DUELIST CONVOCATION: 1/10/95 Rules
\===============
Groups
Search
Clear search
Close search
Main menu
Google apps
GroupsConversations
All groups and messages
Send feedback to Google
Help
Training
[](https://www.google.com/intl/en/about/products?tab=gh)
Groups
rec.games.deckmaster
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DUELIST CONVOCATION: 1/10/95 Rules
892 views
Skip to first unread message
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 2:21:49 AM 1/25/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
The Duelists’ Convocation Revised Tournament Rules
For Magic: The Gathering*
A Word From the Director
The Duelists’ Convocation is proud to announce that we now sanction
three types of Magic: the Gathering tournaments. The Type I, Type II and
Sealed Deck tournaments give event coordinators a choice of tournament types
and offer more variety in officially sanctioned events. Although officially
sanctioned tournaments still hold to a single-elimination format, we are
working to create a new scoring system that will accomodate other tournament
formats and allow for more play by all players.
The new tournament types use different deck construction rules and are
modular in design. A standard set of Floor Rules applies to all tournaments;
additions and modifications for a particular type appear in the specific rules
for each tournament.
Type I tournament: This is a “constructed deck” tournament, meaning
that the players construct their decks using any cards the rules allow. These
rules are essentially the familiar “official tournament rules.” However,
there are some slight changes, so read the rules carefully before running or
playing in a Type I tournament. The Duelists’ Convocation believes the
Type I tournament will become a “power player” tournament, because its loose
restrictions allow for nasty decks, but in a much more playable format than
the previous “no-holds-barred” unrestricted power environment.
Type II tournament: Also a constructed deck tournament, Type II places
greater restrictions on allowable cards than Type I. Type II allows only
cards still available in the basic Revised Edition and the latest two
expansions. It was developed with two ideas in mind: First, the Magic
environment should be ever-changing; seeing new cards appear and disappear
from time to time was the original concept behind the expansion sets and the
Revised Edition card set rotations. By allowing only the latest two expansion
sets and disallowing cards rotated out of Revised Edition, we seek to create
the feeling of an ever shifting play environment.
Second, by restricting the environment to only the most recent
available cards, we hope to ease any alienation of newer Magic players who
never had the chance to get their hands on some of the older, out-of-print
expansions (or basic set cards, for that matter!). The Type II tournament
by its very nature keeps things current; newer players have the same access
to cards as everyone else, and even time-honored Magic veterans should find
this type of tournament the perfect battleground to incorporate their newest
strategies with new expansions. We think Type II will become the staple of
the tournament circuit.
Sealed Deck tournament: This tournament takes the final strides into
restricted environments, challenging players to create the best deck possible
from an extremely limited card pool, and without benefit of trading! Sealed
Deck offers several options based on card availability at the time of the
tournament. The tournament organizer must take care to select a feasible
option. Sealed Deck tournaments are a favorite of many players, from very
experienced players who want the challenge of not having access to their
enormous card pools, to brand new players who don’t have a lot of cards to
draw from.
The DC has expanded its earlier restrictions to accept one of each
tournament type in any given area per calendar month. Thus, DC members have
more opportunities to earn points. Also, we’ve added point categories for each
tournament type – so, for instance, points earned in a Sealed Deck tournament
apply to a member’s Sealed Deck rating. This balances varioius difficulty
factors between tournament types.
I hope these additions serve to increase the challenge, competition,
and fun for all who play. And we’re not done; we will make more tournament
forms available for sanctioning in the future. So keep your eyes open, learn
to riffle shuffle, and above all, keep playing!
Sincerely,
Steve Bishop
Director, Duelists’ Convocation
Type I Tournament Rules
Magic: the Gathering
Includes Magic: the Gathering,Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, The Dark,
Fallen Empires
1/10/95
Notes:
% Exclusion of the listing of any expansion set above does not imply
that the expansion set should be banned from tournament play. Exclusion of any
existing expansion set in the above listing means only that final decisions as
to restrictions on cards from that set have not yet been made.
% The standard rules for Magic: The Gathering apply to tournament
play, except where amended by these rules. In cases where the official
tournament rules differ from the basic rules of Magic, the official tournament
rules take precedence.
