WotC Info: Pro Tourey Info
Sparky!!
Where: Puck Building
295 Lafayette
New York, NY 10012
(212) 274 - 8900
In Soho, near the Village
When: February 16-18, 1996
Play: Type II, with the following restrictions: at least 5 cards
(not counting basic land) are required from each of the following
expansions:
Fallen Empire, Chronicles, Ice Age, 4th Edition & Homelands
Match: Best of 3
2 hour rounds on Saturday (Swiss),
3 hour rounds on Sunday (Single elimination)
Cost: $50.00, Credit Card only
$10.00, Admission fee for spectators on site only
Junior: 18 and under, approx. 128 total slots
Can use parents Credit Card
Parents can sign Junior up and siblings at same time.
Senior: 18 and over, approx. 256 total slots
Can only register one person per phone call.
Can register themselves plus child(ren), if playing in Junior Tourn..
18 year olds may choose which division to play in.
Confirmation & Info. Pack: Will send out a confirmation letter 3rd week in
December. An Information packet will go out in the 2nd week of
January, 1996.
Prizes
Seniors: $30,000 Cash purse Juniors: $30,000 in Scholarships
1st Place $12,000 1st Place $12,000
2nd Place $5,000 etc...
3-4th Place $2,500
5-8th Place $1,000
9-16th Place $500
Top 32 win slots for the next Professional Tournament
Other:
o Even though it is labeled "Pro." tournament, players will still
be able to participate in amateur events as normal.
o All decks will be made public after the finals, so the games and
decks can be used in videos and articles.
o You must sign a form giving permission to be filmed.
o There will be several invitees who have automatic slots, but not
paid for, they will need to talk to Kevin Klipstein, ext. 1911.
(Kevin is working for Karin.)
o Pro Tour: There will be a Professional Tour, sometime in the Spring
in Southern California.
o This is open to non-US citizens.
--
Marc Schmalz, aka Sparky!!
Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Team
spa...@castle.wizards.com
Adam Maysonet
>Play: Type II, with the following restrictions: at least 5 cards
> (not counting basic land) are required from each of the following
> expansions:
> Fallen Empire, Chronicles, Ice Age, 4th Edition & Homelands
> Match: Best of 3
> 2 hour rounds on Saturday (Swiss),
> 3 hour rounds on Sunday (Single elimination)
Hello there...
Im curious how we are allowed to construct our sideboard. With any
amount of cards from any expansion? If so, I see people just tossing
in the cards they didnt want to use into the sideboard and using the
cards they originally wanted to use into the deck.
Adam Maysonet
Aladeptus
SE Regional Champion
Arjen Gnodde
Hi,
DJL> If the answer is that this sort of Swiss tourney would be too hard to
DJL> organise, then WotC should take $2000 and pay a programmer to write
DJL> the software. It's easy to do, and at that payrate you should be able
DJL> to ask for completion inside a week :-) Hell, send me a cheque and I'll
DJL> do it - we've already got the basics implemented for our own
DJL> tournaments. You won't get pretty interfaces, but it'll do the job :-)
In big chesstournaments (all of them are Swiss) they use computers for
Swiss Tournaments for years. So the software is available.
you don't even have to toss who begins, because the program does
all that.
Thanks,
**********************************************************************
* *
* MASTER DECKBUILDER *
* *
* GRONINGEN *
* *
* Arjen Gnodde: master.de...@iwg.nl *
* *
**********************************************************************
David J Low
>Professional Tournament Info
>...
> Match: Best of 3
> 2 hour rounds on Saturday (Swiss),
> 3 hour rounds on Sunday (Single elimination)
And, from something else that was posted, it's five matches on the
Saturday, with the top 16 going through to the single elimination on
Sunday. Before I get started - these comments are meant as constructive
criticism :-)
Why, oh why, can't WotC get this right? Run the whole thing Swiss!
With five rounds and 256 places, the chances are that out of the top 16,
only two to four of them will have played each other. In other words,
your chance of making the top 16 is based purely and simply on the
standard of the five opponents you meet! And if you're unlucky enough
to come up against a couple of top-16 players, even if you're a top-16
player yourself, you won't qualify. OTOH, the lucky player who meets
five non-contenders (or, more likely, less contenders than someone else)
will qualify.
If you're going to play this silly system, you'd get a better result
curve by playing single elimination (which would at least be 8 rounds,
which tells you that this is the minimum number of Swiss rounds you
should be looking for with that many entrants). Look at the numbers,
guys - work out how many *games* (forget matches!) you can afford to
lose in order to still make the top 16....
Other gripes: two hours for three games??! Although I applaud WotC for
playing ten hours of Magic in the day, this should have been used far
more efficiently. Twenty hours over two days should give enough time
for around fifty games, and a circa-20 round Swiss would be nifty :-) In
practice, though, you'd probably run two sequential 12-rounders, adding
points at the end. 256 players and 12 rounds is a reasonable ratio - the
chances are that the winner of such an event will have played about half
of the top 16. Two sequential events would allow deck changes for the
second, and adding points across events evens out some luck effects.
If the answer is that this sort of Swiss tourney would be too hard to
organise, then WotC should take $2000 and pay a programmer to write the
software. It's easy to do, and at that payrate you should be able to ask
for completion inside a week :-) Hell, send me a cheque and I'll do it
- we've already got the basics implemented for our own tournaments. You
won't get pretty interfaces, but it'll do the job :-)
>o This is open to non-US citizens.
Jolly good show, although I don't think I'm going to make the trip
for this sort of lottery :-)
Sorry if this response sounds over-the-top in the aggrieved stakes,
but as an afficionado of this sort of thing, I get annoyed to see it
done in such a crappy manner. However, if WotC's idea is simply to put
on a show, and they don't particularly care about getting the best decks
and players through to the end, there's not much that can be said.
Regards,
David.
--
| David J. Low dl...@physics.adelaide.edu.au Oooo. |
| ( ) |
| WWW: http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dlow ) / |
| "I'd rather be lost in the Darkness than blinded by the Light" (_/ |
Dennis F. Hefferman
|Play: Type II, with the following restrictions: at least 5 cards
| (not counting basic land) are required from each of the following
| expansions:
| Fallen Empire, Chronicles, Ice Age, 4th Edition & Homelands
Is that five cards total from each expansion, or five different cards?
EG, if I have four Portents and a Barbed Sextant in my deck does that fulfill
the IA requirement or not?
|Cost: $50.00, Credit Card only
_Which cards?_
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: Macavity heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include <disclaim.h> Computer Science/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" -- Don Henley/Glenn Fry, "Get Over It"
JASON GRUNDY
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>spa...@castle.wizards.com (Sparky!!) writes:
>>Professional Tournament Info
>>...
>> Match: Best of 3
>> 2 hour rounds on Saturday (Swiss),
>> 3 hour rounds on Sunday (Single elimination)
> playing ten hours of Magic in the day, this should have been used far
> more efficiently. Twenty hours over two days should give enough time
40 minutes per game is decent. My typical type I games last about 20 minutes
each, perhaps 18. I've had to thow games I thought I might lose just to have
enough time to play game 3. I've also had game 3 decided by who throws the
first lightning bolt. THAT really sucks.
Its about time they gave people enough time to play. Not everyone plays
weenie decks, or warp speed decks that are over in 5 rounds or less. Some of
use like to shut the opponent down and watch as they run out of cards :)
> for around fifty games, and a circa-20 round Swiss would be nifty :-) In
> practice, though, you'd probably run two sequential 12-rounders, adding
> points at the end. 256 players and 12 rounds is a reasonable ratio - the
> chances are that the winner of such an event will have played about half
> of the top 16. Two sequential events would allow deck changes for the
> second, and adding points across events evens out some luck effects.
I'd play red/white. CoP Red, and direct damage. Shuffle and cut for 2
minutes, shut them down for 17, then hit them with all your direct damage for
the next minute, and gain as much life as possible. Then laugh in the
opponents face as they lose because they have less life than you, even though
they'd have won if they had another 2 minutes.
No. Thanks, but no.
> Sorry if this response sounds over-the-top in the aggrieved stakes,
> but as an afficionado of this sort of thing, I get annoyed to see it
> done in such a crappy manner. However, if WotC's idea is simply to put
> on a show, and they don't particularly care about getting the best decks
> and players through to the end, there's not much that can be said.
Imposing a time limit on the play doesn't help the best decks get through.
It gets the best decks that work quickly through. Blech. While I agree that
having more matches [ideally everyone plays everyone] is desirable, you
just can't do that kind of thing. I also think that eliminating sideboards
is a really bad thing too. It eliminates a lot of the skill involved. It
again favours the speed decks too much.
--
--------------
Jason Grundy
JASON GRUNDY
>>In article <4a3sqj$k...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>> Other gripes: two hours for three games??!
>>
>>each, perhaps 18. I've had to thow games I thought I might lose just to have
>>enough time to play game 3. I've also had game 3 decided by who throws the
>>first lightning bolt. THAT really sucks.
>
> nothing to do with time available. Also, this is type II (essentially),
> which means that there are a whole lot fewer options for what to do in
> any situation. We're currently playing eight-round Swiss events in a
> 7-hour day, with 45 minutes for three games plus overrun time. It's
> simply a case of punishing stallers.
Theres a difference between stallers and having a slow deck.
> When this time allowance was brought up locally, the general comment
> seemed to be "What, haven't they heard of playing under pressure?".
> Although I might note agree with this comment, it's probably valid. If
> you only disadvantage yourself (and possibly your opponent *as well*) by
> playing slowly, you soon learn time management.
How am I supposed to time manage... Untap, draw, done? My decks are
usually totally reactive, and I take almost no time to play my 1/2 of the
game.
You gotta figure though, it takes about 52 turns for each player in order
to end the game to deck exhaustion [I don't TRY to do this, but sometimes
I can't keep my creatures alive.] So you're doing about 104 turns. If
turns average 10 seconds, you're still looking at 17 minutes a game.
Then of course theres Feldon's Cane and in type I, Time Twister... :)
> Note also to although there might be more games lost on time pressure
> (mistakes made due to rushing), because you get more games in, you get a
> better sample space.
Also, in general, better players will make fewer mistakes.
>> Its about time they gave people enough time to play. Not everyone plays
>>weenie decks, or warp speed decks that are over in 5 rounds or less. Some of
>>use like to shut the opponent down and watch as they run out of cards :)
>
> Sure, like it myself. But a slow deck doesn't have to be played
> slowly...
:) Yeah, I agree. I'm one of the faster players I know. Its frustrating
to play against a slow player.
>> I'd play red/white. CoP Red, and direct damage. Shuffle and cut for 2
>>minutes, shut them down for 17, then hit them with all your direct damage for
>>the next minute, and gain as much life as possible. Then laugh in the
>>opponents face as they lose because they have less life than you, even though
>>they'd have won if they had another 2 minutes.
>> No. Thanks, but no.
>
> That's just a silly set of "what happens when time runs out" rules,
> that WotC may or may not use after considering the effects. No-result
> games are draws, stallers lose. Harsh, but fair, and perhaps necessary.
> As for how CoP:Red shuts down every deck....I guess Jason's just being
> facetious :-)
Well, white to shut down the opponent. CoP:Red is more of an example. It
has the added benefit though of protecting you from your own quakes, chains
and surges.
Its nasty to go with no-result = draw. A total beginner who you can't
lose to, could take points from you.
>>I also think that eliminating sideboards is a really bad thing too. It
>>eliminates a lot of the skill involved. It again favours the speed decks
>>too much.
>
> ??? If you read carefully, you'll see that sideboards are included in
> the tournament. And no one has suggested that they should be taken out
> of it (that I've read, at least, net-lag providing).
The original response seemed to indicate a desire for a HUGE number of games
to be played. I was guessing that the number was high enough that you'd
only get to play each person 1 game, not best 2 of 3. Which basically means
no sideboard [for various reasons.] <shrug> Maybe I was wrong.
--
--------------
Jason Grundy
mark balabon
: Professional Tournament Info
: Where: Puck Building
: 295 Lafayette
: New York, NY 10012
: (212) 274 - 8900
: In Soho, near the Village
: When: February 16-18, 1996
: Play: Type II, with the following restrictions: at least 5 cards
: (not counting basic land) are required from each of the following
: expansions:
: Fallen Empire, Chronicles, Ice Age, 4th Edition & Homelands
: Match: Best of 3
: 2 hour rounds on Saturday (Swiss),
: 3 hour rounds on Sunday (Single elimination)
: Cost: $50.00, Credit Card only
: $10.00, Admission fee for spectators on site only
This really saddens me. I understand that there may be people that want to
play in this type of tournament and that's fine. The problems are that: 1)
there _WILL_ be problems with cheating (I've seen it at tournaments for
Rev. boosters - why not a tourney where $12,000 is at stake); 2) this creates
even more of a dichotomy among players; 3) now people not only have to spend
a fair amount of money to buy the cards (even for Type II), they have to spend
a fair amount of money to play in tournaments ($50 is a fair amount to college
students - I would hazard a guess that most of the players are college
students); 4) might this spell the end of the local tournament with a $5
entry fee? Why play there when you can play at a different tournament and win
$12,000? 5) What happened to the policy of limiting entry fees and prizes???
(A local game shop has sanctioned tournaments and they were told that they
could only charge up to a certain amount for the entry fee - and I guarantee
that it wasn't $50).
Most of all, what ever happened to playing Magic for FUN?? A tournament
system like this may completely ruin it. I know that's been said about a lot
of things, but this time I believe it. When I play in tournaments, I want to
win because I like to win, but I also want the prize. If it's something I
don't have, great. If I do have it, I can trade it for things I don't have.
This type of tournament is simply for the sake of money.
: Junior: 18 and under, approx. 128 total slots
: o This is open to non-US citizens.
: --
Paul J Paella
Question:
Is this event just type II? If so, I'm not going, and all my friends are not going also.
Why can't WoTC run some sort of Type I & II pro events? It's not that I don't like type II, I just have MUCH more fun in Type I; it just seems sooo
exciting compared to Type Poo.
David J Low
>In article <4a3sqj$k...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>> Other gripes: two hours for three games??!
>
> 40 minutes per game is decent. My typical type I games last about 20 minutes
>each, perhaps 18. I've had to thow games I thought I might lose just to have
>enough time to play game 3. I've also had game 3 decided by who throws the
>first lightning bolt. THAT really sucks.
The last point is a problem with having games decided on life, which has
nothing to do with time available. Also, this is type II (essentially),
which means that there are a whole lot fewer options for what to do in
any situation. We're currently playing eight-round Swiss events in a
7-hour day, with 45 minutes for three games plus overrun time. It's
simply a case of punishing stallers.
When this time allowance was brought up locally, the general comment
seemed to be "What, haven't they heard of playing under pressure?".
Although I might note agree with this comment, it's probably valid. If
you only disadvantage yourself (and possibly your opponent *as well*) by
playing slowly, you soon learn time management.
Note also to although there might be more games lost on time pressure
(mistakes made due to rushing), because you get more games in, you get a
better sample space.
> Its about time they gave people enough time to play. Not everyone plays
>weenie decks, or warp speed decks that are over in 5 rounds or less. Some of
>use like to shut the opponent down and watch as they run out of cards :)
Sure, like it myself. But a slow deck doesn't have to be played
slowly...
> I'd play red/white. CoP Red, and direct damage. Shuffle and cut for 2
>minutes, shut them down for 17, then hit them with all your direct damage for
>the next minute, and gain as much life as possible. Then laugh in the
>opponents face as they lose because they have less life than you, even though
>they'd have won if they had another 2 minutes.
> No. Thanks, but no.
That's just a silly set of "what happens when time runs out" rules,
that WotC may or may not use after considering the effects. No-result
games are draws, stallers lose. Harsh, but fair, and perhaps necessary.
As for how CoP:Red shuts down every deck....I guess Jason's just being
facetious :-)
> Imposing a time limit on the play doesn't help the best decks get through.
>It gets the best decks that work quickly through. Blech. While I agree that
>having more matches [ideally everyone plays everyone] is desirable, you
>just can't do that kind of thing.
Round robin is impractical, 5-round Swiss with 256 players is
laughable. 10+ round Swiss is possible, and a better indicator.
A matter of opinion as to whether a lottery or time pressure is
better.
