Suggested Rule change for cons

[pixelgeek]

Just wanted to start a discussion about tie breaker rules based on an earlier suggestion

as for tie breakers after time runs out, here is my idea.  others are welcome.

use a point system to determine tie breakers.  give points for different conditions that encourage different strategies.  for example.

1 point for most remaining health (difference between life and damage)
1 point for most controlled zones (encourages creature heavy)
1 point for most remaining zone exclusive conjurations (encourages destruction of conjurations)
1 point for most equipment (encourages equip heavy melee builds and dispells)

During our event today (I'll post about it later) we discussed tie-breaker conditions and I was pointed to this post.

I thought it might be useful to take the discussion of tie-breakers out into its own topic to help focus discussion and make it easier for people to find.

I think it would be useful to have three or five (an odd number) conditions that people could use to judge games where their is no clear winner. The points above are a very good starting point but I did have a few comments.

I think that it would be easier if the conditions we just a single point and you got them for meeting the condition and also that the conditions not be tied to a specific type of build but to more general conditions

So some suggestions:

Reaping: your opponent has no creatures
Cower in fear: your opponent is still in their starting zone
Strip them bare: your opponent has no equipment remaining
Control the arena: you control more Zones by having the only creature or conjurations present
Overwhelm: you have twice as many creatures or conjurations than your opponent

There are, I think, a few issues with some of the original suggestions

Health: Remaining health is to necessarily an indication of damage done. Having a lot of equipment or using a lot of heal spells can give an opponent a low amount of damage that is really just indicative or a type of play-style or build

Equipment: this would just reward, and with the Health condition re-enforce, a specific style of build.

At comments, suggestions or changes?

[Mathias]

For tournament purpose I'd been thinking about a mini-end-game.

Try to visualise, once time has run out, the arena walls move until there is only one square left and you
keep on fighting untill a mage dies.

It is just a rough idea. I don't have an answer for conjurations (deathlock for exemple).
Nor how to look at archers which will be at disadvantage.
But I favor the 'last man standing'-idea. Instead of counting points.
It is very hard to figure out a point-system that's fair for every mage.

I'll try this one next time I play the game:
After set times has elapsed each mage can choose:
1 conjuration on the field to keep
2 spells from his spellbook - after this choice spellbook is discarded.

And each mage looses half of his creatures (their choice) - regardless of level and such
The game is then played on 1 large square. (I realise the conjuration-rule is contradictory)

This should encourage players to keep the upper hand on the field.
A Beastmaster could be at advantage, but Ring of Fire will be decent answer to the little critters.

[Shad0w]

The rules team is thinking about allowing draws in non single elimination matches.

 I would make wins 3-4 points, Draws 1 point if win is 3 and 2 points if win is 4, and loses 0 points.

Let us know if you use this and how it works out.

[ABGames]

We have been doing 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss.

When time is called, the mage with the least damage gets the win.
If neither has damage, or they have the same amount of damage,
it is a tie.

[Shad0w]

Remember when time is called they can complete the current round.

[SeanDeCoy]

Another way (that's a little more intense to do it):

1. You could just go straight mana for the secondary condition (so whoever has the least damage, and then in the case of a tie, whoever has the most mana after that).
2. The other way would be to total up the assets on the board, so you would add the remaining mana in the user's mana pools to the mana cost of any creatures, equipment, and enchantments on the board, etc. In this way you get an idea of who has the most resources on the field.

These are just ideas we've tossed around in the past.

[piousflea]

Isn't it true that some card game (MTG, WoW) tournament rules allow for overtime rounds if both players have exactly the same amount of damage on them? Seems like this would make sense for MW also. During overtime, if any round ends with one player taking more damage than the other, that player loses.

If the game is still tied after overtime then you could use secondary measures like mana remaining or total level of creatures+conjurations on board.

[Shad0w]

A few different things are involved in those rules. At the end of a round in a MTG tourney the players get 5 extra turns split between them before the match is a tie. In single elimination events you must have a winner so if after time is called and the 5 turns are played out if the match is a tie the players play sudden death. The first person to lose any life loses and / or  the first person to gain life wins.

[Shad0w]

Posted copied to this thread

After reading another recent thread that strayed into tie breaker territory, I thought it was worth starting a separate discussion on this.

Firstly, do people feel that 'most damage inflicted' is a suitable tie breaker?

I have a couple of problems with this. Number one is logistical - we'd have to keep a 'damage taken' count alongside tracking our actual damage and life. Not the end of the world, but something that needs to be considered.

Secondly, I'm concerned that this favours the 'balls to the wall' aggressive build, and penalises a defensive/healing strategy, or a mana denial one. Both, in my opinion, are completely viable spell books, but could struggle in an OP environment.

With me so far?