Deck Construction Rules:
- Type I tournament decks may be constructed from Magic cards from the
Limited (black border) series, the Unlimited (white border) series, Revised
Edition, or any Magic expansion (unless expressly disallowed by the Judge
prior to the event). All cards in the Type I tournament deck must have
identical card back design. Under no circumstances will cards from the
Collector’s Edition factory sets be permitted in Type I tournament decks.
They are easily distinguished from legal play cards by their square corners
and gold borders. Use of any card not expressly permitted in a Type I
tournament deck in a Type I tournament will be interpreted by the Judge as a
Declaration of Forfeiture (see Standard Floor Rules #15).
Optional Rule:It is required that all of the cards in a player’s deck
have the same rounding of corners. As Alpha cards (the first section of the
print run from the original limited edition basic set) have slightly more
rounded corners than cards from subsequent printings (making Alphas effectively
marked cards), it may be ruled that if any cards from the original Alpha card
set are used in the Type I tournament deck that the entire deck must be
constructed of Alpha cards. If this option is exercised, it must be advertised
to the players in advance so that they may reconfigure their playing decks as
necessary.
- The Type I tournament deck must contain a minimum of 60 (sixty) cards. In
addition to the Type I tournament deck, players may, but are not required to,
construct a Sideboard of exactly 15 (fifteen) additional cards, which must
always contain that number of cards while play is in progress. The use of the
Sideboard is further explained in the Standard Floor Rules (rule #5).
- There may be no more than 4 (four) of any individual card, by card title,
in the Type I tournament deck (including Sideboard), with the exception of the
five basic land types (Plains, Forest, Mountain, Island, Swamp).
- The Restricted List:
No more than 1 (one) of each of the cards on the Restricted List are allowed
in the Type I tournament deck (including Sideboard). If more than 1 (one) of
any individual card from the Restricted List are found in a player’s deck and
Sideboard, that will be interpreted by the Judge as a Declaration of
Forfeiture. The Restricted List may be modified by the Director of the
Duelists’ Convocation as necessary. If the card is from a Magic expansion,
following its title will be a two letter code denoting which expansion it is
from. AN = Arabian Nights , AQ =Antiquities , LE =Legends , DK =The Dark ,
and FE = Fallen Empires . The Restricted List is as follows:
% Ali from Cairo (AN)
% Ancestral Recall
% Berserk
% Black Lotus
% Brain Geyser
% Candelabra of Tawnos (AQ)
% Channel
% Chaos Orb
% Copy Artifact
% Demonic Tutor
% Falling Star (LE)
% Feldon’s Cane (AQ)
% Ivory Tower (AQ)
% Library of Alexandria (AN)
% Maze of Ith (DK)
% Mind Twist
% Mirror Universe (LE)
% Mishra’s Workshop (AQ)
% Mox Pearl
% Mox Emerald
% Mox Ruby
% Mox Sapphire
% Mox Jet
% Recall (LE)
% Regrowth
% Sol Ring
% Sword of Ages (LE)
% Time Twister
% Time Walk
% Underworld Dreams (LE)
% Wheel of Fortune
In addition, any “Summon Legend” card is restricted to one each, as are each
of the Legendary Lands from the Legends expansion set.
- The Banned List:
The following cards are banned from Type I tournament decks, and use the same
expansion set abbreviations as above:
% Bronze Tablet (AQ)
% Contract from Below
% Darkpact
% Demonic Attorney
% Divine Intervention (LE)
% Jeweled Bird (AN)
% Rebirth (LE)
% Shahrazad (AN)
% Time Vault
% Tempest Efreet (LE)
Several of the cards on the Banned List are not allowed because they clearly
state to remove them from your deck if not playing for ante, and ante is not
required to be wagered in a Type I tournament (see Standard Floor Rules, rule
#6). Any future cards that make the same statement will subsequently be
banned. This list may be modified by the Director of the Duelists’
Convocation as necessary.
Type I Tournament Floor Rules:
The Type I tournament uses all of the Standard Floor Rules.
Modifications to Standard Floor Rules:
Note: Rule numbers below correspond to Standard Floor Rules rule numbers.