>I also think that eliminating sideboards is a really bad thing too. It
>eliminates a lot of the skill involved. It again favours the speed decks
>too much.
??? If you read carefully, you'll see that sideboards are included in
the tournament. And no one has suggested that they should be taken out
of it (that I've read, at least, net-lag providing).
Regards,
Jesse Chounard
: |Play: Type II, with the following restrictions: at least 5 cards
: | (not counting basic land) are required from each of the following
: | expansions:
: | Fallen Empire, Chronicles, Ice Age, 4th Edition & Homelands
: Is that five cards total from each expansion, or five different cards?
: EG, if I have four Portents and a Barbed Sextant in my deck does that fulfill
: the IA requirement or not?
And does that count the sideboard?
jjc
David J Low
> DJL> If the answer is that this sort of Swiss tourney would be too hard to
> DJL> organise, then WotC should take $2000 and pay a programmer to write
> DJL> the software.
>In big chesstournaments (all of them are Swiss) they use computers for
>Swiss Tournaments for years. So the software is available.
>you don't even have to toss who begins, because the program does
>all that.
The trouble is, the current commercial packages (the ones I've seen, at
least) are too specific. Something to do the job for MtG has to be
flexible enough to deal with:
o varying points for win/draw/(incomplete)/loss, and not just in a
1:0.5:0 set of ratios;
o varying numbers of games per match;
o it would be nice to have chess-style matchups for "start", rather
than coin-flipping (loser can still go first in subsequent
games);
And they're just the ones that come immediately to mind :-)
SwissPerfect and ASE-Scorer (for example) are good, but not good enough
for what the MtG community wants - and there's no reason they sould be,
since they were written with specific tourneys in mind (chess and bridge
respectively).
David J Low
>In article <4a6c18$u...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>
> Theres a difference between stallers and having a slow deck.
Sure - but, as I said before, there's no reason for a slow deck to be
played slowly.
> You gotta figure though, it takes about 52 turns for each player in order
>to end the game to deck exhaustion [I don't TRY to do this, but sometimes
>I can't keep my creatures alive.] So you're doing about 104 turns. If
>turns average 10 seconds, you're still looking at 17 minutes a game.
When a deck which can do this regularly against quality opposition
appears, I guess we'll have to worry about it :-) Now, even with
these numbers we get three games an hour, which is far better than the
three games in *two* hours that WotC want to run. I have no problem
with 40-minute social games (hell, I've played far longer than that
with theme decks), but in a tournament you should be prepared to play
quickly. If you can't play three games in an hour regularly, with and
against tourney-quality decks, you don't deserve to be there.
> Then of course theres Feldon's Cane and in type I, Time Twister... :)
Of course, we're still waiting for someone to devise a Type II deck
which wins (regularly) by control/deck exhaustion :-)
> Its nasty to go with no-result = draw. A total beginner who you can't
>lose to, could take points from you.
If you can't beat them, and they're not stalling, then why do you
deserve more than half points? That's like me saying "I'm a better
player than him, so if he doesn't score against me, I win by
default"!!
> The original response seemed to indicate a desire for a HUGE number of games
>to be played. I was guessing that the number was high enough that you'd
>only get to play each person 1 game, not best 2 of 3. Which basically means
>no sideboard [for various reasons.] <shrug> Maybe I was wrong.
First point, you *never* play "best of" in a Swiss system. It only
works if everyone plays the same number of games. Hence, you play
everyone three times (or five times, or once, or whatever). Three is a
nice number, for no statistical reason other than it lets you play a
nice number of rounds in a reasonable time :-)
Sparky!!
> Im curious how we are allowed to construct our sideboard. With any
> amount of cards from any expansion? If so, I see people just tossing
> in the cards they didnt want to use into the sideboard and using the
> cards they originally wanted to use into the deck.
I'm working on this one. I imagine that you can just stuff cards into your
sideboard, but if you do you'll be at the mercy of people who really bother
to use it. It doesn't seem like a good strategy decision to me.
JASON GRUNDY
>> You gotta figure though, it takes about 52 turns for each player in order
>>to end the game to deck exhaustion [I don't TRY to do this, but sometimes
>>I can't keep my creatures alive.] So you're doing about 104 turns. If
>>turns average 10 seconds, you're still looking at 17 minutes a game.
>
> appears, I guess we'll have to worry about it :-) Now, even with
Its what my type I deck has been doing for over a year now, and 52turns/
player for a game involving "The Deck" will do about the same. A lot of games
are solved by deck exhaustion when the strategy is serious denial, %33 or more
it seems.
> these numbers we get three games an hour, which is far better than the
> three games in *two* hours that WotC want to run. I have no problem
Yeah, I don't have a problem with 10 second [AVERAGE] turns, but that
doesn't mean an opponent doesn't. Its very, very easy to take double this,
and not be stalling. 5 seconds to untap, draw. 5 seconds to figure out
what mana to tap, 5 seconds to look over what you've done, then another 5
seconds on the opponents turn decideding whether or not to use the Jamadea
or Icy.
> with 40-minute social games (hell, I've played far longer than that
> with theme decks), but in a tournament you should be prepared to play
> quickly. If you can't play three games in an hour regularly, with and
> against tourney-quality decks, you don't deserve to be there.
>
>> Then of course theres Feldon's Cane and in type I, Time Twister... :)
>
> Of course, we're still waiting for someone to devise a Type II deck
> which wins (regularly) by control/deck exhaustion :-)
We are... Oh. Yeah, yeah, we are. We are. <nudge nudge, wink, wink>
Hehehe, yeah, control/deck exhaustion is NOT feasible in type II. EVERYONE
here that? It is NOT feasible, so don't TRY to do it. Hahummm. Right then.
:)
>> Its nasty to go with no-result = draw. A total beginner who you can't
>>lose to, could take points from you.
>
> If you can't beat them, and they're not stalling, then why do you
> deserve more than half points? That's like me saying "I'm a better
> player than him, so if he doesn't score against me, I win by
> default"!!
I've had games where I only see one of my creatures in the top 1/2 of my
deck, and my opponent is going slow, but not stalling. Although I CAN'T
lose to this person, I just can't beat them yet because the 1/8th-1/6th of
my deck that deals damage hasn't decided to show up yet. You know the vice
deck that came in second in the worlds that only had 4 cards to hurt the
opponent with... Well. Imagine all 4 being in the bottom 1/3 of the deck,
along with most of the Howling Mines. A slow newbie who isn't stalling,
merely slow, can run you to a tie like this. There aren't chess clocks at
the table for when the judge walks up to arbitrate the tie and to see that
one person took 45 minutes to play and the other took 5. Stalling has to
be BLATENT as all hell in order for there to be ANY chance of getting called
on it.
--
--------------
Jason Grundy
David J Low
>In article <4a8uhl$7...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,>>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>
>> When a deck which can do this [run an opponent out of cards]
>> regularly against quality opposition
>> appears, I guess we'll have to worry about it :-)
>
>player for a game involving "The Deck" will do about the same. A lot of games
>are solved by deck exhaustion when the strategy is serious denial, %33 or more
>it seems.
Interesting - local conditions affecting perceptions, I would guess. I
don't see it happen, haven't seen it reported, so believe it doesn't
happen :-) Jason's seen it and done it, and guesses at 33% when denial
is involved! Ah well, we'll look forward to the next set of "big"
tournaments for the Grundy Library-Sucker to appear :-) Seriously,
though, I would like to see something other than the standard
half-dozen demonstrate success....
>> Of course, we're still waiting for someone to devise a Type II deck
>> which wins (regularly) by control/deck exhaustion :-)
>
> We are... Oh. Yeah, yeah, we are. We are. <nudge nudge, wink, wink>
>Hehehe, yeah, control/deck exhaustion is NOT feasible in type II. EVERYONE
>here that? It is NOT feasible, so don't TRY to do it. Hahummm. Right then.
>:)
:-) Here comes the Library-Sucker! Duck, hide, run for your lives :-)
Just for interest - how does deck exhaustion deal with the 300-card
"brick"? A mate of mine made up a nasty exhauster maybe six months
back (State championships/Nationals qualifying event, from memory), and
has the bad luck to run up against *two* such monstrosities in the
first two rounds. Never recovered from the experience, donations in
lieu of flowers to....:-)
> I've had games where I only see one of my creatures in the top 1/2 of my
>deck, and my opponent is going slow, but not stalling. Although I CAN'T
>lose to this person, I just can't beat them yet because the 1/8th-1/6th of
>my deck that deals damage hasn't decided to show up yet. You know the vice
>deck that came in second in the worlds that only had 4 cards to hurt the
>opponent with... Well. Imagine all 4 being in the bottom 1/3 of the deck,
>along with most of the Howling Mines. A slow newbie who isn't stalling,
>merely slow, can run you to a tie like this. There aren't chess clocks at
>the table for when the judge walks up to arbitrate the tie and to see that
>one person took 45 minutes to play and the other took 5. Stalling has to
>be BLATENT as all hell in order for there to be ANY chance of getting called
>on it.
It's definitely personal perceptions clouding how I see this. Makes
it very hard to comment without doing a Dennis :-( Going
tangentially, though, I'll note that the deck that came second in the
Worlds came *second* in the Worlds, and that the best-performed
constructed decks did *not* make the finals due to the equal weighting
given to the sealed deck semi-lottery. From memory, of the eight
finalists, only two finished in the top eight of the constructed
deck component. The final was then single-elim lottery :-)
I *think* that a deck which relies (probably a bad choice of words) on
just a few cards is inferior to something more general. I attribute
the success of "The Deck" and assorted clones to an interesting
abberation - it goes very well against other serious tourney
contenders, but not so well against (say) a speed Green/cards-galore
(ignoring that speed green is becoming a serious contender after HL).
Of course, me thinking this doesn't make it true - similarly, though,
just as I can say "deck exhaustion doesn't work because I see speed
take it out every time", someone else could say "You haven't seen
deck-exhaustion played well, then - it works here!"; to which the
followup is "Well, you haven't seen speed done properly..." etc, etc,
ad nauseum :-)
However: if it comes down to a choice between playing some number of
games, or playing twice that many games at the expense of one
particular strategy, I will always pick the latter - YMMV. I would
rather see a ten-round Swiss with no deck exhaustion, than a
five-round event where someone *may* play it, and they *might* go
well.
People will accuse me of being a secret practicioner of euthanaesia
now :-(
JASON GRUNDY
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>In article <4a8uhl$7...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>>
>>> When a deck which can do this [run an opponent out of cards]
>>> regularly against quality opposition
>>> appears, I guess we'll have to worry about it :-)
>>
>> Its what my type I deck has been doing for over a year now, and 52turns/
>>player for a game involving "The Deck" will do about the same. A lot of games
>>are solved by deck exhaustion when the strategy is serious denial, %33 or more
>>it seems.
>
> Interesting - local conditions affecting perceptions, I would guess. I
> don't see it happen, haven't seen it reported, so believe it doesn't
> happen :-) Jason's seen it and done it, and guesses at 33% when denial
> is involved! Ah well, we'll look forward to the next set of "big"
> tournaments for the Grundy Library-Sucker to appear :-) Seriously,
> though, I would like to see something other than the standard
> half-dozen demonstrate success....
I don't think you can really call it a local condition. "The Deck"
certainly isn't local [nor is it localized.] Slow decks have been doing
quite well for themselves for a long time now [Zak's deck wasn't all that
speedy...] And theres enough talk about blue/white decks in general on the
net [and them being successful] that it definetly is out there.
My deck, like "The Deck" has just taken defence to the extreme at the
expense of offence. It works.
>>> Of course, we're still waiting for someone to devise a Type II deck
>>> which wins (regularly) by control/deck exhaustion :-)
>>
>> We are... Oh. Yeah, yeah, we are. We are. <nudge nudge, wink, wink>
>>Hehehe, yeah, control/deck exhaustion is NOT feasible in type II. EVERYONE
>>here that? It is NOT feasible, so don't TRY to do it. Hahummm. Right then.
>>:)
>
> :-) Here comes the Library-Sucker! Duck, hide, run for your lives :-)
>
> Just for interest - how does deck exhaustion deal with the 300-card
> "brick"? A mate of mine made up a nasty exhauster maybe six months
> back (State championships/Nationals qualifying event, from memory), and
> has the bad luck to run up against *two* such monstrosities in the
> first two rounds. Never recovered from the experience, donations in
> lieu of flowers to....:-)
:) Thats on of the reasons why I argue that almost any creaturless deck
will be improved by the addition of a couple creatures.
I myself never rely solely on deck exhaustion, it just works out that if
I can't take out my opponent with creatures or direct damage, I make sure
they run out of cards first. I'd have a hard time against a 300 card
deck though :) Would have to hope their deck is so feeble that I could live
with drawing 1 card to their 2 [island sanctuary + millstone, I draw every
second turn, they go through 6 cards for every 1 I go through] and PRAY they
don't get a Feldon's Cane!!! :)
Interestingly enough, I've heard that one of the Australian National Team
members is in Ottawa. I'll have to hunt him down and beat him :) when I go
back there for January.
But then, I think Australia and Canada both did pretty poorly at the
Worlds.
>> I've had games where I only see one of my creatures in the top 1/2 of my
>>deck, and my opponent is going slow, but not stalling. Although I CAN'T
>>lose to this person, I just can't beat them yet because the 1/8th-1/6th of
>>my deck that deals damage hasn't decided to show up yet. You know the vice
>>deck that came in second in the worlds that only had 4 cards to hurt the
>>opponent with... Well. Imagine all 4 being in the bottom 1/3 of the deck,
>>along with most of the Howling Mines. A slow newbie who isn't stalling,
>>merely slow, can run you to a tie like this. There aren't chess clocks at
>>the table for when the judge walks up to arbitrate the tie and to see that
>>one person took 45 minutes to play and the other took 5. Stalling has to
>>be BLATENT as all hell in order for there to be ANY chance of getting called
>>on it.
>
> It's definitely personal perceptions clouding how I see this. Makes
> it very hard to comment without doing a Dennis :-( Going
> tangentially, though, I'll note that the deck that came second in the
> Worlds came *second* in the Worlds, and that the best-performed
> constructed decks did *not* make the finals due to the equal weighting
> given to the sealed deck semi-lottery. From memory, of the eight
> finalists, only two finished in the top eight of the constructed
> deck component. The final was then single-elim lottery :-)
I dunno. Rack beats Vice. Seems pretty typical??? I didn't see the decks,
so I can't really comment other than to say seal deck is stupid.
> I *think* that a deck which relies (probably a bad choice of words) on
> just a few cards is inferior to something more general. I attribute
Hmmmm. Well, you can think of it this way. As you decrease the general
ability of a deck to deal damage [or more accuratly, to win], you increase
[or at least a compatent deck builder should] the general ability of the
deck to defend itself, or lock the opponent [depending on how you want to
win.]
So, what I'm saying is that while the number of effective cards in the
deck is decreased, the other cards in the deck are there to increase the
effectiveness of those cards. Thats how "The Deck" can get away with
only having 2 real game winning cards. [I must confess here that I don't
consider "The Deck" to be a good example since I can't believe it would
ever win a real tournament...]
> the success of "The Deck" and assorted clones to an interesting
> abberation - it goes very well against other serious tourney
> contenders, but not so well against (say) a speed Green/cards-galore
> (ignoring that speed green is becoming a serious contender after HL).
?? This sort of deck is is one of only 2 weaknesses MY typical type of
deck has [the other being land destruction.] The Deck on the other hand
shouldn't have any problem against it. I think we may be thinking of
different deck types though.
> Of course, me thinking this doesn't make it true - similarly, though,
> just as I can say "deck exhaustion doesn't work because I see speed
> take it out every time", someone else could say "You haven't seen
> deck-exhaustion played well, then - it works here!"; to which the
> followup is "Well, you haven't seen speed done properly..." etc, etc,
> ad nauseum :-)
:) Well I have so Nyeah! Actually I started off with speed decks, became
very good at speed decks, and the only decks that ever beat me were slow
rainbow decks. Thats what I've been playing ever since, and I LOVE playing
against speed decks. They're so fun to crush.
Speed decks are the primary problem a slow deck has to face. You have to
get out of those initial rounds of no mana and nothing on the table with
some reasonable amount of life. A lot of slow decks are so overfocussed on
this, that consistant decks [ala the green deck you mentioned] that can put
out a decently big creature every turn or two starting about turn 3, can be
a problem.
