Organized Play

[Coshade]

That's totally fair Red

[silverclawgrizzly]

any feel for whether 90 min would have been sufficient?

Yeah assuming no changes were made to books etc due to being granted 15 minutes extra at the start here are my predictions as to the last two tournaments I've seen:

1. Littlenog would have beat Biblofilter in the qualifiers at Gen Con. Biblo was out of creatures and surrounded by buffed up Alandale, Ehren, Knight of Westlock, and a Priest that was swinging a ton of damage himself. This would have removed Biblo from finals as he very few points.

2. Ashe would have beaten Littlenog in the qualifiers at Mace. That was just straight up going to happen in the next 5 minutes if not for time. This would have led most likely to Ashe fighting me in the next round of qualifiers and I've no idea then.

I will make this side note and I think it's important: I personally know of no competitive player active in any tournament scene in North America or Europe who purposefully builds and plays with the intent to win by time and not mage death. Now I don't know every player and I certainly haven't seen every event that goes down, but I've never seen anyone obviously just trying to win by time an entire match.

[zot]

true, but the tie break ruels regardless of what they are do affect book building. if ties were worth less than wins, that would also affect builds.

[DaveW]

I hope you don't mind my rephrasing a suggestion that I made in another thread, one which was shot down pretty vehemently... but after reading all of this, I wonder again whether this isn't worth consideration:

There doesn't seem to me to be too too many games still going when time is called. I wonder if the players shouldn't finish the current turn on which time is called, then step through the first phase, plan their spells for the next turn, etc. and then have the TD review the game situation, including consideration of what the players would do the next turn.

This takes care of all of those cases where "I have initiative and Flameblast in hand" and "Restore will go away on the next turn" and so on... it's pretty obvious who should be declared the winner.

The TD's decision can include no win for either if the situation is unclear, or if neither combatant has made any significant progress toward killing the other.

[zot]

I would think the decision process is expected to be as objective as possible. this idea introduces subjectivity. which is what I alluded to when there is no real way to declare who will eventually win without subjectivity based on board state, cards left in book, and many other considerations. the td would be able to surmise that based on many factors, yet it is still subjective. but would likely be correct in probably almost all instances. but players expect objectivity and clarity in a competitive setting. hence the long discussion regarding tie scenarios.

[DaveW]

The same thing is done in SFB (Star Fleet Battles) tournaments, and it has worked well there... subjective or not. I understand that that is a different game, but the premise is the same.

[silverclawgrizzly]

I'll discuss more on this , including the objective nature of rulings after Christmas. Until then I want to sincerely thank everyone for their input and wish you all a happy Yule time.

[Kelanen]

I'd be very against a TO decision on likely outcomes that way. In fact I might even abstain from such a tournament.

You then get into a whole "but if he did that, then she would do this, but what if he did that first..." - the only way to know is to play it. Then how do you evaluate me having the 1st quickcast and a spell with a 50% chance of winning at that point. What about 40%, but my opponent has no such clear chance? What about 60%, but I clearly lose if that fails.

What if the TO's view on how to play something is different to mine. What if he doesn't know the mind games and bluffs involved based on what FD enchantments we've got in play, and when they were cast.

No, sorry - asking the TO to decide an outcome in that fashion would be absolutely awful. Actually the more I think about it, the more I realise, I just wouldn't play in that system. I'll accept any arbitrary, objective tiebreak you care to name over that - at least it's quantifiable, and I can prepare for it, and play for it.

[Beldin]

To add my 2 cents, there has to be a clear rule for this. From here players can build books accordingly. I will say that timed versus non timed are two different games. I will also say that indifferent games there is a banned list for tournaments, versus causal play where any card is allowed.

From this in a timed format without banning restore that arguably the Holy school has the edge. It can mitigate any to time game with a final quick cast on the turn going to time (I watch time like a hawk when timed) with an enchantment matrix of Reverse Magic, then plan Heal and Restore for the atleast 10 (12 in the case of a Preistess) life swing, 18/20 with average rolls, and any attack spell plays into that to increase that life swing. Bear in mind this is under perfect play conditions against a non Holy mage. Against a holy mage the Heal is arguably swapped for a Dispel to ensure the swing, with the Heal being cast a turn earlier to best mimic perfect conditions.