The only deck alteration allowable while a duel is in progress is with the
use of a Ring of Ma’Ruf (AN). The Ring of Ma’Ruf may only be used to retrieve
a card from the player’s sideboard, or to retrieve a card that began the duel
in the player’s deck (a creature removed from play by a Swords to Plowshares,
e.g.). Cards other than the tournament deck and sideboard should not be
allowed at the tournament. In the event that a player uses a Ring of Ma’Ruf
to retrieve a card from their sideboard, the Ring of Ma’ruf used is placed
into the player’s sideboard to take the place of the retrieved card, thus
maintaining exactly fifteen cards in the sideboard. Otherwise, Standard Floor
Rule #5 is unchanged.
Type II Tournament Rules
Magic: the Gathering
Includes Magic: the Gathering and the two latest expansions, The Dark and
Fallen Empires
1/10/95
Note: The standard rules for Magic: The Gathering apply to tournament play,
except where amended by these rules. In cases where the official tournament
rules differ from the basic rules of Magic, the official tournament rules take
precedence.
Deck Construction:
- Type II tournament decks may be constructed from Magic cards from the
most current Revised Edition basic set and the latest 2 (two) limited edition
Magic expansions only. Cards from previous versions of the basic set that
still appear in the most current set rotation of Revised Edition are allowed,
with two exceptions. “Alpha” black border limited edition basic set Magic:
the Gathering cards with their more rounded corners, and cards from any
Collectors Edition with their square corners and differing card back design
are disallowed from play as these features make cards from these sets
effectively marked cards. All cards currently out of print from the basic set
appear on the Banned List. Use of any card not expressly permitted in the
Type II tournament deck in a Type II tournament will be interpreted by the
Judge as a Declaration of Forfeiture (see Standard Floor Rules #15).
- The Type II tournament deck must contain a minimum of 60 (sixty) cards.
In addition to the Type II tournament deck, players may, but are not required
to, construct a Sideboard of exactly 15 (fifteen) additional cards, which must
always contain that number of cards while play is in progress. The use of the
Sideboard is further explained in the Standard Floor Rules (rule #5).
- There may be no more than 4 (four) of any individual card, by card title,
in the Type II tournament deck (including Sideboard), with the exception of
the five basic land types (Plains, Forest, Mountain, Island, Swamp).
- The Restricted List:
No more than 1 (one) of each of the cards on the Restricted List are allowed
in the Type II tournament deck (including Sideboard). If more than 1 (one) of
any individual card from the Restricted List are found in a player’s deck and
Sideboard, that will be interpreted by the Judge as a Declaration of
Forfeiture. The Restricted List may be modified by the Director of the
Duelists’ Convocation as necessary. The Restricted List is as follows:
% Braingeyser
% Channel
% Copy Artifact
% Demonic Tutor
% Ivory Tower
% Maze of Ith
% Mind Twist
% Regrowth
% Sol Ring
% Wheel of Fortune
- The Banned List:
For ease of use, all cards from the basic set that no longer appear in the
most current Revised Edition are listed here. Other cards may be banned as
well. The Banned List may be modified by the Director of the Duelists’
Convocation as necessary. The following cards are banned from the Type II
tournament deck:
% Ancestral Recall
% Berserk
% Black Lotus
% Blaze of Glory
% Camouflage
% Chaos Orb
% Consecrate Land
% Contract from Below*
% Copper Tablet
% Cyclopean Tomb
% Darkpact*
% Demonic Attorney*
% Dwarven Demolition Team
% False Orders
% Forcefield
% Gauntlet of Might
% Ice Storm
% Icy Manipulator
% Illusionary Mask
% Invisibility
% Ironclaw Orcs
% Jade Statue
% Lich
% Mox Emerald
% Mox Jet
% Mox Pearl
% Mox Ruby
% Mox Sapphire
% Natural Selection
% Psionic Blast
% Raging River
% Sinkhole
% Time Vault
% Time Walk
% Timetwister
% Twiddle
% Two-Headed Giant of Foriys
% Word of Command
- : Banned from play, as card states to remove from deck before
playing if not playing for ante. This tournament type does not require that
ante be wagered.
Type II Tournament Floor Rules:
The Type II tournament uses all of the Standard Floor Rules.
Modifications to Standard Floor Rules:
None. All of the standard floor rules apply unmodified to this tournament
type.
Sealed Deck Tournament Rules:
Magic: the Gathering
1/10/95
Note: The standard rules for Magic: The Gathering apply to all tournament
play, except where amended by these rules. In cases where the official
tournament rules differ from the basic rules of Magic, the official tournament
rules take precedence.