> However: if it comes down to a choice between playing some number of
> games, or playing twice that many games at the expense of one
> particular strategy, I will always pick the latter - YMMV. I would
> rather see a ten-round Swiss with no deck exhaustion, than a
> five-round event where someone *may* play it, and they *might* go
> well.
A difference of where the line is drawn. For me, eliminating slow decks
[not just deck exhaustion!] is like eliminating the whole point of the game.
Speed decks = Luck to me. I prefer slower decks that have consistant results
opposed to the "Oh, I drew a creature pumper more than average which resulted
in one less creature, so I died on round 5. But next game, I'll get the
average draw, and you'll get shafted, so I'll win on turn 5!!!" Blah. The
less cards you see in a game, the bigger the effect those cards have on the
game. Decks made to win on turn 5 are just chance decks when they come up
against another such deck. There is a bit of skill involved, sometimes, in
how you play, but its easy enough to pick up. Not as much skill, not as much
fun as two slow decks going at it.
So if you draw the line getting rid of decks that win on turn 40, you might
as well draw the line that gets rid of decks that win on turn 10. You only
lose 1 or 2 deck archtypes there too. In fact, get rid of all the decks and
just play tiddlywinks!!! :) Or don't draw that first line...
--
--------------
Jason Grundy
JASON GRUNDY
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>In article <4adr2c$k...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> I don't think you can really call it a local condition. "The Deck"
>>certainly isn't local [nor is it localized.] Slow decks have been doing
>>quite well for themselves for a long time now [Zak's deck wasn't all that
>>speedy...] And theres enough talk about blue/white decks in general on the
>>net [and them being successful] that it definetly is out there.
>
> protected-Serra kill. The idea was never to win by running the other
> guy out of cards (although one could imagine that as a possible result,
> although Twister rather than Feldon's meant that both players would
> keep the cards going....). And again, we're interested in Type II here
> (bearing the thread in mind).
With my decks, I've found that if I have less than 6 creature in the deck,
the game has a very high chance of being decided by deck exhaustion. At 8,
I usually win with a creature kill. It depends on how defensive the opponent's
deck is. If it isn't, then I'll win between turn 15-20. If it is defensive,
then the game usually takes at least 30 turns.
>>> I *think* that a deck which relies (probably a bad choice of words) on
>>> just a few cards is inferior to something more general.
>>
>> Hmmmm. Well, you can think of it this way. As you decrease the general
>>ability of a deck to deal damage [or more accuratly, to win], you increase
>>[or at least a compatent deck builder should] the general ability of the
>>deck to defend itself, or lock the opponent [depending on how you want to
>>win.]
>
> And I'm still a proponent of "a good offense is better than a good
> defense", since a good offense can win quickly or slowly, but a good
> defense can only win slowly. Basically, that due to the nature of the
> game (mana availability) it's easier to be on the offense than the
> defense. Once again, though, purely personal opinion :-)
There are 2 reasons that defense is often better than offense, and a good
offensive deck has to take into account if it wants to win. 1) Its easier
to destroy than create. 2) Its easier to destroy lots than to create.
When you're destroying, you can be selective. If the opponent has 1/3 of
his deck that is "worrisome", and you have 1/2 your deck that is destructive,
you don't have a problem. You don't have to disenchant the vices or mines,
just the winter orbs. [Or just vices, this is situational]
Also, destructive cards tend to be cheaper, I.E. Plow is W, not many
creatures cheaper than that!
Second point, its easier to get ahead in card count with defense. If
the opponent has 2 creatures out [or 3] which often happens within the first
5 turns of a weenie deck, 1 earthquake or wrath will eliminate 3 of the
opponent's cards. Usually you bolt or plow the first one or two to show up,
then when they have enough mana to get a couple out [or you take a hit for
a turn] at the same time, then you kill them all. Same thing with Dust2dust,
and other cards. Against speed big creature, you can usually plow or link
enough to get ahead in card count as they throw dark rituals or forests into
the graveyard everytime they cast a creature. Vice/Mine decks have the
weakness of having the mines in there. It turns into an Ancestral Recall for
your opponent if you don't already have the land locked down. Mystic Remora
is good against non-weenie decks. And against direct damage deck, getting a
big creature out [4/4 or bigger] and linking it early is a death nell,
especially if you have a counter in your hand. Orggs are the best for this,
but Angels are okay.
While it IS possible to make the opponent use more cards than you with an
offensive deck, its hard. Forcing a double bolt to kill a single card,
Control Magic [that doesn't get blasted or disenchanted] are about the only
ways. The obvious big exception to this is Hymn to Tourach. Any deck,
offensive or defensive can use this to get a 1 card advantage [and just as
importantly], bring the number of cards the opponent sees in the game down
by 2 for the opponent.
>> A difference of where the line is drawn. For me, eliminating slow decks
>>[not just deck exhaustion!] is like eliminating the whole point of the game.
>
> But again, slow decks don't have to be played slowly, and I don't
> think people are playing decks which win more than 50% of the time
> against "all" other decks with an *average* win time of (say) 40
> turns. The games they win might well take that long, but by my
> reckoning, they lose the others faster, bringing the average time
> down.
You might be surprised.
>>Decks made to win on turn 5 are just chance decks when they come up
>>against another such deck. There is a bit of skill involved, sometimes, in
>>how you play, but its easy enough to pick up. Not as much skill, not as much
>>fun as two slow decks going at it.
>
> Whoa! Mind that "fun" word - tourneys have nothing to do with "fun"
> :-) Real games (that is, non-tourney games) are for fun, and I
> totally agree that slower decks (with time to develop positions,
> etc...) are more fun, and require more decisions, but they just aren't
> strictly competitive (in the vast majority).
Hehe. Well, I don't have "fun" in a tournament with my decks [unless I'm
trying to lose], Some friends and I have a lot of fun with our tourney decks
outsided of tournaments. Though many of our games went to deck
exhaustion. When you have 2 "creature" decks with 6 creatures in them, and
30 potential anti-creature cards... Games go slowly.
> Now, that point may be good or bad, but I think it's true. This is
> actually a Dennis point - tourney decks are too effective, such that
> speed will always have an advantage over development (because
> development has to be able to cope with the 5-turn kill, while speed
> can always hang around - while there's life, there's hope :-) ).
I've agreed with Dennis on a couple points. I didn't like it because I
knew that there must be something I was missing, because I have yet to see
Dennis right.
If speed can maintain a handsize larger than a defensive deck past turn 5,
then it has a chance, but I don't see this happening unless someone pulls a
Library [yeah, another point Dennis is on the exact wrong side of!] Or Hymns.
> If slow decks (especially Type II) are to dominate, they have to have
> some regular, consistent way of dealing with the deck that says
> "whatever I draw, I can use to kill you, and you've got less counters
> that I've got ways of killing you". "The Deck" clones are close in
> Type I, but the absence of spoilers (fast mana, card replacement, ...)
> in Type II currently (IMHO) makes them inferior in that competition.
Thats the problem my deck has with the green, "creature every turn past 3"
deck. It is non-stop, and the creatures aren't susceptible to bolts and are
hard to disintigrate or 'quake. These decks are so rare as to be negligable
though, usually they're played by newbies who don't know how to make a good
deck. And if they do, hopefully they get their force of nature just in time
for me to link it and armageddon!!! :) Lord know my Orgg won't stop it...
A more typical deck can't "use every card to kill you" Typically they'll
have 20 creatures in them to deal damage, and this isn't enough. Thats how
the defensive decks have developed. They started with with 20creature, 20land
20spell decks, and they found that they did better and better the more spells
were in there. Especially when as you reduced creatures you added spells like
wrath of god, meekstone, etc.
>> So if you draw the line getting rid of decks that win on turn 40, you might
>>as well draw the line that gets rid of decks that win on turn 10. You only
>>lose 1 or 2 deck archtypes there too. In fact, get rid of all the decks and
>>just play tiddlywinks!!! :) Or don't draw that first line...
>
> Note that having a playing time of circa 20-minutes per game doesn't
> get rid of decks that win on turn 40 - it is, however, bad for decks
> that consistently take 40 turns to get a result *either way*, win or
> lose. Firstly, I don't think that there are such decks (the regular
> rapid losses will bring the average down); and secondly, even if there
> are such decks, I think that tourney play gains more than it loses by
> making the environment unsuitable for them.
Naaah. As I said. The more of your deck that shows [disregarding card
draw effects] the more skill put into the game. You're favoring resolution
of which deck is better based on the top 12 cards. I favour resolution of
which deck is better, and who plays better by going through the entire deck
[assuming my opponent doesn't just let me slaughter them.]
20 minutes SOUNDS like a hell of a long time for a dual, even to me. But
it happens all the time. If both players can succesfully blunt their opponent's
offense, either from the opponent have a very focused offense [2 Angels] or
from the player haveing a heavy denial deck, the game will often go to
exhaustion. Its usually pretty easy to KEEP an opponent down if your
deck is made to do it, even if their deck is designed not to be put down.
My deck was AWEFUL for this before I added the 2 disintigrates in. Games
would almost always last at least 30 turns. I don't know how many wins I
had with one card left in my library, but it was a lot.
> One valid point that I've heard about forcing people to play quickly
> (not play quick decks, but the actual action of playing quickly) is
> that it is bad for the "metagame" of trying to psych out the opponent
> by checking every option, making them wait before every action in case
> you want to do something, writing down every card they play for
> sideboarding purposes or keeping count of how many counterspells,
> etc,... Well, it is bad for that sort of thing, and I don't care.
> There is no place in the game for idiots who feel that they *need* any
> sort of advantage derived from such masturbatory behaviour. At least
> one player at the Worlds pissed off a number of other contestants in
> such a manner, which was reminiscent of the antics of some Russian chess
> grandmasters at Cold War era World Championships (although I do think
> we're some way away from having psychics sitting in the front row
> staring down one's opponents, the Professional Tour might see some
> interesting behaviour starting to appear....).
Hey, you're talking to a guy that plays Space Hulk. I'd be all for timed
turns! [hehe :] But there is no way to stop stalling without chess clocks.
You don't stall on one turn. You stall for, oh, 10 seconds on every turn.
NO JUDGE will call something like this, not in the first match.
Another thing, I also prefer elimination to points. This I admit is a
selfish thing. I'll often lose 1 of the 3 games. I'm glad the pro tourney
ends up being elimination. If I go, I potentially should be able to rack up
enough points to make it to the elimination part where it doesn't matter what
my total win/lose is. It then only matters if I can beat everyone I play > %50
of the time. No problem :)
--
--------------
Jason Grundy
David J Low
>In article <4adr2c$k...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>
> I don't think you can really call it a local condition. "The Deck"
>certainly isn't local [nor is it localized.] Slow decks have been doing
>quite well for themselves for a long time now [Zak's deck wasn't all that
>speedy...] And theres enough talk about blue/white decks in general on the
>net [and them being successful] that it definetly is out there.
But these weren't "deck/library exhaustion" - they were denial with the
protected-Serra kill. The idea was never to win by running the other
guy out of cards (although one could imagine that as a possible result,
although Twister rather than Feldon's meant that both players would
keep the cards going....). And again, we're interested in Type II here
(bearing the thread in mind).
> My deck, like "The Deck" has just taken defence to the extreme at the
>expense of offence. It works.
:-) Keep posting those tourney reports!
> Interestingly enough, I've heard that one of the Australian National Team
>members is in Ottawa. I'll have to hunt him down and beat him :) when I go
>back there for January.
> But then, I think Australia and Canada both did pretty poorly at the
>Worlds.
Ha! Nathan Russell is indeed in Canada (long story, and better suited
to EMail than public posting ;-P). Say "G'day" to him from his mates
in Adelaide :-)
And as for poorly: Oz finished first in the deck construction section,
and third overall (bloody sealed deck), missing second by a fraction of
a point. We can live with that :-)
>> I *think* that a deck which relies (probably a bad choice of words) on
>> just a few cards is inferior to something more general.
>
> Hmmmm. Well, you can think of it this way. As you decrease the general
>ability of a deck to deal damage [or more accuratly, to win], you increase
>[or at least a compatent deck builder should] the general ability of the
>deck to defend itself, or lock the opponent [depending on how you want to
>win.]
And I'm still a proponent of "a good offense is better than a good
defense", since a good offense can win quickly or slowly, but a good
defense can only win slowly. Basically, that due to the nature of the
game (mana availability) it's easier to be on the offense than the
defense. Once again, though, purely personal opinion :-)
>> However: if it comes down to a choice between playing some number of
>> games, or playing twice that many games at the expense of one
>> particular strategy, I will always pick the latter - YMMV. I would
>> rather see a ten-round Swiss with no deck exhaustion, than a
>> five-round event where someone *may* play it, and they *might* go
>> well.
>
> A difference of where the line is drawn. For me, eliminating slow decks
>[not just deck exhaustion!] is like eliminating the whole point of the game.
But again, slow decks don't have to be played slowly, and I don't
think people are playing decks which win more than 50% of the time
against "all" other decks with an *average* win time of (say) 40
turns. The games they win might well take that long, but by my
reckoning, they lose the others faster, bringing the average time
down.
>Decks made to win on turn 5 are just chance decks when they come up
>against another such deck. There is a bit of skill involved, sometimes, in
>how you play, but its easy enough to pick up. Not as much skill, not as much
>fun as two slow decks going at it.
Whoa! Mind that "fun" word - tourneys have nothing to do with "fun"
:-) Real games (that is, non-tourney games) are for fun, and I
totally agree that slower decks (with time to develop positions,
etc...) are more fun, and require more decisions, but they just aren't
strictly competitive (in the vast majority).
Now, that point may be good or bad, but I think it's true. This is
actually a Dennis point - tourney decks are too effective, such that
speed will always have an advantage over development (because
development has to be able to cope with the 5-turn kill, while speed
can always hang around - while there's life, there's hope :-) ).
If slow decks (especially Type II) are to dominate, they have to have
some regular, consistent way of dealing with the deck that says
"whatever I draw, I can use to kill you, and you've got less counters
that I've got ways of killing you". "The Deck" clones are close in
Type I, but the absence of spoilers (fast mana, card replacement, ...)
in Type II currently (IMHO) makes them inferior in that competition.
> So if you draw the line getting rid of decks that win on turn 40, you might
>as well draw the line that gets rid of decks that win on turn 10. You only
>lose 1 or 2 deck archtypes there too. In fact, get rid of all the decks and
>just play tiddlywinks!!! :) Or don't draw that first line...
Note that having a playing time of circa 20-minutes per game doesn't
get rid of decks that win on turn 40 - it is, however, bad for decks
that consistently take 40 turns to get a result *either way*, win or
lose. Firstly, I don't think that there are such decks (the regular
rapid losses will bring the average down); and secondly, even if there
are such decks, I think that tourney play gains more than it loses by
making the environment unsuitable for them.
One valid point that I've heard about forcing people to play quickly
(not play quick decks, but the actual action of playing quickly) is
that it is bad for the "metagame" of trying to psych out the opponent
by checking every option, making them wait before every action in case
you want to do something, writing down every card they play for
sideboarding purposes or keeping count of how many counterspells,
etc,... Well, it is bad for that sort of thing, and I don't care.
There is no place in the game for idiots who feel that they *need* any
sort of advantage derived from such masturbatory behaviour. At least
one player at the Worlds pissed off a number of other contestants in
such a manner, which was reminiscent of the antics of some Russian chess
grandmasters at Cold War era World Championships (although I do think
we're some way away from having psychics sitting in the front row
staring down one's opponents, the Professional Tour might see some
interesting behaviour starting to appear....).
Of course, the US gave us trash-talking basketball, so I guess it's
accepted as part of the "culture". Pity, that.
JASON GRUNDY
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>In article <4agjjd$2...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> With my decks, I've found that if I have less than 6 creature in the deck,
>>the game has a very high chance of being decided by deck exhaustion. At 8,
>>I usually win with a creature kill. It depends on how defensive the opponent's
>>deck is. If it isn't, then I'll win between turn 15-20. If it is defensive,
>>then the game usually takes at least 30 turns.