The last sentence is the exact supporting argument to Kelanen's post about how the he does then she does paradigm is unplayable for unless you know the thought processes of the TO and then it becomes an exercise of social engineering over Mage Wars. My personal view is keep the timed format as is, as any other just complicates things, and ban Restore.

[DaveW]

The Priestess only gains a maximum of one life a round from her ability. Casting Heal and revealing Restore would not both count.

[Obsidian Soul]

I think that changing the victory conditions and victory points would be a good idea.  Players lose if their mages die, players tie if the match ends without any mages dying, and players win if their mage kills another mage.  If two mages happen to kill each other simultaneously, the match ends in a tie. 

I favor one point in the case of a Lose, three points in the case of a Tie, and nine points in the case of a Win.  In that case, three Loses will equal one Tie in points and three Ties will equal one Win in points.  In the case of rankings, a player with three Wins ranks over a character with Two Wins and a Tie, who ranks over a character with Two Wins and a Lose, etc.

In addition to the above, I think that characters should receive bonus points for the following conditions in the case of a Tie or Win.  They should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Conjuration Cards in play before the end of the last turn.  They should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Creatures Cards in play before the end of the last turn.  They should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Enchantment Cards in play before the end of the last turn.  Finally, they should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Equipment Cards in play before the end of the last turn.

[Kelanen]

They should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Conjuration Cards in play before the end of the last turn.  They should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Creatures Cards in play before the end of the last turn.  They should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Enchantment Cards in play before the end of the last turn.  Finally, they should receive one additional bonus point if they have reduced their opponent to zero Equipment Cards in play before the end of the last turn.

That's all very artificial, and completely changes the metagame - maybe that was your intention? Some books are hemorrhaging points before play starts.

In my view, the core problem is that the necessity of timed games changing things from untimed is the problem. Any solution is going to minimise that impact, not drastically increase it, so you almost have two entirely different metagames.

[Obsidian Soul]

All of my books, from my Druid to my Warlord, are designed for tournament play.  If I can kill an opponent in 60 minutes, it does not matter if I am playing in timed or untimed play.  Really, the difference between the two is that untied play is more casual, so people chat and watch TV while playing an untimed game, so play time is rarely over 60 minutes, you just have 60 minutes of other stuff happening during the untimed game.

[Kelanen]

All of my books, from my Druid to my Warlord, are designed for tournament play.  If I can kill an opponent in 60 minutes, it does not matter if I am playing in timed or untimed play.  Really, the difference between the two is that untied play is more casual, so people chat and watch TV while playing an untimed game, so play time is rarely over 60 minutes, you just have 60 minutes of other stuff happening during the untimed game.

We never have TV, phones, or anything else distracting, and yet our typical game would be probably 90-120mins, and I've had games very occasionally go 4-5hrs, with only a handful of spells left in each book. In untimed play you can concentrate on being unkillable (high armour, lots of defenses and counters), and spell point efficient (good schools, lots of wands) whilst in timed play you have to balance defence with offense, and spell points don't matter to get the right card - most of my tournament books win with 20-30 SBP, and the rest are just sideboard options.

In untimed play I very rarely lose, but more so in timed, as is natural. Aggressive books honestly have very little chance in untimed play (which is a good reason for a tournament metagame being timed). To take an extreme example - my favourite Druid book is one that I have never lost a match with. I have also never gotten a win in 75 mins either, and for that reason I've never taken it to a tournament. I have plenty of other books that are good, and I've won tournaments with, but they are not so sure of a win - but probably winning in time, is more important than never losing in a tournament (and for clarity, that's just as it should be).

What I'm trying to say here is that the best book to win in 75 mins (or 60, or 90) is not the same as the best book to win untimed. It's definitely not the case of them being the same books, just played slower through distractions.

[Obsidian Soul]

But we are implicitly talking about tournaments and timed matches because we are talking about organized play.  When I first started out five years ago with silverclawgrizzly, we started out making spellbooks that would take 2-3 hours to win, but we started to optimize our books for tournaments after about a year because we wanted to get good at organized play.  I doubt that I have had a match last longer than 90 minutes in the last three years because everyone I play with wants to be capable of playing their spellbooks competitively.