Deck Construction:
- Decks may be constructed using the contents of 1 (one) sealed deck of the
latest edition of Magic: The Gathering Revised Edition cards (60 cards), and
one of the following additions:
a. The contents of 3 (three) sealed booster packs of the latest
8 (eight) card booster pack limited edition expansion set (for a starting
total of 84 cards) or;
b. The contents of 2 (two) sealed booster packs of the latest
15 (fifteen) card booster pack limited edition expansion set (for a starting
total of 90 cards) or;
c. The contents of 2 (two) sealed booster packs of the latest
Magic: the Gathering Revised Edition (for a starting total of 90 cards).
Optional Rule: At the Judge’s discretion, players may add exactly
4 (four) basic lands of their choice to the deck. These land cards must be
issued by the tournament staff after the deck construction period (see Sealed
Deck Floor Rules, SD2), and in such a way as to take care that each player
receives only four additional lands and not more (using the player sign in
list may be a good way, or checkmarking the player’s index card as they
receive their lands). This pool of basic lands can be from an individual
collection, or having each player donate one of each Revised basic land to
create the pool at the tournament.
- The tournament deck must contain a minimum of 40 (forty) cards, with no
imposed maximum. In Sealed Deck play, any cards from the starting deck and
booster(s) not used in the tournament deck will function as that player’s
Sideboard. The total number of cards in a player’s deck and Sideboard
combined may change during the course of play, as Sealed Deck tournaments
require the wagering of ante (see Modifications to Standard Floor Rules #6;
Sealed Deck). The use of the Sideboard is further explained in the Standard
Floor Rules (rule #5).
- Due to the natural limiting effect of Sealed Deck play, as well as the
fact that ante must be wagered in the Sealed Deck tournament, there are
neither Restricted nor Banned Lists for this style of tournament.
Sealed Deck Floor Rules:
Sealed Deck tournaments will use the Standard Floor Rules, except where noted
in the Modifications to Standard Floor Rules section below. There are four
additional Floor Rules specific to a Sealed Deck tournament, noted by SD#.
These are:
SD1. Players are responsible for providing their own sealed decks and
boosters for use in the tournament, except in cases where the decks and
boosters are provided for them by the tournament organizers. If an entry fee
is charged for the tournament, the fee for a player shall not exceed the
Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price for the cards allotted to and received
by the player, plus an additional amount within the normal sanctioning
parameters allowable by the Duelists’ Convocation office sanctioning the
event.
SD2. Prior to the first round’s pairings, the Judge should allow a period of
45 (forty five) minutes for players to construct their decks. All players in
the tournament must open and construct their tournament decks during the same
45 minute period. The Judge must announce a warning to the players at the
forty minute mark that only five minutes remain in the deck construction
period. Players must have their decks constructed prior to the end of this
allotted time. If a player has not completed deck construction at the end of
this allotted time, it may be interpreted by the Judge as a Declaration of
Forfeiture (see Standard Floor Rules #15). In the event all players in the
tournament have completed deck construction prior to the end of the 45
minutes, the tournament may commence without delay.
SD3. A Player may not open their sealed deck or booster(s) prior to the
beginning of the time period allotted for by the Judge.
SD4. At no time prior to or during the tournament will trading of cards from
the Sealed Deck tournament deck or Sideboard be permitted.
Modifications to Standard Floor Rules; Sealed Deck:
Note: Rule numbers below correspond to Standard Floor Rules rule numbers.
- As written, but cards from the Sideboard need not be traded into the deck
on a one for one basis; any number of cards may be added to or subtracted from
the deck, provided that the playing deck contains a minimum of 40 cards when
finished. Additionally, the requirements of Sideboards containing exactly 15
cards are dropped for obvious reasons.
- In Sealed Deck tournaments, it IS required that player’s wager ante.
Cards won as ante may be introduced into the playing deck at any time that a
Sideboard use is allowed (i.e., in between duels or matches). A player unable
to field a deck of at least 40 cards no longer has a legal deck, and will be
removed from the tournament.
- Note: Floor Rule #13 (Judge’s right to terminate an excessively long
match) may come into play more often in a Sealed Deck tournament, as many
decks constructed from such a limited environment when played against each
other may grind into a near stalemate situation. It is therefore recommended
that if any time limits are imposed per round, it may be desirable to extend
the limit to 60 or 90 minutes, depending on the tournament. This extension is
entirely at the Judge’s discretion, and must be advertised in advance or
announced to all players at the beginning of the tournament.