>
Lose... Lose... Hmmmmm. Oh yeah, that happened once! :)
Well, I think of my loseing games they can pretty much be split into four
categories. Loss by mana screw, rare, and usually by turn 12, depending on
the color of mana I do have. Loss by deck depletion, also rare, usually if
the opponent gets millstones that I can't deal with. Loss by card
distribution/hand exhaustion, about the most common, when the opponent finally
drops something that will win in 2 or 3 turns that I can't deal with [like
and Orgg or Shivan] this usually happens between turn 15-20 for an offensive
deck, and after 30 for a defensive. The fourth is about as common, and its
when I just lose to the opponent's strategy, either taking that 20th point of
damage from a goblin grenade on turn 4, watching as my last land gets stripped,
and the vice comes down, or getting hit by a Mind Twist and watching the racks
and sceptres come out. This kind of lose happens at any point in the game,
but usually really early or really late.
> interest lies :-) Note, BTW, that good decks against other good decks
> rarely go a lot better than 50% regularly - there's too much luck in
> the game to have decks that win 80% of games against quality
> opposition...
Rock-paper-scissors. If everyone in the world plays a rock, paper is the
place to be.
>>> ["...a good offense is better than a good defense..."]
>>
>> There are 2 reasons that defense is often better than offense, and a good
>>offensive deck has to take into account if it wants to win. 1) Its easier
>>to destroy than create. 2) Its easier to destroy lots than to create.
>
> That's why an offensive deck works - it's destroying the opponent :-)
Yeah, you're right there, its pretty damn easy to do those 20 points of
damage.
> Now, getting away from that sort of facetious comment, the other way
> of wording it is "the best defense is a good offense". It's a matter
> of overwhelming the oponent with threats - more threats than counters
> gives an edge.
Which is the best lead in to my sentence below. The more threats you put
out, the more I can blow up with one card...
>> Second point, its easier to get ahead in card count with defense.
>
> I'll agree with that (in fact, I'd be hard pressed to see anyone
> argue against it!). However, card count alone doesn't win the game -
> it gives an edge, but a positive card count and zero life is not very
> satisfying :-)
:) Well yeah. Hopefully you put the right cards in your deck so that you
achieve a positive card count with some kind of life left. Its pretty easy
to have a positive card count over the opponent when the only card in your
deck is shatter, but you will probably lose [An opponent with a smaller deck
composed entirely of Su-chi would be your dream opponent!]
>>When you have 2 "creature" decks with 6 creatures in them, and
>>30 potential anti-creature cards... Games go slowly.
>
> This is a valid point - two defensive decks against each other is
> *bound* to go slowly, by simple virtue of the fact that with only six
> threats each and 30 counters....well, I don't think one has to spell it
> out :-)
>
> However, this illustrates an interesting point: if two such defensive
> decks go down to deck exhaustion, which in many ways could be
> considered "luck of the draw" (who went first, who had 61 instead of
> 60, etc, etc...), and games between them take an average of 40 turns,
> does this not illustrate a weakness in *strategy*? Consider the
> extended (multi-player) Prisoner's Dilemma (uh-oh, here we go, Dennis
> will be here any minute now....), treating "cooperation" as "defensive
> decks" and "aggression" as "offensive decks" - I think that the parallel
> is valid. Start with a field where everyone play offense, then gradually
> introduce defensive decks. What happens at the point where everyone
> plays defense? One single offensive deck will win, by virtue of the
> split points from the defense-defense games. This is a bit hand-wavy,
> but the Cooperation Game is an interesting model :-)
>
> And we're back to the metagame again....<sigh>
Hmmmm. Purhaps. Currently defensive decks are designed to beat the ever
so popular speed and other offensive decks, if everyone did decide to go
defensive, and people changed their decks to defend only against other
defensive decks, an offensive deck would have a field day.
But, I don't believe offensive decks will ever go away, and I don't think
they'll ever shrink past an equilibrium point that has them still being more
popular than defense. If only because they're easier to build, and are a
more obvious next step for a beginner to change their deck to than a defensive
deck is.
Anyway, by this I hope you've seen my point that [given the assumption that
a slow deck can win a tournament] slow decks, especially when they come against
another slow deck, need more than 20 minutes/game. I also think that at the
pro tourney, there will be a relatively high number of defensive decks,
maybe around %20, which is why WotC upped it to 2 hours. Now if only they'd
unrestrict Zuran Orb for the tourney!!! I want my Necropotence deck back!
>> Thats the problem my deck has with the green, "creature every turn past 3"
>>deck. It is non-stop, and the creatures aren't susceptible to bolts and are
>>hard to disintigrate or 'quake. These decks are so rare as to be negligable
>>though, usually they're played by newbies who don't know how to make a good
>>deck.
>
> Ah, local conditions again? :-) I'm starting a resurgence in them here
> :-)
No, its just that this deck gets creamed by the more popular offensive decks
that are the most common decks at tournaments. Rock-paper-scissors.
I should point out here that by this I'm not saying that Magic is rps, but
that decks, and sometimes strategies ARE.
>> A more typical deck can't "use every card to kill you" Typically they'll
>>have 20 creatures in them to deal damage, and this isn't enough. Thats how
>>the defensive decks have developed. They started with with 20creature, 20land
>>20spell decks, and they found that they did better and better the more spells
>>were in there. Especially when as you reduced creatures you added spells like
>>wrath of god, meekstone, etc.
>
> My standard "test" deck has 8 bolts plus Stormbinds and Arcanixes, Icys/
> Jokulhaups/Winter Orbs for defense, and can be tooled for either the
> weenies-with-boosters or fast-big-critter options. I don't believe in
> vices :-) Stormbind means that every card can kill you :-) 20 land plus
Hehe. Yeah. I've used Stormbind in a lot of my fun decks for a while, and
the comment I keep getting when I cast it is "Oh, he cast Storm Bind, games
over" They're almost always right. Right now my fun deck consists of...
2 Willow
2 Force
2 If-Biff + 2 Spirit Link
2 Storm Bind + 1 Land Tax + 3 Skulls of Orm
2 CoP Green + 2 Rainbow Vale + 2 Primal Order
Bunch of enchantments [2 sylvan, 1 nightsoil, 1 island sanc, 2 aurensen's
aura, 2 arboria]
White [4 disenchant, 4 plow, 2 wrath, 1 blance, 2 remove enchantments]
Red [2 quake, 2 disintigrate]
Some artifacts
Its such a silly, fun deck, but it does okay against non-speed decks.
Willow, Storm Bind and Primal Order are the only way I've killed anyone yet.
Forces and Biffs just don't live. Its so neat having a doubly linked Willow
on the board, or a storm bind, a skull and nine mana.
> four Mishras standard, Jokul leaves the Stormbind, etc, etc... It's only
> mildly original (and it was around before this Vice Age craze), but a
> pretty standard offensive deck. Tends to keep a small (2 card?) hand.
> Anyway, there doesn't tend to be much "slack" in it - most stuff is
> offensive, and it's deisgned to keep more threats than ways of dealing
> with them. Is it the be-all and end-all? No way :-) But it's an
> example of a deck which will win by offense, rather than in five
> turns.
Just after Ice Age came out, a friend of mine was playing something pretty
annoying too. It was elves, elves, elves with some big creatures, night soil,
infinite hourglass, enduring renewal, icies, other stuff. The deck [like
yours] gave too many targets to the disenchants [thank the lord for dust2dust]
and if you killed his stupid elves, they came back as saporlings or they
just went to his hand unless you plowed or disintigrated them. You had to
kill him quick, or you were in a lot of trouble because he'd hose your land
[armageddon] and have a billion little 10+/1 creatures out.
--
-----------
Life should be more like anime - One of the ones where the earth isn't
destroyed, or taken over by a hostile alien race.
Jason Grundy
David J Low
>In article <4agjjd$2...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>
>the game has a very high chance of being decided by deck exhaustion. At 8,
>I usually win with a creature kill. It depends on how defensive the opponent's
>deck is. If it isn't, then I'll win between turn 15-20. If it is defensive,
>then the game usually takes at least 30 turns.
But when do you lose?? It's in those circa-50% of games that the
interest lies :-) Note, BTW, that good decks against other good decks
rarely go a lot better than 50% regularly - there's too much luck in
the game to have decks that win 80% of games against quality
opposition...
>> ["...a good offense is better than a good defense..."]
>
> There are 2 reasons that defense is often better than offense, and a good
>offensive deck has to take into account if it wants to win. 1) Its easier
>to destroy than create. 2) Its easier to destroy lots than to create.
That's why an offensive deck works - it's destroying the opponent :-)
Now, getting away from that sort of facetious comment, the other way
of wording it is "the best defense is a good offense". It's a matter
of overwhelming the oponent with threats - more threats than counters
gives an edge.
> Second point, its easier to get ahead in card count with defense.
I'll agree with that (in fact, I'd be hard pressed to see anyone
argue against it!). However, card count alone doesn't win the game -
it gives an edge, but a positive card count and zero life is not very
satisfying :-)
>> ...I don't think people are playing decks which win more than 50% of
>> the time against "all" other decks with an *average* win time of (say)
>> 40 turns.
>
> You might be surprised.
I would be :-)
>When you have 2 "creature" decks with 6 creatures in them, and
>30 potential anti-creature cards... Games go slowly.
This is a valid point - two defensive decks against each other is
*bound* to go slowly, by simple virtue of the fact that with only six
threats each and 30 counters....well, I don't think one has to spell it
out :-)
However, this illustrates an interesting point: if two such defensive
decks go down to deck exhaustion, which in many ways could be
considered "luck of the draw" (who went first, who had 61 instead of
60, etc, etc...), and games between them take an average of 40 turns,
does this not illustrate a weakness in *strategy*? Consider the
extended (multi-player) Prisoner's Dilemma (uh-oh, here we go, Dennis
will be here any minute now....), treating "cooperation" as "defensive
decks" and "aggression" as "offensive decks" - I think that the parallel
is valid. Start with a field where everyone play offense, then gradually
introduce defensive decks. What happens at the point where everyone
plays defense? One single offensive deck will win, by virtue of the
split points from the defense-defense games. This is a bit hand-wavy,
but the Cooperation Game is an interesting model :-)
And we're back to the metagame again....<sigh>
> Thats the problem my deck has with the green, "creature every turn past 3"
>deck. It is non-stop, and the creatures aren't susceptible to bolts and are
>hard to disintigrate or 'quake. These decks are so rare as to be negligable
>though, usually they're played by newbies who don't know how to make a good
>deck.
Ah, local conditions again? :-) I'm starting a resurgence in them here
:-)
> A more typical deck can't "use every card to kill you" Typically they'll
>have 20 creatures in them to deal damage, and this isn't enough. Thats how
>the defensive decks have developed. They started with with 20creature, 20land
>20spell decks, and they found that they did better and better the more spells
>were in there. Especially when as you reduced creatures you added spells like
>wrath of god, meekstone, etc.
My standard "test" deck has 8 bolts plus Stormbinds and Arcanixes, Icys/
Jokulhaups/Winter Orbs for defense, and can be tooled for either the
weenies-with-boosters or fast-big-critter options. I don't believe in
vices :-) Stormbind means that every card can kill you :-) 20 land plus
four Mishras standard, Jokul leaves the Stormbind, etc, etc... It's only
mildly original (and it was around before this Vice Age craze), but a
pretty standard offensive deck. Tends to keep a small (2 card?) hand.
Anyway, there doesn't tend to be much "slack" in it - most stuff is
offensive, and it's deisgned to keep more threats than ways of dealing
with them. Is it the be-all and end-all? No way :-) But it's an
example of a deck which will win by offense, rather than in five
turns.
>You're favoring resolution
>of which deck is better based on the top 12 cards.
No! Offenseive decks do not have to win in five turns - the one above
takes control earlyish, but probably takes a dozen or more turns to
actually force a win. Speed weenie with the five-turn kill has
well-known flaws, but if you can't do something about it in five turns,
you're toast :-) And *that* is why speed is favoured in a tourney
setting - it's hard to get a bad speed-weenie draw.
Anyway, I think we've reach a point where we're just making the same
points over again - I don't think we can hope to convert each other :-)
I'll just have to drop through Canada sometime and hand out a whuppin'
(and if you win, it was obviously a lucky draw...err, I got mana-rorted,
...er, Bad Deck Day,...er....ummmm.....) :-)
> Another thing, I also prefer elimination to points. This I admit is a
>selfish thing. I'll often lose 1 of the 3 games. I'm glad the pro tourney
>ends up being elimination. If I go, I potentially should be able to rack up
>enough points to make it to the elimination part where it doesn't matter what
>my total win/lose is. It then only matters if I can beat everyone I play > %50
>of the time. No problem :)
"It's worse than that, Jim....". The first day is a 15-game Swiss with
256 players, of which the top 16 go through to the elimination final.
It is left as an exercise to the reader to work out how many *games*
one can afford to lose on average in such a setup and still make the
top sixteen....the easiest way to do this is to look at a Gaussian
result curve, and look at where the cutoff on the 6.25% upper end
is....
For those that don't want to work it out themselves, it's about at the
one game mark, plus or minus a game or so. That is, you can only
afford to drop one, or maybe two, games in the first day and still
expect to go through. What will probably happen is that the undefeated
will go through as will those who lost one game, and there'll be a
stack of people who lost two games fighting for the last few positions.
Of course, if the competition is very even then the curve will be
flatter than this (maybe no undefeateds, a few who lost one, then a
whole stack who lost two or three), but the principle remains :-)
We're back on thread here, actually - Wizards don't appear to
understand the maths behind Swiss draws :-( There's a rather important
parameter involving the games-to-players ratio....
JASON GRUNDY
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>> But, I don't believe offensive decks will ever go away, and I don't think
>>they'll ever shrink past an equilibrium point that has them still being more
>>popular than defense. If only because they're easier to build, and are a
>>more obvious next step for a beginner to change their deck to than a defensive
>>deck is.
>
> seen one win with a defensive deck :-) Another reason to play offense
> ("I may be a munchkin, but munchkins *win*!", etc, etc,...).
>
> However, guessing the equilibrium point is the height of speculation.
Yeah. I base it on turnover. As people come into the game/leave the game.
It seems high enough that offense will stay the most common. Turnover I
think may soon fail as the deciding factor though.
> What annoys me is that the decrease in the number of games (essentially)
> increases the luck factor to the extent that we're not going to know
> if these defensive decks are better! Note that my objection isn't to
> long time allowances, it's to increasing the time and not keeping the
> number of games at a reasonable (statistically significant) level.
> This, of course, is a question of tradeoffs (time constraints), but
> personally I think it's gone the wrong way. I'd rather have something
> which was significant in terms of results, and if that means
> discriminating against "minorities", so be it. "The good of the many..."
> (all we've got to do now is mention a certain WWII German political
> leader, and we've got grounds to kill the thread....).
As you said, if you can't beat them, join them.... Here's snippet of a post
from Sparkey about what Skaff said about the tourney...
---
#2 the extra time for rounds allows different types of decks than are
normally played in Magic tournaments to be played, without being called for
time. Good/experienced magic players will understand this and use it to
their advantage, in fact several of the better players are already
adjusting their strategies.
---
So, while the number of games may decrease, which decreases the strength of
the tournament as a test for best deck, the length of each game will be
increasing, so for each game more of each deck will come into play, and each
match will be a BETTER test of a deck.
Now, whether the increase of the tourneys strength through time is equivalent
to the amount its decreased by number of matches is arguable. Probably not,
but the lose probably isn't as bad as you fear.
Anyway, how could you say you're going for the best deck if you don't allow
certain [in my opinion the best] players on to the field??? Certainly the
purpose of the tournament to find the best deck/player is better served by
allowing all decks to compete!
David J Low
>In article <4aivhu$d...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> But when do you lose?? It's in those circa-50% of games that the
>
> Lose... Lose... Hmmmmm. Oh yeah, that happened once! :)
:-) Anyway, the numbers Jason quoted are interesting, and did show
that the average turn-number approximately halves due to the losses
(given that the mana-screw proportions aren't ridiculously large).
>> Note, BTW, that good decks against other good decks
>> rarely go a lot better than 50% regularly - there's too much luck in
>> the game to have decks that win 80% of games against quality
>> opposition...
>
> Rock-paper-scissors. If everyone in the world plays a rock, paper is the
>place to be.
