of THEIR opposites a great advantage, because now, having
|> > essentially eliminated you for a while, they can concentrate on your
|> > neighbor.
|>
|> And just how do you suggest Blue and Red help Black get rid of Karma?
|> (Don't even say Magical Hack. The notion of using a rare card to counter an
|> uncommon is ridiculous, not to mention the actual likelihood of Blue wasting
|> such a great card just to save Black.)
|>
from every coming off with one of my four kinds of counterspells. If
necessary, although I'll admit unlikely, Red or Blue could change Karma's
color to Red or Blue and the other guy could blast it.
I think if you're going to make deck contents rules, then maybe say player's
can only have one or two of any of these kinds of cards, but leave them
in because they add a lot to the five-player game. YMMV.
Tom Christiansen
:In article <2gt7je$s...@clarknet.clark.net>,:>: >How about "Pentagram" game?
:>: >-Scott
:>
:>: Personally I try to avoid associating the five colors with the Pentagram.
:>: Black, if anything in particular; see Unholy Strength.
:>
:>I sugested "Pentagram" due to the how it associated with the contest, and
:>not for any one color. Is there a better name? "Duel oppisites duel"
:>seems too long, but appropriate. Starting with 30 does change the game.
: Actually, in my circle (or should that be coven :-) ), we just
:call it a five-player game. Pretty simple, huh?
Be more poetic. A Five-way duel is a Quintessential Quandary, making for
Pentachromatic Play.
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen tch...@cs.colorado.edu
"Will Hack Perl for Fine Food and Fun"
Boulder Colorado 303-444-3212
Dan Reynolds
|> And just how do you suggest Blue and Red help Black get rid of Karma?
Black could stick a Chaos Orb in his deck, fish it out using a Demonic Tutor,
and do away with the Karma. Or, how about a timely Word of Command on White?
Maybe she's got a Disenchant in hand and you can get her to do it for you.
If that don't do it, use your Cyclopean Tomb on White and let them have some
of their own medicine.
|> (Don't even say Magical Hack. The notion of using a rare card to counter an
|> uncommon is ridiculous, not to mention the actual likelihood of Blue wasting
|> such a great card just to save Black.)
It ain't ridiculous from where I sit. Uncommon cards tend to be rather potent
and I won't hesitate from using rare cards to destroy them. I usually do whatever
I have to to kill that Luring, Regenerating Thicket Basilisk because I KNOW it's
going to kill me. If it takes a rare card to do the job, then I do it.
|> Also, if you look at the scenario I presented with Karma, I was playing
|> GREEN. White was not my opposite, so realistically, I had no reason to help
|> Black. Talk all you want about Comraderie, but in a good color duel, a
|> player's only source of help shouldn't be one of his opposing colors.
|>
|> Counterspells are NOT color specific, and they do not have continuous
|> effects. ...
I do not agree. When you Power Sink my Summon [Craw] Wurm, that's a continuous
effect -- I do not have my Craw Wurm if your counterspell works.
|> .... Red and Blue elemental blasts affect ONE card. Where do I draw
|> the line? Don't stack your deck with these cards. A couple of blasts
|> (maybe four or five) would be acceptable, but no more than that.
|>
|> Like I said before, the idea is to have a fun, challenging game where every
|> player has a legitimate chance of winning. The thoughts above are only my
|> opinions, but I do speak from experience.
|>
|> Jabberwock...
So where do you draw the line? Would you be unhappy if I put 6 Icy Manipulators
in my deck? It's real challenging to play against that, I can testify!
Dave Howell
it if all Magic players who have clever, new, different, interesting ways
of playing Magic to write up their rules and send them to
ern...@wizards.com. I guess you can send stupid, old, same, dull ways as
well. Ones that we like and/or think will work well will be published in
the Pocket Player's Guide. We'll try to attribute the versions and house
rules to the right people, but we're right up against the deadline now,
so if you inspired players can get them in this week, that would be
splendiferous.
Thanks!
Erik Lauer
>> I think it is important to leave these cards in. It inspires comraderie
>> among the players to your left and right. They are more than likely to
>> help you get rid of the Enchantment that ruins you because it is likely
>> giving one of THEIR opposites a great advantage, because now, having
>> essentially eliminated you for a while, they can concentrate on your
>> neighbor.
>
>And just how do you suggest Blue and Red help Black get rid of Karma?
>(Don't even say Magical Hack. The notion of using a rare card to counter an
>uncommon is ridiculous, not to mention the actual likelihood of Blue wasting
>such a great card just to save Black.)
I don't think blue would play hack just to save Black - but (risking
tranquility / disenchant), might use it to go after red or green.
David Jacobson
S >killing
S > but merely crippling, especially in the Opposites game where you are
S > attacking and defending two opponents at once. Once you're crippled, the
S > game dynamics change a lot, often to the extent that the non-handicapped
S > (players with land of the right color :-) are battling it out and leaving
S > you alone. If I were to make any ground rules about these cards, it would
S > probably be just to limit their appearance in any deck to 2, or something.
S >
S > Other positive effects of these cards is that they can help drive these
S > games to an end in less than two hours. Without these cards I see VERY
S > long duels likely.
S >
S > Also, more along the engineering comments above, if you remove these cards
S > where do you draw the line. Red has Red Elemental Blasts that are only
S > good against blue. Blue has Blue Elemental Blasts and all those
S >counterspells.
S > Do you take these away? Blue can be frustrating to the same degree as
S >having
S > all your land removed or changed in color, but you probably wouldn't argue
S > to take its counterspells away.
S > Timothy M. Schreyer sch...@vfl.paramax.com
S > Software Technology R&D (215) 648-2475
S > Unisys Government Systems Group FAX: (215) 648-2288
S > PO Box 517, Paoli, PA 19301
Naw, just get rid of Flashfires for the Red Mage!!!
---
* KingQWK 1.05 # 65 *