Standard Floor Rules
Magic: the Gathering
1/10/95
Standard Floor Rules:
- Officially sanctioned tournaments will be presided over by a Judge, who
may be assisted by as many Assistant Referees as they may need. NEITHER THE
JUDGE NOR THE ASSISTANT REFEREES MAY PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT THAT THEY ARE
ADJUDICATING. A Judge may be required to interpret rules, to terminate an
excessively long match, to interpret a Declaration of Forfeiture (see Floor
Rule #15 ), or make any other adjudication as necessary during the tournament.
The Judge is also responsible for maintaining the tournament records and
providing an accurate tournament report for the Duelists’ Convocation office
that sanctioned the event. Assistant Referees will aid by answering rules
questions on the floor, assisting with matching players for a new round, and
being available to the Judge for any other assistance they may require. In
necessary cases the Judge may overrule any decision made by an Assistant
Referee. The decision of the Judge is always final.
- The number of players in an officially sanctioned tournament should
ideally be a power of two (i.e., 32, 64, 128…etc.). In the event that the
number of players is not a power of two, byes may be assigned randomly during
the first round only, and must be done in such a fashion that the number of
players in the second round is a power of two. Players will receive no points
for a round in which they receive a bye.
- Officially sanctioned Magic: the Gathering tournaments will use a standard
single elimination bracketing system with random pairings for each round. An
index card (or reasonable facsimile) will be prepared for each player with the
player’s name, Duelists’ Convocation membership number, and other tournament
information. Cards will be shuffled and paired randomly for each round of the
tournament. Alternately, tournaments with the capabilities may use a
computerized system for generating random pairings for each round, provided
that the Judge can keep accurate records of each players points throughout the
tournament.
- A duel is one complete game of Magic. A match is defined as the best two
out of three duels. A player may advance in the tournament after successfully
winning one match, and reporting this victory to the Judge.
- Players must use the same deck that they begin the tournament with
throughout the duration of the tournament. The only deck alteration permitted
is through the use of the Sideboard (see Deck Construction Rules for the
appropriate tournament type). If a player intends to use a Sideboard during
the course of a match, they must declare to their opponent that they will be
using the Sideboard prior to the beginning of that match. Players may
exchange cards from their deck for cards from their Sideboard on a one-for-one
basis at any time between duels or matches. There are no restrictions on how
many cards a player may exchange in this way at any given time. Prior to the
beginning of any duel, each player must allow their opponent to count, face
down, the number of cards in their Sideboard. If a player’s Sideboard does
not total exactly 15 (fifteen) cards, the Judge or an Assistant Referee must
be consulted to evaluate the situation before the duel can begin. If a player
claims that they are not using a Sideboard at the beginning of the match,
ignore this counting procedure for that player, but no deck alteration of any
kind will be permitted by the Judge for that player for the duration of that
match. Any violation of this rule may be interpreted by the Judge as a
Declaration of Forfeiture.
- Players are not required to wager ante during the tournament. Players may
play for real ante, provided that both participants in the match give their
consent, though this agreement does not allow the inclusion of the banned ante
cards in the tournament deck. Ante cards won in a tournament must be kept
separate from the tournament deck and sideboard and may not be used in the
tournament in any capacity. If loss of ante cards from a player’s deck
reduces the deck below 60 (sixty) cards, the player no longer has a legal
tournament deck, and will be removed from the tournament.
- Mulligan Rule: If a player draws either (a.) no land or (b.) all land
cards on the initial draw of seven cards to begin a duel, they may restart the
duel. To do this, the player must show their opponent that they have either
no land or all land, reshuffle their deck, allow their opponent to re-cut the
deck, and draw seven new cards. The player’s opponent has the option to do
the same, even if their hand does not qualify for this rule. For example, if
player A draws no land and wishes to reshuffle, player B may opt to also to
try to improve the hand they drew. A player may only use this rule once per
duel.
- The use of plastic card sleeves or other protective devices are not
allowed for use with the tournament deck. The exception to this rule is that
sleeves may be used to mark a player’s card as belonging to that player in the
event the card is in the opponent’s playing field.