Metagame! Metagame! <someone hunt down and kill the person that
started using that term, will they? Thanks.> Note, of course, that
"world" = "applicable environment". Should guessing this environment
be part of the game? That is, should someone who guesses right (and I
don't care if someone makes an educated guess, it's still a guess -
Mark Justice at the US Nationals finals comes to mind!) be rewarded?
At the moment, of course, they *are* rewarded - once everyone stops
playing White weenie, and people stop thinking about it as a serious
tourney competitor, it will take people by surprise again :-)
It's one of the reasons I'm always interested in playing with people from
overseas (heck, interstate). Different environments making for
different types of decks....
>> Now, getting away from that sort of facetious comment, the other way
>> of wording it is "the best defense is a good offense". It's a matter
>> of overwhelming the oponent with threats - more threats than counters
>> gives an edge.
>
> Which is the best lead in to my sentence below. ["Second point, its easier
> to get ahead in card count with defense"]. The more threats you put
> out, the more I can blow up with one card...
We're debating details here, but threats don't have to be permanents
(although the handy ones are!). If I've got 12 Bolts and 20 critters
against 8 counters and 8 critter-takedowns...well, I still have to do
20 damage, and the bulk-killers (Arma/Wrath/Shatterstorm/...) will be
nasty, but this is why a White weenie (for example) should never drop
everything onto the table if it doesn't have to :-)
>> ["What happens if everyone plays defense? The few offensive decks win."]
>
> Hmmmm. Purhaps. Currently defensive decks are designed to beat the ever
>so popular speed and other offensive decks, if everyone did decide to go
>defensive, and people changed their decks to defend only against other
>defensive decks, an offensive deck would have a field day.
> But, I don't believe offensive decks will ever go away, and I don't think
>they'll ever shrink past an equilibrium point that has them still being more
>popular than defense. If only because they're easier to build, and are a
>more obvious next step for a beginner to change their deck to than a defensive
>deck is.
Agreed - I've seen newbies get lucky with blasters, but I've never
seen one win with a defensive deck :-) Another reason to play offense
("I may be a munchkin, but munchkins *win*!", etc, etc,...).
However, guessing the equilibrium point is the height of speculation.
After all, there's the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" school.
Knowing when you *can* beat them is like knowing when to jump off a
moving train....and while that group follows the trends, there will
always be a place for the inventors. That is: the inventors come up
with the ideas, the innovators tune them into winning decks, then the
inventors come up with the answer...which the innovators tune, before
the inventors come up with another...eventually getting back into a
circuit which we don't seem to have got out of yet in Magic. This is
probably related to the RSP arguments (and I keep thinking that MtG is
damn close to RSP....).
> Anyway, by this I hope you've seen my point that [given the assumption that
>a slow deck can win a tournament] slow decks, especially when they come against
>another slow deck, need more than 20 minutes/game. I also think that at the
>pro tourney, there will be a relatively high number of defensive decks,
>maybe around %20, which is why WotC upped it to 2 hours.
What annoys me is that the decrease in the number of games (essentially)
increases the luck factor to the extent that we're not going to know
if these defensive decks are better! Note that my objection isn't to
long time allowances, it's to increasing the time and not keeping the
number of games at a reasonable (statistically significant) level.
This, of course, is a question of tradeoffs (time constraints), but
personally I think it's gone the wrong way. I'd rather have something
which was significant in terms of results, and if that means
discriminating against "minorities", so be it. "The good of the many..."
(all we've got to do now is mention a certain WWII German political
leader, and we've got grounds to kill the thread....).
>> ["Green critters-galore"]
>
> No, its just that this deck gets creamed by the more popular offensive decks
>that are the most common decks at tournaments. Rock-paper-scissors.
> I should point out here that by this I'm not saying that Magic is rps, but
>that decks, and sometimes strategies ARE.
"That are the most common decks" is an interesting comment. For
example, the most common ones we're seeing around here at the moment
(Type II) are black discard, followed closely by RG-juzam. Haven't
seen land destruct for a *long* time (I remember killing off that craze
locally myself...maybe it's time I re-introduced it? :-) ).
There's something: "Is land destruction dead because it loses to
weenies, and there are so many weenie decks out there"?
> Just after Ice Age came out, a friend of mine was playing something pretty
>annoying too. It was elves, elves, elves with some big creatures, night soil,
>infinite hourglass, enduring renewal, icies, other stuff. The deck [like
>yours] gave too many targets to the disenchants [thank the lord for dust2dust]
>and if you killed his stupid elves, they came back as saporlings or they
>just went to his hand unless you plowed or disintigrated them. You had to
>kill him quick, or you were in a lot of trouble because he'd hose your land
>[armageddon] and have a billion little 10+/1 creatures out.
Night Soil! A classic card against discard/denial :-) Love it. And
it's straight into the G-"critters galore" deck, of course :-) I
remember one of my office mates had made up a deck when I was testing
to the Nationals, and whupped me five straight with an Elf/Soil/... RG
weenie deck. Of course, I was all tooled up to deal with the standard
nasties, and this not-strictly-tourney-competitive deck handed me my
head on a platter. I could blame all sorts of things, but that's not
the point (good reasons for no wins will still score zero....).
Splunge
I'd suggest you use a rule I see often, though I don't know if it is an
actual DC rule. Do not allow sideboarding in the first game in a match.
Generally, I see this used as a measure to avoid an unfair advantage to
a player who finishes his, say, semifinal match early. He could watch
the other semifinal match and sideboard in preparation for who he thinks
will win that match. The winner from the longer semifinal match may not
know what is in the deck he is facing in the final. I thought I heard it
all until someone told me that, like in chess, there is nothing wrong with
scoping out opponents in advance and preparing accordingly.
Of course, it is yet another step in a sometimes tedious process. "Sorry,
but if your sideboard is 1 card and 14 basic land fillers, you must list
each land." Don't laugh, I've heard of this.
--
--
sols...@cais.com*Splunge*Alan Salisbury Music*Movies*Cycling*Netsurfer*UNIX
There were days when you peered into yourself, into the secret places of your
heart, and what you saw there made you fair with horror. And then, next day,
you didn't know what to make of it, you couldn't interpret the horror you had
glimpsed the day before. Yes, you know what evil costs. - Jean Paul Sartre
David J Low
> So, while the number of games may decrease, which decreases the strength of
>the tournament as a test for best deck, the length of each game will be
>increasing, so for each game more of each deck will come into play, and each
>match will be a BETTER test of a deck.
Unfortunately, that isn't a correct deduction (at least in a
statistical sense). Each trial (game) is pretty much a coin toss; only
from a large number of trails can you determine any possible bias in
that coin. Making the coin stay in the air longer doesn't help the
test :-)
> Now, whether the increase of the tourneys strength through time is equivalent
>to the amount its decreased by number of matches is arguable. Probably not,
>but the lose probably isn't as bad as you fear.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, nothing beats a larger
sample space :-)
> Anyway, how could you say you're going for the best deck if you don't allow
>certain [in my opinion the best] players on to the field??? Certainly the
>purpose of the tournament to find the best deck/player is better served by
>allowing all decks to compete!
But if, by allowing all decks to compete, you invalidate the testing
procedure (or at least make it a lottery), then you don't have *any*
basis for a decision! I've got to be careful here, since I don't want
words put into my mouth (!) - I'm not saying that "slow decks should
be banned". I'll reiterate my point: if it's a choice between 30 games
to choose a winner (with slow decks disadvantaged), or 15 games (with
slow decks less disadvantaged), I'll take the 30-game option as a
better indicator. After all, nothing says that the slow decks will go
strictly better with more time (although it's a reasonable
assumption!). I'd rather have 30 games and no disadvantage at all,
but time constraints mean we (well, WotC) have got to choose where to
balance. Personally, I think they've gone the wrong way, since such a
small number of games invalidates any pretense at a meaningful test.
JASON GRUNDY
>> So, while the number of games may decrease, which decreases the strength of
>>the tournament as a test for best deck, the length of each game will be
>>increasing, so for each game more of each deck will come into play, and each
>>match will be a BETTER test of a deck.
>
> Unfortunately, that isn't a correct deduction (at least in a
> statistical sense). Each trial (game) is pretty much a coin toss; only
> from a large number of trails can you determine any possible bias in
> that coin. Making the coin stay in the air longer doesn't help the
> test :-)
It isn't a coing toss though. Look at it this way. A slower deck will last
longer, have more of its cards come into play [and force the opponent to do
the same] and represent a better sampeling of that deck than would be given
if say, the game was over by turn 12 because everyone had to play fast decks
for fear of a coinflip actually deciding the game when time expires.
>> Now, whether the increase of the tourneys strength through time is equivalent
>>to the amount its decreased by number of matches is arguable. Probably not,
>>but the lose probably isn't as bad as you fear.
>
> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, nothing beats a larger
> sample space :-)
The sample space is increased by game length. Probably not as much as is
loss to reduction in number of games, but its a trade off that needs to be
made to allow all decks to be able to play. It will also help to get rid of
"player error."
B
>> Anyway, how could you say you're going for the best deck if you don't allow
>>certain [in my opinion the best] players on to the field??? Certainly the
>>purpose of the tournament to find the best deck/player is better served by
>>allowing all decks to compete!
>
> But if, by allowing all decks to compete, you invalidate the testing
> procedure (or at least make it a lottery), then you don't have *any*
> basis for a decision! I've got to be careful here, since I don't want
> words put into my mouth (!) - I'm not saying that "slow decks should
> be banned". I'll reiterate my point: if it's a choice between 30 games
> to choose a winner (with slow decks disadvantaged), or 15 games (with
> slow decks less disadvantaged), I'll take the 30-game option as a
> better indicator. After all, nothing says that the slow decks will go
> strictly better with more time (although it's a reasonable
> assumption!). I'd rather have 30 games and no disadvantage at all,
> but time constraints mean we (well, WotC) have got to choose where to
> balance. Personally, I think they've gone the wrong way, since such a
> small number of games invalidates any pretense at a meaningful test.
Hmmm. I dunno. I agree luck has a lot to do with it, but I don't see much
difference between the results of Swiss with a large number of rounds, and
single elimination. The same people are in the top %5, and the distribution
is almost totally random in that %5.
I like elimination better myself, and I don't think there will be much
change in the top 16 between a 15 round swiss and a 30 round swiss. The
probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
--
"If I were to go about making the world, I wouldn't muck about with butterflies
and daffodiles. I'd start with lasers, 8 o'clock, day one." - Evil
Jason Grundy
Sparky!!
heff...@pegasus.montclair.edu (Dennis F. Hefferman) wrote:
> Is that five cards total from each expansion, or five different cards?
> EG, if I have four Portents and a Barbed Sextant in my deck does that fulfill
> the IA requirement or not?
Five cards, not five different cards.
> |Cost: $50.00, Credit Card only
>
> _Which cards?_
Discover, MasterCard, Visa.
David J Low
>In article <4aoaeu$e...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>> So, while the number of games may decrease, which decreases the strength of
>>>the tournament as a test for best deck, the length of each game will be
>>>increasing, so for each game more of each deck will come into play, and each
>>>match will be a BETTER test of a deck.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that isn't a correct deduction (at least in a
>> statistical sense). Each trial (game) is pretty much a coin toss; only
>> from a large number of trails can you determine any possible bias in
>> that coin. Making the coin stay in the air longer doesn't help the
>> test :-)
>
>longer, have more of its cards come into play [and force the opponent to do
>the same] and represent a better sampeling of that deck than would be given
>if say, the game was over by turn 12 because everyone had to play fast decks
>for fear of a coinflip actually deciding the game when time expires.
Any game is a coin-toss, in a statistical sense (ignoring draws) -
you either win (heads) or lose (tails). The action of playing the
game just gives you one sample. From a lot of samples, you get some
sort of idea as to whether the dekc is above/below average ("the coin
is biased"). It is provable (central limit theorem) that more test
or samples gives a better indication of the degree of bias. Now, say
we're doing the test in a low-G environment: each test takes longer
to perform. As long as you keep the same number of tests, this
doesn't matter; but if you keep the same amount of time, and reduce
the number of tests, you get a poor estimate.
The objection here is to having just 15 games in the day (five
rounds). Regardless of whether this allows for high-G, normal-G, or
low-G tests, all the results are statistically inferior. Hence, the
tourney is more of a lottery.
>> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, nothing beats a larger
>> sample space :-)
>
> The sample space is increased by game length. Probably not as much as is
>loss to reduction in number of games, but its a trade off that needs to be
>made to allow all decks to be able to play. It will also help to get rid of
>"player error."
The sample space is not increased by game length :-) Individual tests
("single flips") *cannot* be taken as an indicator. It is only over a
large number of trials that meaningful biases are evidenced. All
decks are able to play, and if two slow decks meet, then what's to
stop them complaining that two hours for three games isn't enough -
they want *three* hours? Or more??! Scientific method says: choose
an experiment which will be meaningful, and run it. You don't make
your experiment bad in order to fit in certain cases - you change the
experiment. That hasn't happened here, and *that* is the objection.
And if a player makes errors under pressure....well, that's a part of
skill, isn't it? I bet I could beat Kasparov if I had a year to make
each move, and he only had three seconds :-)
> ...I don't see much
>difference between the results of Swiss with a large number of rounds, and
>single elimination. The same people are in the top %5, and the distribution
>is almost totally random in that %5.
Then I challenge you to run the elimination with seeded and unseeded
entries :-) Think of the results then....
> I like elimination better myself, and I don't think there will be much
>change in the top 16 between a 15 round swiss and a 30 round swiss.
But what about a 5-round Swiss, as at the Pro Tourney? As for
difference between 15-round and 30-round, that depends on the number
of players. Once the winner has played half of the top 16 (in this
case) you tend to have a stagnating distribution. That means having
about eight rounds after the accurate matching rounds start (and I've
posted before that that occurs around round 4-5). In other words, a
15-round (45 game) Swiss should be acceptable. Changes after that
happen, but get log-slower.
>The probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
>the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
>tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
>maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
I am willing to wager that there will not be any identical decks,
barring collusion :-) And those little changes are what (can) make
the difference in a reasonable number of games. And note that you
*don't* meet 15 opponents - you meet 5. Still think you get a fairly
average representation? :-)
JASON GRUNDY
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>In article <4aoaeu$e...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>> It isn't a coin toss though. Look at it this way. A slower deck will last
>>longer, have more of its cards come into play [and force the opponent to do
>>the same] and represent a better sampeling of that deck than would be given
>>if say, the game was over by turn 12 because everyone had to play fast decks
>>for fear of a coinflip actually deciding the game when time expires.
>
> Any game is a coin-toss, in a statistical sense (ignoring draws) -
> you either win (heads) or lose (tails). The action of playing the
> game just gives you one sample. From a lot of samples, you get some
> sort of idea as to whether the dekc is above/below average ("the coin
> is biased"). It is provable (central limit theorem) that more test
> or samples gives a better indication of the degree of bias. Now, say
> we're doing the test in a low-G environment: each test takes longer
> to perform. As long as you keep the same number of tests, this
> doesn't matter; but if you keep the same amount of time, and reduce
> the number of tests, you get a poor estimate.
>
> The objection here is to having just 15 games in the day (five
> rounds). Regardless of whether this allows for high-G, normal-G, or
> low-G tests, all the results are statistically inferior. Hence, the
> tourney is more of a lottery.
But each coinflip [as it were] is better tested. Each game will be a
better test of the actual quality of the deck by reducing the effect of luck
on each game. I.E. The dice are loaded, but you have a hard time telling
that from 3 games. You can compensate for this by increase the number of
overall games [like you want] or by having a better test for each throw [like
having longer games.]
>>> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, nothing beats a larger
>>> sample space :-)
>>
>> The sample space is increased by game length. Probably not as much as is
>>loss to reduction in number of games, but its a trade off that needs to be
>>made to allow all decks to be able to play. It will also help to get rid of
>>"player error."
>
> The sample space is not increased by game length :-) Individual tests
> ("single flips") *cannot* be taken as an indicator. It is only over a
The sampeling of the deck is increased, which will effect the result of
the "flips." Guess that isn't sample space, but sample quality.