Now, I don't have a definite idea of what the tie breaker should be - that is what this thread is here for after all - but I'm wondering if it should be more than just one criteria (for example, total damage take minus life left before defeat, plus possibly something else). I dunno, but all I know is, right now, I'm not convinced the tie breaker has parity.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Marty

[Shad0w]

Response to post also copied to this thread.

My initial gut reaction was negative to be sure. I enjoy playing priestess and wizard the most, then beastmaster.  I have never played the warlock and I won't be playing him any time soon although I'm sure I'll play him eventually.

My instincts tell me this tie breaker favors warlock and beastmaster. If I enter a tourny it will be to have fun first and win second so I would still play the mages I enjoy the most. After I read the tie breaker I felt that the books I've built so far would need to be changed considerably if I were to take them to a tournament. As a brief example I now consider damage prevention significantly more important than damage healing. I have always liked elemental cloak for its damage reducers and considered it an automatic 1 of in every book. Now I have an even higher opinion and I'm not sure if I need 2 or 3 incase the first gets destroyed. If there is a lot of equipment hate the cloak could be a nice target.

I feel confident I could adapt and have fun but I would feel extra pressure not to go to the tie breaker with warlocks and beastmaster because I don't feel I could match their damage dealing capability unless I can reduce their ability to deal damage down to my own, then it would be anyone's game again.

My final thoughts are that we haven't even tried this tie breaker at an official tournament yet and my impressions might prove to be totally wrong. I am really exited to see how Bashcon turns out.

[Shad0w]

This was taken from another thread but it does apply.

For "Must Reveals" - in the rule book it says that if you fail to reveal a "Must Reveal" card at the right time, and you try to reveal it later, the card is destroyed without effect. This seems reasonably easy to enforce IMO.

For tie breakers, IMO the fairest measure would be "Total Damage Taken by Mage". Have some kind of counter next to the board that keeps score with any effects that either cause damage or decrease maximum Life of a Mage. This would discourage abusive healing strategies such as multiple Grey Angel sacrifice on the final round of a timed event.

How can you prove when a certain card was played unless both players agreed.

Check out this example. Player A put  enchant X, Reverse attack, then enchant y on a creature. At the current point in the match the creature has no damage currently on it. Player A flip Rev attack Player B calls the judge over to say he already attacked that creature before so the rev attack should not work. Player A claims clearly this creature had not been attacked because it has no damage on it. Player B says he rolled all 0s for damage before that is why it has no damage. Player A claims that it was on another creature and not the current creature in question. Who is correct?

For total damage taken how do you track that. Do you trust each player to keep a tally of the damage. It is hard enough to get people to bring the minimum items the are required to without adding on extras.

How about this your judging and you get called over to resolve a tie breaker and both players in question have already packed up the spell books and are looking over the total damage sheets and they have near perfect notes about each source of damage and where it came from. You find the issue was on turn 8 7th action it is listed as 6 points of non crit damage and the other player has 4 points of non crit damage listed. Who is correct?

[spoiler] The majority of the time as a judge you should be enforcing the rules. Not trying to guess who is lying to you.[/spoiler]

[sIKE]

My first thought when I saw this, was to write up a "win the tie breaker strategy":
Warlord,
Round 1- QC 1 LOH / QC 1 Elemental Cloak
Round 2 - QC Teleport / Open Can of Whoop A** (OCWA) w/ LOH
Round 3 - QC Bear Str / (OCWA) w/ LOH
Round 4 - QC Fireball / (OCWA) w/ LOH
Round 5 - QC Bear Str / (OCWA) w/ LOH

Have extra LOH on hand (maybe order a 1/2 dozen singles from a card vendor) a couple of Heals, maybe wall of thorns / push for the coup de grâce if the win is within grasp before the 90 minutes is up or not even!. Hope for a Priestess and lots of heals on her side

[Sausageman]

We have been doing 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss...

The more I think about this, the more I believe this (without the most damage etc caveats) is the fairest way. If you hit the time limit and neither player is dead, both players score 1 point - simple as that.

Tie breakers that involve damage seem to be favouring certain builds/mages over another, not to mention adding an extra level of 'book keeping' - why not do away with them and just allow ties.

Except in the final which should be a no time limit, play until someone is beaten game.

[Tacullu64]

We have been doing 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss...

The more I think about this, the more I believe this (without the most damage etc caveats) is the fairest way. If you hit the time limit and neither player is dead, both players score 1 point - simple as that.

Tie breakers that involve damage seem to be favouring certain builds/mages over another, not to mention adding an extra level of 'book keeping' - why not do away with them and just allow ties.

Except in the final which should be a no time limit, play until someone is beaten game.

I agree. However, if there will ever be elimination style tournaments a tie breaker will still be needed.

[Tacullu64]

I was just wondering if the tiebreaker decided any games at the BASHCon tournament and if so, how many and who won?