- The use of “proxy” cards in the tournament deck is not allowed. A proxy
card is one that has been placed into the deck to represent another card that
for one reason or another the player doesn’t want to play with; i.e. using a
Swamp with the word “Nightmare” written on it because the player doesn’t want
to play with their actual Nightmare.
- Players must at all times keep the cards in their hand above the level of
the playing surface. If a player is in violation, the Judge may issue a
warning to the player, or interpret the violation as a Declaration of
Forfeiture, at the Judge’s discretion.
- Players may not have any outside assistance (i.e., coaching) during a
match. If a player is in violation, the Judge may issue a warning to the
player, or interpret the violation as a Declaration of Forfeiture, at the
Judge’s discretion.
- Unsportsmanlike conduct will not be tolerated at an officially sanctioned
tournament. Players, Judges, and Assisant Referees will conduct themselves in
a polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. A player behaving
excessively belligerent, argumentative, hostile, or unsportsmanlike may
receive a warning, or have this behavior interpreted as a Declaration of
Forfeiture, at the Judge’s discretion. Repeat offenses of this type by a
particular member should be reported to the Duelists’ Convocation office
sanctioning the event for investigation and possible action. Behavior of this
type on the part of an Assistant Referee should be reported to the Judge, who
may issue the offender a warning or remove them from the tournament. Behavior
of this type on the part of a Judge should be reported to the Duelists’
Convocation office sanctioning the event for investigation and possible
action.
- In the event of an excessively long match, the Judge may need to
adjudicate the outcome prior to its actual conclusion. In some cases, the
Judge may wish to impose a time limit for each round of the tournament. In
either case, the time limit will not be less than 45 (forty-five) minutes of
playing time for a complete match. In the event of a long match, the Judge
must give the players involved a time warning not less than 10 (ten) minutes
prior to the end of the allotted time. If at the end of the allotted time the
match is not completed, the Judge will award the victory as follows; if the
players are currently playing the first or third duels of the match, to the
player with the highest life total in the current duel, if playing the second
duel of the match, to the player who won the first complete duel. SEMI-FINAL
OR FINAL ROUNDS SHOULD NEVER BE ADJUDICATED BY A TIME LIMIT. It is HIGHLY
recommended to allow matches to play to their conclusion (comebacks from 20-1
have not been unheard of), but in cases where this is not possible, Judges
will use the above format.
- Players must take their turns in a timely fashion. Whereas taking some
time to think through a situation is acceptable, stalling for time is not. If
the Judge feels that a player is stalling to take advantage of a time limit,
the Judge may issue a warning, or interpret the stalling as a Declaration of
Forfeiture, at their discretion.
- Failure to adhere to the above rules, or any other rules specific to a
particular tournament, may be interpreted by the Judge as a Declaration of
Forfeiture. Only the Judge may make an interpretation of a Declaration of
Forfeiture. This is a more pleasant way of stating that if a player breaks
the rules, the Judge will remove them from the tournament.
- Rules note: The Director of the Duelists’ Convocation reserves the
exclusive right to add, delete, alter, transmute, polymorph, switch,
color-lace, sleight of mind, magical hack, or in any other way change these or
any other official Duelists’ Convocation rules, whole or in part, with or
without notice, at any time that it is deemed necessary or desirable. This
right is non-negotiable.
William Jockusch
unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 3:06:58 AM 1/25/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
These rules are wonderful. Way to go, WOTC!
Sean Chen
unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 6:19:10 PM 1/25/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
I think I’ll bite. In article 3g4cjt$3…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU,
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
The Duelists’ Convocation Revised Tournament Rules
For Magic: The Gathering*
A Word From the Director
The Duelists’ Convocation is proud to announce that we now sanction
three types of Magic: the Gathering tournaments. The Type I, Type II and
Sealed Deck tournaments give event coordinators a choice of tournament types
and offer more variety in officially sanctioned events. Although officially
sanctioned tournaments still hold to a single-elimination format, we are
working to create a new scoring system that will accomodate other tournament
formats and allow for more play by all players.
Finally some serious changes at the DC. Hopefully we’ll see tournament play
which isn’t effectively restricted to the elite few.
Type I tournament: This is a “constructed deck” tournament, meaning
that the players construct their decks using any cards the rules allow. These
rules are essentially the familiar “official tournament rules.” However,
there are some slight changes, so read the rules carefully before running or
playing in a Type I tournament. The Duelists’ Convocation believes the
Type I tournament will become a “power player” tournament, because its loose
restrictions allow for nasty decks, but in a much more playable format than
the previous “no-holds-barred” unrestricted power environment.