> large number of trials that meaningful biases are evidenced. All
If there was absolutley no luck at all in deciding the outcome of each
coinflip [someone will always win, lose, or tie all three games against a
specific opponent] how many tests need to be done to figure out the top 16
with a gaurentee the top 8 people would be in the top 16 no matter how many
more tests you ran?
> decks are able to play, and if two slow decks meet, then what's to
> stop them complaining that two hours for three games isn't enough -
> they want *three* hours? Or more??! Scientific method says: choose
> an experiment which will be meaningful, and run it. You don't make
> your experiment bad in order to fit in certain cases - you change the
> experiment. That hasn't happened here, and *that* is the objection.
The "experiment" is still meaningful. It may be less accurate, but not by
a terribly great deal, and its not like running 50, 100 or 200 rounds of
swiss would even give perfect results. 5 rounds is rather small, 10 WOULD
be better [although I think I'd have to physically hurt someone after
playing for 10 hours straight and not being able to safely lose a game here
and there.]
> And if a player makes errors under pressure....well, that's a part of
> skill, isn't it? I bet I could beat Kasparov if I had a year to make
> each move, and he only had three seconds :-)
Different game.
>> ...I don't see much
>>difference between the results of Swiss with a large number of rounds, and
>>single elimination. The same people are in the top %5, and the distribution
>>is almost totally random in that %5.
>
> Then I challenge you to run the elimination with seeded and unseeded
> entries :-) Think of the results then....
Exactly the same. The best %5 or %10 would make it to the top, and the
distribution would be totally random within the top bracket as the decks made
by these people are always very close to the same power, and it would take
too long to accuratly test the decks.
Theres only ever one or two people from the top bracket that get eliminated
early on by meeting someone else. An acceptable amount. Magic doesn't lend
itself to seeding.
>>The probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
>>the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
>>tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
>>maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
>
> I am willing to wager that there will not be any identical decks,
> barring collusion :-) And those little changes are what (can) make
> the difference in a reasonable number of games. And note that you
> *don't* meet 15 opponents - you meet 5. Still think you get a fairly
> average representation? :-)
Not barring collusion, I'd be willing to wager there will be identical decks
:)
Even a 10 card change [thats reasonable] between 2 decks will have less of
an effect of the performance of that deck against a given opponent than luck
of the draw will. Putting in Ghazbans and Incinerates instead of Archers
and Storm Bind and Zuran Orb may effect even 1 game in 2, but it will only
effect the outcome of one of those games, maybe 1 game in 8. So in 1 game
in 16, having an incinerate instead of a bind saved/lost it for you [Maybe
Ghazbans aren't such a good example, they have a big effect on the deck, try
Orcs instead.] Thats given a quick deck that doesn't see very many of its own
cards. These numbers would be a bit closer to 1 for a slower deck.
And there really isn't much variation from the fairly obvious "classic" deck
types that will improve the deck aside from a good guess on the opponents
you'll face.
Craig Sivils
>early on by meeting someone else. An acceptable amount. Magic doesn't lend
>itself to seeding.
Craig
David J Low
gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>In article <4aoaeu$e...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>> So, while the number of games may decrease, which decreases the strength of
>>>the tournament as a test for best deck, the length of each game will be
>>>increasing, so for each game more of each deck will come into play, and each
>>>match will be a BETTER test of a deck.
>>
>> Unfortunately, that isn't a correct deduction (at least in a
>> statistical sense). Each trial (game) is pretty much a coin toss; only
>> from a large number of trails can you determine any possible bias in
>> that coin. Making the coin stay in the air longer doesn't help the
>> test :-)
>
>longer, have more of its cards come into play [and force the opponent to do
>the same] and represent a better sampeling of that deck than would be given
>if say, the game was over by turn 12 because everyone had to play fast decks
>for fear of a coinflip actually deciding the game when time expires.
Any game is a coin-toss, in a statistical sense (ignoring draws) -
you either win (heads) or lose (tails). The action of playing the
game just gives you one sample. From a lot of samples, you get some
sort of idea as to whether the dekc is above/below average ("the coin
is biased"). It is provable (central limit theorem) that more test
or samples gives a better indication of the degree of bias. Now, say
we're doing the test in a low-G environment: each test takes longer
to perform. As long as you keep the same number of tests, this
doesn't matter; but if you keep the same amount of time, and reduce
the number of tests, you get a poor estimate.
The objection here is to having just 15 games in the day (five
rounds). Regardless of whether this allows for high-G, normal-G, or
low-G tests, all the results are statistically inferior. Hence, the
tourney is more of a lottery.
>> Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. IMHO, nothing beats a larger
>> sample space :-)
>
> The sample space is increased by game length. Probably not as much as is
>loss to reduction in number of games, but its a trade off that needs to be
>made to allow all decks to be able to play. It will also help to get rid of
>"player error."
The sample space is not increased by game length :-) Individual tests
("single flips") *cannot* be taken as an indicator. It is only over a
large number of trials that meaningful biases are evidenced. All
decks are able to play, and if two slow decks meet, then what's to
stop them complaining that two hours for three games isn't enough -
they want *three* hours? Or more??! Scientific method says: choose
an experiment which will be meaningful, and run it. You don't make
your experiment bad in order to fit in certain cases - you change the
experiment. That hasn't happened here, and *that* is the objection.
And if a player makes errors under pressure....well, that's a part of
skill, isn't it? I bet I could beat Kasparov if I had a year to make
each move, and he only had three seconds :-)
> ...I don't see much
>difference between the results of Swiss with a large number of rounds, and
>single elimination. The same people are in the top %5, and the distribution
>is almost totally random in that %5.
Then I challenge you to run the elimination with seeded and unseeded
entries :-) Think of the results then....
> I like elimination better myself, and I don't think there will be much
>change in the top 16 between a 15 round swiss and a 30 round swiss.
But what about a 5-round Swiss, as at the Pro Tourney? As for
difference between 15-round and 30-round, that depends on the number
of players. Once the winner has played half of the top 16 (in this
case) you tend to have a stagnating distribution. That means having
about eight rounds after the accurate matching rounds start (and I've
posted before that that occurs around round 4-5). In other words, a
15-round (45 game) Swiss should be acceptable. Changes after that
happen, but get log-slower.
>The probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
>the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
>tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
>maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
I am willing to wager that there will not be any identical decks,
barring collusion :-) And those little changes are what (can) make
the difference in a reasonable number of games. And note that you
*don't* meet 15 opponents - you meet 5. Still think you get a fairly
average representation? :-)
Regards,
David J Low
>In article <4aqtfj$j...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>> to get a better idea of biases; having more time for games should make
>> little difference"]
>
> But each coinflip [as it were] is better tested. Each game will be a
>better test of the actual quality of the deck by reducing the effect of luck
>on each game. I.E. The dice are loaded, but you have a hard time telling
>that from 3 games. You can compensate for this by increase the number of
>overall games [like you want] or by having a better test for each throw [like
>having longer games.]
OK, this is a "nature of the game" thing now :-) My *feeling* is
that longer games are not better tests, but I'm unwilling (unable :-))
to present something cohesive as to why not at the moment :-(
Hand-wavy is the best I can do, and that isn't going to convince
anyone who doesn't already have the same feeling!
>> The sample space is not increased by game length :-) Individual tests
>> ("single flips") *cannot* be taken as an indicator.
>
> The sampeling of the deck is increased, which will effect the result of
>the "flips." Guess that isn't sample space, but sample quality.
OK, let's try this: the game is based on drawing cards from a
distribution (generally without replacement, Feldon's excepting).
Now, I don't think that anyone can argue that "more games are a
worse indicator of performance"; the question is, "how many games
can you reduce the set of trials by, keeping total time constant,
and still get a similar degree of reliability?". I don't think that
this question can be answered objectively. That is, there is a lot
of personal opinion as to what the cutdown is: say we start from 30
games of twenty minutes each (ten hours); is 20 games of thirty
minutes same/better/worse? I'd argue "worse", others might argue
"better". The next steps could be "10 games of an hour each",
"5 games of two hours each", "1 game of ten hours" :-) Obviously
there's going to be a cutoff, similar to the high-end cutoff (you
could go to 60 games of ten minutes, 120 games of 5 minutes, 600
games of a minute (!)) with similar silly results - noone's going to
argue for either of the extremes :-)
However, as has been pointed out, time allowed and performance are
intricately linked. If a deck has an *average* game time of 20
minutes, then it will likely suffer under 3-games-per-hour rules.
But what to do about the super-deck that has a 40-minute average?
Or a more-than-an-hour average?? Where do we draw the line? (sotto
voce, "at double *my* deck's average time" :-) ).
> If there was absolutley no luck at all in deciding the outcome of each
>coinflip [someone will always win, lose, or tie all three games against a
>specific opponent] how many tests need to be done to figure out the top 16
>with a gaurentee the top 8 people would be in the top 16 no matter how many
>more tests you ran?
1) This can be worked out :-)
2) You don't *really* want me to work it out, do you??
If we could assume that "A beats B, B beats C, implies A beats C" it
would be easy; since we can't, it isn't :-( Note that you only need
one game per match under the assumptions listed above....
>...and its not like running 50, 100 or 200 rounds of
>swiss would even give perfect results.
It would give more meaningful results :-) Ignoring exhaustion effects
:-)
>5 rounds is rather small, 10 WOULD
>be better [although I think I'd have to physically hurt someone after
>playing for 10 hours straight and not being able to safely lose a game here
>and there.]
Note that they've now increased it to 7 rounds of Swiss, top 4 going
through (I assume they'll play 5 rounds on Day 1, the last 2 on Day 2
and the finals in the afternoon of Day 2). Refer to other thread from
Sparky/Skaff...
>> And if a player makes errors under pressure....well, that's a part of
>> skill, isn't it? I bet I could beat Kasparov if I had a year to make
>> each move, and he only had three seconds :-)
>
> Different game.
?? Your comment was "more time reduces player error"; mine was
"this is part of the game". It would be possible for someone to say
"given unlimited time, I could always make the right move" (lots
less options in MtG, of course!), but so what? If time pressure
causes A to make errors, and B doesn't, then (IMHO) B is a better
player.
>>> ...I don't see much
>>>difference between the results of Swiss with a large number of rounds, and
>>>single elimination. The same people are in the top %5, and the distribution
>>>is almost totally random in that %5.
>>
>> Then I challenge you to run the elimination with seeded and unseeded
>> entries :-) Think of the results then....
>
> Exactly the same. The best %5 or %10 would make it to the top, and the
>distribution would be totally random within the top bracket as the decks made
>by these people are always very close to the same power, and it would take
>too long to accuratly test the decks.
> Theres only ever one or two people from the top bracket that get eliminated
>early on by meeting someone else. An acceptable amount. Magic doesn't lend
>itself to seeding.
You won't get the same. I seed the players so that in the first
round, #1 plays #2 (eliminates one of them), #3 plays #4, etc...; in
the second round, winner of the first plays winner of the second;
etc, etc... Your final eight will most likely be made up of #1,
then #32 in second place, #64 in third, etc... Regardless, you won't
get more than one of the top 32 players finishing in the top eight,
because they'll eliminate all bar one of themselves in the leadup
rounds.
This is the overwhelming reason to run Swiss over elimination.
>> I am willing to wager that there will not be any identical decks,
>> barring collusion :-)
>
> Not barring collusion, I'd be willing to wager there will be identical decks
>:)
There's an implication about collusion there :-)
Paul van Gool
> Hmmm. I dunno. I agree luck has a lot to do with it, but I don't see much
>difference between the results of Swiss with a large number of rounds, and
>single elimination. The same people are in the top %5, and the distribution
>is almost totally random in that %5.
> I like elimination better myself, and I don't think there will be much
>change in the top 16 between a 15 round swiss and a 30 round swiss. The
>probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
>the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
>tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
>maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
Well, in single elimination you can always be unlucky and be paired
against that one deck that is capable of beating yours but won't stand
a change against may others and you will be out. In Swiss you can
always come back after such a start a still win the tournament.
On a large scale the same people will be in the top positions. But in
a single tournament with only a limited amount of rounds anything can
happen (that's called luck).
OK, you are so sure. Tell us which 5 decks this will be. Keep in mind
you must include 5 cards from all type 2 legal sets.
JASON GRUNDY
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>In article <4aqtfj$j...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>> ["statistically, a game result is a coinflip - win/lose; play more games
>>> to get a better idea of biases; having more time for games should make
>>> little difference"]
>>
>> But each coinflip [as it were] is better tested. Each game will be a
>>better test of the actual quality of the deck by reducing the effect of luck
>>on each game. I.E. The dice are loaded, but you have a hard time telling
>>that from 3 games. You can compensate for this by increase the number of
>>overall games [like you want] or by having a better test for each throw [like
>>having longer games.]
>
> OK, this is a "nature of the game" thing now :-) My *feeling* is
> that longer games are not better tests, but I'm unwilling (unable :-))
> to present something cohesive as to why not at the moment :-(
> Hand-wavy is the best I can do, and that isn't going to convince
> anyone who doesn't already have the same feeling!
What about, the more games you play, the better the test of two decks
against each other. If this is true, WHY is it a better test to play more
games? Because luck is reduced. WHY? Because you get a better representation
of a deck. WHY? Because you get more first 5 turns [a very critical part of
the game], and you get more cards played from each deck.
Allowing slower decks, which force other people to play longer games will
increase the amount of cards played, and give a better representation of deck
quality.
<Shrug> Thats about as non-handwavy as I'm going to get.
> However, as has been pointed out, time allowed and performance are
> intricately linked. If a deck has an *average* game time of 20
> minutes, then it will likely suffer under 3-games-per-hour rules.
> But what to do about the super-deck that has a 40-minute average?
> Or a more-than-an-hour average?? Where do we draw the line? (sotto
> voce, "at double *my* deck's average time" :-) ).
Well, without getting into a serious loop as to what cards are being
played [E.G. Land's Edge, Skull of Orm, Library of Leng, or Island Sacntuary,
Skull of Orm (not type II legal anyway)], the most turns you can reasonable
expect a game to go is 120 in type II for each player. Thats 40 minutes/game
with 10 second turns.
The number of decks that can do this on average is [I assume] VERY small.
However, the number of decks that can go 60 or 40 turns on average and
require 20 or 30 second turns [counterspells, complicated record keeping]
is getting fairly significant. The number of decks that require more time, or
can go for longer are so increadable small as to be insignificant, and its
unlikely they'd be more viable than a varient that brings them within the
time bound as you're starting to make too many sacrifices in power to achieve
such extreme longevity.
>> If there was absolutley no luck at all in deciding the outcome of each
>>coinflip [someone will always win, lose, or tie all three games against a
>>specific opponent] how many tests need to be done to figure out the top 16
>>with a gaurentee the top 8 people would be in the top 16 no matter how many
>>more tests you ran?
>
> 1) This can be worked out :-)
> 2) You don't *really* want me to work it out, do you??
:) I'm not about to... :) If you want to you can. It would be an
interesting number. I don't think its very hard at all with the given
constraints though. Wouldn't it have to be (# of players-1)-8.
> If we could assume that "A beats B, B beats C, implies A beats C" it
> would be easy; since we can't, it isn't :-( Note that you only need
> one game per match under the assumptions listed above....
Yep.
>>...and its not like running 50, 100 or 200 rounds of
>>swiss would even give perfect results.
>
> It would give more meaningful results :-) Ignoring exhaustion effects
> :-)
Haha. Yeah, BUT, obviously anyone that can withstand 255 hours straight of
Magic is a better player than someone who can't!!! :)
>>> And if a player makes errors under pressure....well, that's a part of
>>> skill, isn't it? I bet I could beat Kasparov if I had a year to make
>>> each move, and he only had three seconds :-)
>>
>> Different game.
>
> ?? Your comment was "more time reduces player error"; mine was
> "this is part of the game". It would be possible for someone to say
> "given unlimited time, I could always make the right move" (lots
> less options in MtG, of course!), but so what? If time pressure
> causes A to make errors, and B doesn't, then (IMHO) B is a better
> player.
Given a year to make each move, other than the fact that Kasparov also
gets that time [like he couldn't figure out your next move] you could
seriously cream him [we can lock him in a personal stasis spell for the
year so he doesn't get the time.] With Magic, I don't care HOW LONG you
stare at your hand, the fact that you don't have something even remotly
resembeling a Wrath of God when your opponent has 5 weenies breathing down
your neck, will not win you the game [inside a tournament where they have the
stalling rule of course. Outside a tournament, you'd probably piss someone
off enough that they'll concede due to hunger.]