Good to keep it around. I know alot of people, and me included if the
Convocation didn’t still support the older players who got in during
the early expansions. What I’m wondering about is the fact that the deck
size wasn’t increased from sixty cards.
Type II tournament: Also a constructed deck tournament, Type II places
greater restrictions on allowable cards than Type I. Type II allows only
cards still available in the basic Revised Edition and the latest two
expansions. It was developed with two ideas in mind: First, the Magic
environment should be ever-changing; seeing new cards appear and disappear
from time to time was the original concept behind the expansion sets and the
Revised Edition card set rotations. By allowing only the latest two expansion
sets and disallowing cards rotated out of Revised Edition, we seek to create
the feeling of an ever shifting play environment.
About time they had something like this. What sort of things does the DC
have in mind when the next revision of Revised comes around? It levels
the playing field alot but the only reservation I have is that we’re going
to see alot more players at tournaments. =) Organizers are going to have
headaches fitting people through the doors.
Type II’s also mean I don’t have to bring all my really expensive cards
with me when I go to a convention or tournament. (read: There has been
at least one “lost” binder, or stolen deck at every gathering I’ve been too)
Second, by restricting the environment to only the most recent
available cards, we hope to ease any alienation of newer Magic players who
never had the chance to get their hands on some of the older, out-of-print
expansions (or basic set cards, for that matter!). The Type II tournament
by its very nature keeps things current; newer players have the same access
to cards as everyone else, and even time-honored Magic veterans should find
this type of tournament the perfect battleground to incorporate their newest
strategies with new expansions. We think Type II will become the staple of
the tournament circuit.
Somewhat. It remains to be seen if most organizers are going to opt to
hold Type II tournies. Most people I see who are involved in setting up
tournaments are the type of people who do have the Power cards, generally
they are part of the old gaurd. What is going to be the incentive to hold
Type II tournaments?
[Stuff on sealed deck tournaments munched]
The DC has expanded its earlier restrictions to accept one of each
tournament type in any given area per calendar month. Thus, DC members have
more opportunities to earn points. Also, we’ve added point categories for each
tournament type – so, for instance, points earned in a Sealed Deck tournament
apply to a member’s Sealed Deck rating. This balances varioius difficulty
factors between tournament types.
Hopefully these new rules will encourage people to organize tournaments.
Also, we see one of the major barriers to people joining the Convocation
finally go down in flames.
I hope these additions serve to increase the challenge, competition,
and fun for all who play. And we’re not done; we will make more tournament
forms available for sanctioning in the future. So keep your eyes open, learn
to riffle shuffle, and above all, keep playing!
Yeah its all in the name of fun, its a game, not a way of life … then again
I know people who will argue that.
[restricted list munched]
Didn’t look like Hymn to Tourach got restricted, shame.
[specifics rules munched]
- Unsportsmanlike conduct will not be tolerated at an officially sanctioned
tournament. Players, Judges, and Assisant Referees will conduct themselves in
a polite, respectable, and sportsmanlike manner. A player behaving
excessively belligerent, argumentative, hostile, or unsportsmanlike may
receive a warning, or have this behavior interpreted as a Declaration of
Forfeiture, at the Judge’s discretion. Repeat offenses of this type by a
particular member should be reported to the Duelists’ Convocation office
sanctioning the event for investigation and possible action. Behavior of this
type on the part of an Assistant Referee should be reported to the Judge, who
may issue the offender a warning or remove them from the tournament. Behavior
of this type on the part of a Judge should be reported to the Duelists’
Convocation office sanctioning the event for investigation and possible
action.
About time this sort of rule was put in. I’ve seen too many duels where
at least one of the players has easily crossed the line of rudeness and
belligerent behavior.
Sean “finally feels he got his money worth out of the Convocation” Chen
--
Sean Chen
Edward Chen
unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 7:13:55 PM 1/25/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Second, by restricting the environment to only the most recent
available cards, we hope to ease any alienation of newer Magic players who
never had the chance to get their hands on some of the older, out-of-print
expansions (or basic set cards, for that matter!). The Type II tournament
by its very nature keeps things current; newer players have the same access
to cards as everyone else, and even time-honored Magic veterans should find
this type of tournament the perfect battleground to incorporate their newest
strategies with new expansions. We think Type II will become the staple of
the tournament circuit.