Anyway, player error in Magic is fairly easy to eliminate. This isn't
chess where in some ways its the only thing deciding the games [worst case
for a player should be a draw, but you can't entirely search the game tree.]
The game tree for Magic, other than having probabilites guesstimated in, is
pretty sparse. It also can't be very deep [you're usually guessing on any
real depth to it anyway, so it isn't very accurate.] Sylvan Library and
Elemental Augury (+glasses of urza) will obviously increase the depth you
can see, but will reduce the amount of time you use to predicte. blah.
>> Exactly the same. The best %5 or %10 would make it to the top, and the
>>distribution would be totally random within the top bracket as the decks made
>>by these people are always very close to the same power, and it would take
>>too long to accuratly test the decks.
>> Theres only ever one or two people from the top bracket that get eliminated
>>early on by meeting someone else. An acceptable amount. Magic doesn't lend
>>itself to seeding.
>
> You won't get the same. I seed the players so that in the first
> round, #1 plays #2 (eliminates one of them), #3 plays #4, etc...; in
> the second round, winner of the first plays winner of the second;
> etc, etc... Your final eight will most likely be made up of #1,
> then #32 in second place, #64 in third, etc... Regardless, you won't
> get more than one of the top 32 players finishing in the top eight,
> because they'll eliminate all bar one of themselves in the leadup
> rounds.
>
> This is the overwhelming reason to run Swiss over elimination.
Hmmm. I may be wrong, but by this you seem to indicate that you seed the
best players [or by swiss you force the best players] together to eliminate
each other... If so, this is AWEFUL! Its exactly the opposite of how
seeding is meant to be done. The best are supposed to elimante the worst
early on and compete against the other best players at the end. Example,
Tennis.
By having the best eliminate each other early, it means all a (relative)
novice has to do is get lucky in their game against an experienced player to
win the tournament. Aweful.
Hopefully I interpreted it wrong, and you put only 1 of the "best" players
in each cell of 32.
Whats the idea behind breaking up into cells anyway? Why not simply put
players of the same record together and ignore their number.
David J Low
>In article <4at553$c...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>
> What about, the more games you play, the better the test of two decks
>against each other. If this is true, WHY is it a better test to play more
>games? Because luck is reduced. WHY? Because you get a better representation
>of a deck. WHY? Because you get more first 5 turns [a very critical part of
>the game], and you get more cards played from each deck.
> Allowing slower decks, which force other people to play longer games will
>increase the amount of cards played, and give a better representation of deck
>quality.
The trouble with the "longer games" version is the "select *without
replacement* from a given distribution" problem. Going abstract, if
you've got 4 of any given card in a 60 card deck, the chances of
seeing any number of them within a certain time are easy to
calculate (similarly for N cards in a M-card deck, of course). So,
you can legitimately *plan* for certain events, and *know* what the
chance of them happening is - say in the first dozen turns.
However, once you get after this, your chances start to change
dramatically - once you've seen your first Bolt/Counterspell in your
starting hand, you're now working on 3 cards out of 52 remaining.
Because decks (libraries) aren't pure chance-generators (I don't have
a 4/60 chance of drawing a Counterspell every turn), then longer
games are affected more by the library distribution. Playing *more*
games (pretty much regardless of length) will have to be a better
test than *longer* games because it is closer to the "replacement"
distribution.
Of course, some decks *rely* on the no-replacement distribution, and
the argument above becomes irrelevant :-)
>> ["What time-per-game is a good tradeoff, regardless of deck-type?"]
>
>...the most turns you can reasonable
>expect a game to go is 120 in type II for each player. Thats 40 minutes/game
>with 10 second turns.
> The number of decks that can do this on average is [I assume] VERY small.
>However, the number of decks that can go 60 or 40 turns on average and
>require 20 or 30 second turns [counterspells, complicated record keeping]
>is getting fairly significant. The number of decks that require more time, or
>can go for longer are so increadable small as to be insignificant, and its
>unlikely they'd be more viable than a varient that brings them within the
>time bound as you're starting to make too many sacrifices in power to achieve
>such extreme longevity.
Given how the thread started ("winning by deck exhaustion"), I found
myself giggling about the last sentence :-) And Skaff's posting
about WotC/MtG R&D's efforts in making such decks may mean that
everyone's wrong....(personally I doubt it, but it has to be
considered).
>>> If there was absolutley no luck at all in deciding the outcome of each
>>>coinflip [someone will always win, lose, or tie all three games against a
>>>specific opponent] how many tests need to be done to figure out the top 16
>>>with a gaurentee the top 8 people would be in the top 16 no matter how many
>>>more tests you ran?
>>
>> 1) This can be worked out :-)
>> 2) You don't *really* want me to work it out, do you??
>
> :) I'm not about to... :) If you want to you can. It would be an
>interesting number. I don't think its very hard at all with the given
>constraints though. Wouldn't it have to be (# of players-1)-8.
No :-) It will be significantly smaller than that, because you'll be
able to eliminate a lot of players early on (since they will be left
with no mathematical chance of making the top 16, and hence bias the
distribution). N-9 is an upper bound. Note also the circularity
(rock-scissors-paper) problem :-( I'd set this as an assignment
question and let the undergrads work it out for me :-)
> ...obviously anyone that can withstand 255 hours straight of
>Magic is a better player than someone who can't!!! :)
Actually, I think it would indicate some form of insanity :-)
>With Magic, I don't care HOW LONG you
>stare at your hand, the fact that you don't have something even remotly
>resembeling a Wrath of God when your opponent has 5 weenies breathing down
>your neck, will not win you the game
Careful, that's almost a newbie comment :-) A decision to cast or not
to cast a WoG in that case is a fairly serious one as far as decisions
go. The *real* decisions are things like "should I do this now, or
wait?". And that gets based on what you know about the opponent and
his deck, what you figure is likely to turn up for you/him, what the
chances are of getting stuffed up by waiting as opposed to a smaller
reward by not waiting....weighing up the Risk-Return graph :-)
Certainly there are many decks where this is not a problem. I will
admit to just one player error in a tourney (I swear I've never made
any others, really :-) ). Opponent brings out Black Knight, puts a
Thrull retainer on it. I bolt it, he regens it. I slap myself in the
head - not because of the regen, which was expected, but because I
should obviously have waited until the next turn, to save myself from
a round of attacks! That was a tiredness error - now, there would be
an argument that says "bolt it now, in case he Bad Moons, or puts on
another Retainer, etc...", but that's the Risk-Return graph in
operation. If I had waited, and he had Bad Mooned, I would *not* have
called my decision to wait "an error" - unless I had good reason to
expect him to Bad Moon :-)
> Anyway, player error in Magic is fairly easy to eliminate.
Like the time I made the final of my first tourney, and Channelballed
a bloke on Turn 3....straight after he'd brought out a CoP:Red and
had a mana spare? :-) I think we all grow out of those :-)
>> [Example of a seeded Elim causing all sorts of problems]
>
> Hmmm. I may be wrong, but by this you seem to indicate that you seed the
>best players [or by swiss you force the best players] together to eliminate
>each other... If so, this is AWEFUL! Its exactly the opposite of how
>seeding is meant to be done. The best are supposed to elimante the worst
>early on and compete against the other best players at the end.
Sorry, I should have been more explicit: I was giving an example where
*purely random* seeding could result in an horrendously biased result.
Since we can't seed MtG players with any degree of accuracy (local
leagues being an exception), elims have to be random - which means that
it's more than likely you'll get an early top-player matchup. Or more
than one :-(
> By having the best eliminate each other early, it means all a (relative)
>novice has to do is get lucky in their game against an experienced player to
>win the tournament. Aweful.
Exactly. That's why elim is bad - you *can't* seed it *properly*. A
poor player has to get *really* lucky to win a Swiss, whereas they
just have to get lucky to win elim :-)
JASON GRUNDY
In article <4b2qc2$i...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>gru...@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (JASON GRUNDY) writes:
>>In article <4at553$c...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>,
> The trouble with the "longer games" version is the "select *without
> replacement* from a given distribution" problem. Going abstract, if
> you've got 4 of any given card in a 60 card deck, the chances of
> seeing any number of them within a certain time are easy to
> calculate (similarly for N cards in a M-card deck, of course). So,
> you can legitimately *plan* for certain events, and *know* what the
> chance of them happening is - say in the first dozen turns.
>
> However, once you get after this, your chances start to change
> dramatically - once you've seen your first Bolt/Counterspell in your
> starting hand, you're now working on 3 cards out of 52 remaining.
> Because decks (libraries) aren't pure chance-generators (I don't have
> a 4/60 chance of drawing a Counterspell every turn), then longer
> games are affected more by the library distribution. Playing *more*
> games (pretty much regardless of length) will have to be a better
> test than *longer* games because it is closer to the "replacement"
> distribution.
>
> Of course, some decks *rely* on the no-replacement distribution, and
> the argument above becomes irrelevant :-)
Ah, I see. So you're saying the top 15 cards are a better representation
of a deck as opposed to going through the entire deck in a game. Nahhhh.
You aren't going to be able to convince me of that. We're talking deck here,
not first 7 turns of a game.
>>is getting fairly significant. The number of decks that require more time, or
>>can go for longer are so increadable small as to be insignificant, and its
>>unlikely they'd be more viable than a varient that brings them within the
>>time bound as you're starting to make too many sacrifices in power to achieve
>>such extreme longevity.
>
> Given how the thread started ("winning by deck exhaustion"), I found
> myself giggling about the last sentence :-) And Skaff's posting
> about WotC/MtG R&D's efforts in making such decks may mean that
> everyone's wrong....(personally I doubt it, but it has to be
> considered).
??? I don't quite follow this. I meant the two hour time bound, or 40
minutes/game. They said that they make decks that will not work in the 20
minute time, but would work with more time. Voila, 40 minutes/game now.
>>With Magic, I don't care HOW LONG you
>>stare at your hand, the fact that you don't have something even remotly
>>resembeling a Wrath of God when your opponent has 5 weenies breathing down
>>your neck, will not win you the game
>
> Careful, that's almost a newbie comment :-) A decision to cast or not
> to cast a WoG in that case is a fairly serious one as far as decisions
> go. The *real* decisions are things like "should I do this now, or
> wait?". And that gets based on what you know about the opponent and
> his deck, what you figure is likely to turn up for you/him, what the
> chances are of getting stuffed up by waiting as opposed to a smaller
> reward by not waiting....weighing up the Risk-Return graph :-)
Which can be guessed in 1 minute to about as good an accuracy as can be
done with 1 year. There are too many unknows to be very accurate at all.
JASON GRUNDY
Yeah, bizarre decks, or decks that only work against a very limited type
of deck can knock someone out early, which CAN, 1/255 change the outcome
of the tournament, but they usually wash out in the first or second round
of elimination.
The problem with Swiss is that you may never get the chance to recover.
The top places will be won by someone that didn't have such a catestrophic
game.
At least with elim, the person will be gone in a round or two, with swiss,
the abberant deck will hurt multple people with the same decktype, and is
likely to have a bigger impact on the tournament than in elim. They may
have no chance of winning, going 3-0, 0-3, 0-3, 0-3, 0-3, 3-0, 0-3..., but
they can wreck a lot of other peoples chance of winning too. An (not good)
example is an anti-black deck. Everything is anti-black. If you play
significant black, you lose, if not, you win. Stupid players like this can
do damage in both systems, but will probably do more in swiss because they
get to play more opponents. There is a chance the person can do extremely
well in the tournament, if they make an informed guess that most everyone will
be playing black. This won't happen however, so playing that kind of deck
that has NO chance of winning is just dumb and hurtful to other players.
>OK, you are so sure. Tell us which 5 decks this will be. Keep in mind
>you must include 5 cards from all type 2 legal sets.
Hmmm. Well, lets see. There will be discard, weenie, vice age, speed
big creature, denial. Obviously the varients in each deck will make a deck
"good" or "bad." Assuming that you have a chance to win, you'll have a
"good" deck, so you can ignore a "bad" deck from any category, but will
have to watch out for a "good" deck from any category with varying degrees
based on which category you're each in.
If everyone thought exactly the same way for what constitutes a good deck,
but thought differently on which type of deck is best, you would end up with
about 5 different decks that are exactly the same power, and very similar [local
maximums] one for each of the recognized "working" categories. Since you will
find personal varience, there will still only be 5 decks, the best of each
category, there will also be lots of other decks though, ones that are less
than the best for each category, but again, as I said, if you have a good shot
at winning, you can fairly safely ignore those decks. :) Anything that falls
outside of these categories can be assumed to not be working decks [this
assumption can be wrong, but so far it hasn't been.]
I'm generalizing a lot here, like making the assumption that luck will play
no part. Don't bother getting nitpicky with details.
As for a cardlist... I don't think anyone is good enough to know the "best"
of each deck type. And if they are, they'd rather keep it to themselves and
have the best shot at winnning $12,000... For a good indication of what would
be in the "best" deck for each deck type, just take a look at the tourney
winning decks that have been posted for the past year. None of them will be
the "best" but a melding of them will be close enough that only luck will sort
things out.
Larry Chatfield
> Hmmm. Well, lets see. There will be discard, weenie, vice age, speed
>big creature, denial. Obviously the varients in each deck will make a deck
>"good" or "bad." Assuming that you have a chance to win, you'll have a
>"good" deck, so you can ignore a "bad" deck from any category, but will
>have to watch out for a "good" deck from any category with varying degrees
>based on which category you're each in.
well thats interesting that my type II deck which has won 4 of the last 5
tourneys i have been does not fit into any of these categories even
remotely! i think it is safe to say that there will be far more than 5
types of decks at the pro tours.
lawrence
David J Low
> The problem with Swiss is that you may never get the chance to recover.
>The top places will be won by someone that didn't have such a catestrophic
>game.
This will happen regardless (the Good Deck Day syndrome).
> At least with elim, the person will be gone in a round or two, with swiss,
>the abberant deck will hurt multple people with the same decktype, and is
>likely to have a bigger impact on the tournament than in elim. They may
>have no chance of winning, going 3-0, 0-3, 0-3, 0-3, 0-3, 3-0, 0-3..., but
>they can wreck a lot of other peoples chance of winning too.
Remember that in Swiss, they'll be paired up with opponents with
similar matches - a 3-0 win late in the day won't mean anything, since
it will be against someone way down the list....and if the "abberant"
deck is actually in contention, and wins 3-0 against another top
deck...well, I can't see any complaints there! There will always be
complaints about matchups in non-round-robin events (hell, I've seen
people complain *in* round robin: "Oh, Jim played Bob in the last
round, where Bob was out of contention - he didn't concentrate/play
well because he had nothing personal riding on it, lost 0-3, which
meant that Jim jumped ahead of me! When I played Bob in the first
round, we were both (obviously!) in contention, and I only won 2-1...").
You just can't win - someone will always complain :-) The tricky bit
is making the complainers look to be the idiots, not the organisers
:-)
>An (not good)
>example is an anti-black deck. Everything is anti-black. If you play
>significant black, you lose, if not, you win. Stupid players like this can
>do damage in both systems, but will probably do more in swiss because they
>get to play more opponents. There is a chance the person can do extremely
>well in the tournament, if they make an informed guess that most everyone will
>be playing black. This won't happen however, so playing that kind of deck
>that has NO chance of winning is just dumb and hurtful to other players.
Sort of like Mark Justice at the US Nationals finals series, eh? :-)
por...@gems.vcu.edu
>
>>The probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
>>the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
>>tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
>>maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
>
all the variables, including mandatory inclusion of cards from particular
expansions. What do people think are going to be the deck types played, and
what colors will use which cards.
Obviously, we can't make exact predictions, but guessing can be fun. Will we
have a vote for white weenies using Abu Jafar for the Chronicles slot?
Hymn to Tourach and black discard decks? Let's hear your predictions!
Greg Porter
Brian T. Tickler
>>>David J Low <d...@tornado.maths.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>The probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
>>>the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
>>>tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
>>>maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
>>
>all the variables, including mandatory inclusion of cards from particular
>expansions. What do people think are going to be the deck types played, and
>what colors will use which cards.
>
>Obviously, we can't make exact predictions, but guessing can be fun. Will we
>have a vote for white weenies using Abu Jafar for the Chronicles slot?
>Hymn to Tourach and black discard decks? Let's hear your predictions!
As has already been pointed out, discard decks should be rampant because
of the near perfect breakdown:
FE: 4 Hymn to Tourach (and 1 Derelor...?)
4E: 4 Hypnotic Spectre, 1 Mindtwist
IA: 4 Abyssal Spectre, Zuran Orb
The small expansions are obviously the most difficult and will severely
limit the deck types being played:
Chronicles: expect to see Ernham Djinns and Cities of Brass everywhere
with the occasional Recall and Feldon's Cane.
Fallen Empires: Hymn to Tourach, Derelors, Orders of Ebon Hand/Leitbur
Homelands: Ishan's Shade, Autumn Willow, Dry Spell, Hungry Mist (popular
even though it is not a great card)
Black should be the dominant color with Green running a not-so-close
second...
Blue will suffer...people still don't realize that Homarid Warriors is a
good card, and will dismiss Blue as impossible to fill from a Fallen
Empires perspective...some might attempt Merfolk decks, though.
People will attempt Red and/or White simply because they are so good in
Type II in general. So for these colors, expect to see Death Speakers,
maybe some Anaba Shamans, Goblin Grenades, etc.
--
Brian T. Tickler E-Mail: tic...@netcom.com
Brian T. Tickler
toss 4 Sy...whatever Temples into their decks...
The Sacrifice Lands do make the Fallen Empires requirement somewhat moot.
But I would still expect 4 Hymn to Tourach to be extremely common.
do...@netcom.com
: Whoops, forget what I said about Blue...forgot that people could just
: The Sacrifice Lands do make the Fallen Empires requirement somewhat moot.
: But I would still expect 4 Hymn to Tourach to be extremely common.
Two other FE cards that might make a small appearance are the Aeolipile
and the Balm of Restoration (I think this is the right one). The
Aeolipile is decent because any color can use the direct damage, plus it
makes for a decent 'threat' card. Someone may think twice about blocking
that Hypnotic Spectre with their Serra if one of those is in play.
--
Check out my Magic Tournament Calendar at
http://www.music.uiowa.edu/~jezebel/dolor.html
Larry Chatfield
>Brian T. Tickler (tic...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: Whoops, forget what I said about Blue...forgot that people could just
>: toss 4 Sy...whatever Temples into their decks...
>: The Sacrifice Lands do make the Fallen Empires requirement somewhat moot.
>: But I would still expect 4 Hymn to Tourach to be extremely common.
except that playing with these lands can slow you down initially and
hence they can be "worse" than even normal lands
lawrence
David J Low
No I didn't!!! Justin Grundy did :-) He can take the blame/credit
for himself :-)
>>The probability of not getting a fairly average representation of the decks at
>>the tournament in 15 opponents is pretty slim. We're talking a Magic pro
>>tournament. I imagine the number of different decks will be small... Like,
>>maybe 5. There may be 256 people, but there will only be 5 decks!!!
>
>How about we start speculating *what* 5 decks will be played? We already have
>all the variables, including mandatory inclusion of cards from particular
>expansions. What do people think are going to be the deck types played, and
>what colors will use which cards.
Were I going, I'd go for RG, I think, with either weenie/stick/gun,
fast juzam, or Howling-Vice-Orb. IA is easy for any, FE would probably
be Grenades/Lands/NightSoil/Aeolipile/Orgg, CH could be Ernham/Feldon/
CoB, HL could be Arrows/AutumnWillow/Eron. The other option would be
UW-weenie/Sleight, with another set of options (Icatian something,
Fountain/Blacksmith/Feldon, Arrows/Speakers/Gargoyles(?)/Highway(?!)).
Canticle
than they would at a regular tournament....what with people having to use
something from Fallen Empires, Black players will no doubt go for the
Hymn...personally, I think there might be a little more in the way of
Black Weenie as well, taking advantage of Initiates of the Ebon Hand
and/or Breeding Pit, Sengir Bats perhaps (though doubtful).
Winter Orb decks will get a boost...storage lands will be popular items
from Fallen Empires, and they're easy to use with Winter Orb decks. In
addition, the restrictions mean that people will be picking the best
cards _for their decks_ from particular expansions. Sure, Hymn to Tourach
is a cool black card, but Tourach's Chant (w/ Magical Hack for good
measure) could be decisive if you're playing against Green...especially
sinxe Green will be a popular secondary colour (I'm betting there are
going to be a lot of Hungry Mist's in play...)
Black/Green speed might also be a little more popular as people have to
use cards from every expansion...Hungry Mist makes it hard to resist and
you could always add in Initiates of the Ebon Hand w/ Drain Life to make
things interesting.
Permission will be as popular as it ever is...there are sufficient
support cards across the spectrum that anyone currently playing a decent
Permission deck is probably already within the restrictions imposed for
the tourney.
White Weenie will, as always, be present in numbers far beyond what the
actual ability of these decks warrant.
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
{}Jeff Franzmann {} Turning to go {}
{}Internet Representative {} Heard you call out my name {}
{}Campaign Outfitters {} Like a bird in a cage {}
{}Winnipeg, Manitoba {} Spreading its wings to fly {}
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Campaign Outfitters Home Page & Orders:http://www.aratar.mb.ca/aratar
Opinions expressed above are mine, and may not reflect those of my employer.
GothCode1.1 GoSS+ T3(4) B11Bk@ c1z++ P1(3,4) M++ a22 n---- b+:- H5'7" g m--#
w++ r+ D+ h+P(3,4) s9 k+++ R+ Ssy LcaMB+
Craig Sivils
Resonable decks so far
----------------------
Black Discard
Black Weenie
Vice Age
Black/Green fast big creatures
Permission
White Weenie
I think we should add
Goblin/blast - the makings are all there, not sure what hl to put in.
Red/Green weenie/blast
Red/Green big creature/DD
Enchantress/Wombat (Not likely, but it is possible :)
TII The deck clones, I think its possible even with the card limits.
Decks that I see as having trouble.
Land destruction, no help from FE, HL or chronicals, 15 cards that
can't help the theme. It might be possible, but I think that this
theme is hit harder than the others.
I do see tII The deck clones as different than pure "permission",
although they have many cards in common. Even not counting the wombat
deck, I count a lot more than 5. I'm more curious about the last
section, themes that are hurt bad by the card limits.
Craig
Sparky!!
> I'd suggest you use a rule I see often, though I don't know if it is an
> actual DC rule. Do not allow sideboarding in the first game in a match.
Official DC rules should state that between matched a deck must return to its
original composition. You cannot 'sideboard' between matches without risking
disqualification. Yes, this is supposed to hamper scouts during a tourney.
James Grahame
Brian T. Tickler <tic...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Whoops, forget what I said about Blue...forgot that people could just
>toss 4 Sy...whatever Temples into their decks...
>
>The Sacrifice Lands do make the Fallen Empires requirement somewhat moot.
>But I would still expect 4 Hymn to Tourach to be extremely common.
I think there'll be more variety than you think. Have you thought
about using the Urza lands? Every expansion except FE has many good artifacts
to use with these. If you have red in there, add Orgg. With black, use
Derelor. White can add Icatian Town, and blue and green could use sacrifice
lands. The themes with each colour and Urza lands should be obvious.
Then, there will be people playing the metagame. Given the Ice Ages
multis, the Urza lands, the FE lands, and the Strip Mines and Mishra's
Factories that are bound to be present, would Blood Moon and Primal Order
be good cards? With Derelor, Erhnam, etc., big fast creature is a real option.
I really do think that the people going will think of more than discard,
and will win with more than discard.
I do have one serious question, though: with the restrictions as
given, does anybody think that a creatureless deck is possible?
James
Michael Dove
75,135678-135682,135684-135685,135688-135689,135691-135698,135700-135701,135706-135709,135725,135731,135747,135749-135751,135761,135770-135771,135787-135798,135803-135804,135806,135808-135811,135813,135816,135818-135819,135821-135827,135831-135832,135834,
135851-135852,135859,135866,135871,135884,135893-135894,135898,135904-135908,135919-135920,135922,135927-135929,135943-135944,135955-135956,135959,135961,135964,135970,135972,135974,135976-135981,135995,135997,136000,136033,136042-136043,136045,136065,136
070-136078,136081-136082,136086,136100,136102,136108,136117,136121-136126,136128,136135,136137-136138,136140,136143,136150-136152,136156-136158,136162,136164,136176,136184,136189,136203,136207-136212,136231,136237-136238,136270-136271,13627
: Canticle <cant...@MBnet.MB.CA> wrote:
: Resonable decks so far
: ----------------------
: Black Discard
: Black Weenie
Creature based decks always run into trouble.
: Vice Age
: Black/Green fast big creatures
: Permission
: White Weenie
See above comment
: I think we should add
: Goblin/blast - the makings are all there, not sure what hl to put in.
HL really hurts the deck. No cheap stuff to just throw in. Cant
justify more than two Eron's (the best red card by far).
: Red/Green weenie/blast
: Red/Green big creature/DD
: Enchantress/Wombat (Not likely, but it is possible :)
: TII The deck clones, I think its possible even with the card limits.
: Decks that I see as having trouble.
: Land destruction, no help from FE, HL or chronicals, 15 cards that
: can't help the theme. It might be possible, but I think that this
: theme is hit harder than the others.
Orcish Mine in HL. Throw in Orgg (if youre destroying their land then
they probalby dont have many big creatures out), Aeopile (to rid weenie
creatures), and sacrifice lands (for possible Jokhaulkamps or Armageddon
or a big dude). Chronicals can have Ernhams and Cities...Spot filled.
: I do see tII The deck clones as different than pure "permission",
: although they have many cards in common. Even not counting the wombat
: deck, I count a lot more than 5. I'm more curious about the last
: section, themes that are hurt bad by the card limits.
I think that the discard deck is hurt badly from Homelands.
Homelands has no cheap non-creature affecting spells and really no good
creatures except for Ihsans Shade (who costs 6 and is therefore hard to
play with). I have played against the discard type of deck and I am
confident I can beat it with RG.
White and Blue are also hard hit from HomeLands and Fallen
Empires. Homelands has no game winning type of creatures, like Serra
Angel or Hyptnotic Spectre. The Sea Sprite is good but doesnt do much.
You cant really justify more than 1-2 Merchant Scrolls and there are no
good creature killers in either of the two small expansions (FE and HL).
I think the worst part is the crummy artifacts and land. If you could
just throw in a cheap artifact that was useful then that would be fine
but it does not exist in HL.
All the colors are hurt except for Green in my opinion. Green
still has good creatures that are cost efficient and dont cost a huge
amount. I believe there are only about 1-2 useful cards in each of the
other colors and you would not want to play with more than one or two of
them in a deck. ex: Ihsans Shade, Merchant Scroll, Eron the Relentless,
Abbey Gargoyle (Serra Angel much better).
Just my opinions. I was using a WB sleight deck but it simply
cant handle the RG decks without sideboarding and if you lose the first
game every time against RG then you will not advance.
Michael W. Dove
Michael Dove
75,135678-135682,135684-135685,135688-135689,135691-135698,135700-135701,135706-135709,135725,135731,135747,135749-135751,135761,135770-135771,135787-135798,135803-135804,135806,135808-135811,135813,135816,135818-135819,135821-135827,135831-135832,135834,
135851-135852,135859,135866,135871,135884,135893-135894,135898,135904-135908,135919-135920,135922,135927-135929,135943-135944,135955-135956,135959,135961,135964,135970,135972,135974,135976-135981,135995,135997,136000,136033,136042-136043,136045,136065,136
070-136078,136081-136082,136086,136100,136102,136108,136117,136121-136126,136128,136135,136137-136138,136140,136143,136150-136152,136156-136158,136162,136164,136176,136184,136189,136203,136207-136212,136231,136237-136238,136270-136271,13627
: In article <4b75nb$l...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Most definately. My friend here put together a WB denial deck
with 4 Swords, 3 Wrath of Gods, and alot of counterspells (including 2
Memory Lapses in HL) and then Milled you to death (mills work decently
enough with Memory Lapse). Might be too slow but we were cranking 3-4 games
out in 45 minutes. Against a slow opponent this deck could lose to time
restrictions but it was very powerful. Beat the crud out of many of the
decks we built.
Michael W. Dove
michael@pressroom.com (Dove@rocket.cc.umr.edu (michael)
From: do...@rocket.cc.umr.edu (Michael Dove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc
Subject: Re: Pro Tourey Prognostications?
Date: 27 Dec 1995 19:51:49 GMT
Organization: UMR Missouri's Technological University
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <4bs84l$n...@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu>
References: <sparky-0512...@199.238.209.253> <4aqtfj$j...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> <1995Dec19....@gems.vcu.edu> <Pine.SUN.3.91.951220...@access.mbnet.mb.ca> <DJwB5...@twisto.eng.hou.compaq.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.cc.umr.edu
michael@pressroom.com (Dove@rocket.cc.umr.edu (michael)
From: do...@rocket.cc.umr.edu (Michael Dove)
Newsgroups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc
Subject: Re: Pro Tourey Prognostications?
Organization: UMR Missouri's Technological University
Message-ID: <4bs8cg$n...@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu>
References: <sparky-0512...@199.238.209.253> <1995Dec19....@gems.vcu.edu> <4b747n$l...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <4b75nb$l...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <DJzCp...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.cc.umr.edu
35468-135484,135486-135495,135497-135507,135510,135512,135517-135522,135524,135527-135543,135545-135568,135571-135593,135597-135607,135611,135617-135620,135622-135633,135635-135642,135644-135653,135655-135656,135658,135660-135662,135664-135667,135669-1356
75,135678-135682,135684-135685,135688-135689,135691-135698,135700-135701,135706-135709,135725,135731,135747,135749-135751,135761,135770-135771,135787-135798,135803-135804,135806,135808-135811,135813,135816,135818-135819,135821-135827,135831-135832,135834,
135851-135852,135859,135866,135871,135884,135893-135894,135898,135904-135908,135919-135920,135922,135927-135929,135943-135944,135955-135956,135959,135961,135964,135970,135972,135974,135976-135981,135995,135997,136000,136033,136042-136043,136045,136065,136
070-136078,136081-136082,136086,136100,136102,136108,136117,136121-136126,136128,136135,136137-136138,136140,136143,136150-136152,136156-136158,136162,136164,136176,136184,136189,136203,136207-136212,136231,136237-136238,136270-136271,13627
James Grahame
Michael Dove <do...@rocket.cc.umr.edu> wrote:
>: In article <4b75nb$l...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
>: Brian T. Tickler <tic...@netcom.com> wrote:
>: >Whoops, forget what I said about Blue...forgot that people could just
>: >toss 4 Sy...whatever Temples into their decks...
>: >
>: >The Sacrifice Lands do make the Fallen Empires requirement somewhat moot.
>: >But I would still expect 4 Hymn to Tourach to be extremely common.
>
>: and will win with more than discard.
>
>: I do have one serious question, though: with the restrictions as
>: given, does anybody think that a creatureless deck is possible?
> Most definately. My friend here put together a WB denial deck
>with 4 Swords, 3 Wrath of Gods, and alot of counterspells (including 2
>Memory Lapses in HL) and then Milled you to death (mills work decently
>enough with Memory Lapse). Might be too slow but we were cranking 3-4 games
>out in 45 minutes. Against a slow opponent this deck could lose to time
>restrictions but it was very powerful. Beat the crud out of many of the
>decks we built.
What cards were you using from the expansions, especially Fallen
Empires?
James
Michael Dove
Fallen-2 Implements (provides two blue for counters or a faster
two white for a Wrath of God), 2 Svylunite Temples (Sacrifice for a
counterspell), and possibly an Aeopile (kills a weenie)
Chronicals-1 Recall, 2 Remove Soul, 3 City of Brass
Homelands-2 Memory Lapse (works with millstones somewhat), 2
Merchant Scroll (for counterspells), 1 wasted space filled by that white
card that costs 1 and replaces itself-gain 1 life if its a land...
Anyway, this deck killed my RG last night in a tournament but two
games took nearly an hour. It would definately be sheer folly to play
with this deck.
Michael W. Dove