Somewhat. It remains to be seen if most organizers are going to opt to
hold Type II tournies. Most people I see who are involved in setting up
tournaments are the type of people who do have the Power cards, generally
they are part of the old gaurd. What is going to be the incentive to hold
Type II tournaments?
I’m also not convinced that many Type II tournmants will be held, but
I was wondering other people’s opinions on this… I think this ‘old
guard’ factor will need to be overcome…
Curious at to what other people think,
Ed
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Chen “OK space lady, I love you, bye-bye”
s…@leland.stanford – Mindy
-=-=-] GAT p1 au+ w++ C++ U P? E+>++ po G++++>-@ !D B— u— f? [-=-=-
Nathan Engle
unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 10:09:57 PM 1/25/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
sc…@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Sean Chen) writes:
We think Type II will become the staple of
the tournament circuit.
What is going to be the incentive to hold Type II tournaments?
Mostly people like me who may never sign up for a Type I again. I’m
royally tired of being Moxed and Lotused and Gauntlet of Mighted. It has
nothing to do with being beaten - in most tournies I’ve held my own
without the jewels - I just hate the snobby attitude that they engender
(“Boy, what a crummy deck…”).
I’ll gladly retire my Library of Alexandria and Mishra’s Factories
- at least until the factories come back in the Sampler (“he said with
all fingers and toes crossed”). I might even have to run a tourny
myself… I’ve been running short on stress recently but I bet that
organizing a tourny would solve that.
[restricted list munched]
Didn’t look like Hymn to Tourach got restricted, shame.
Hear, hear. I’m getting really tired of card denial decks (even my
own!)
--
Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
“Vae Victis”
Upsyde Down
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 12:10:46 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Thomas R Wylie (aa…@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: [snip]
Optional Rule:It is required that all of the cards in a player’s deck
have the same rounding of corners. As Alpha cards (the first section of the
[snip]
What have you guys been smoking????? This is about the most absurd thing
I’ve ever heard of. I recgonize the fact that Alpha’s may be used to
mark a deck, but requiring all of the cards in the deck to either be
alpha or not prevents people who’ve been playing since the begining from
using the alpha’s they own in a deck with any expansion cards. What if I
got all the cards I wanted with the alpha’s were out and never bought any
UL’s or RV’s then I’m screwed if I want to use expansion cards with my
alpha’s! You’ve basically made alpha’s unplayable! Just like 1st
- edition spellfire. Good job! :(
-
- Mulligan Rule: If a player draws either (a.) no land or (b.) all land
cards on the initial draw of seven cards to begin a duel, they may restart the
duel. To do this, the player must show their opponent that they have either
Oh joy just what this game needs… another stupid rule. Things happen,
if you get a bad deal you get a bad deal. You shouldn’t be allowed a
reshuffle for it. That’s just your tough luck. Try letting people
improve their deck design rather than coping out with this rule. I’ve
had an all mana hand before just as I’ve had a no mana hand before. And
yeah it sucks, but those are the breaks. I play with what I get, and if I
- lose because of it I take a look at my deck design and try to improve it.
-
- The use of “proxy” cards in the tournament deck is not allowed. A proxy
card is one that has been placed into the deck to represent another card that
for one reason or another the player doesn’t want to play with; i.e. using a
Swamp with the word “Nightmare” written on it because the player doesn’t want
to play with their actual Nightmare.
No proxy’s huh? Well that’s just fine. Make alpha’s unplayable,
then prevent the one simple option to solving the alpha problem.
Lets say the only Shivan I have is alpha and I want
to put it in a deck with expansion cards. Sorry optional rule is being
enforced. I’m screwed unless I spend $15 for a RV shivan to use in it’s
place. Why not just let me proxy it?
This gripe has nothing to do with not wanting to play with the actual
Shivan it’s just that you’ve made it unplayable!
Am I the only person who is really ticked off about this crap?
Joel
Dave Van Cleef
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 2:13:22 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article nate.3385…@psythird.psych.indiana.edu,
Nathan Engle na…@psythird.psych.indiana.edu wrote:
I’ll gladly retire my Library of Alexandria and Mishra’s Factories
- at least until the factories come back in the Sampler (“he said with
all fingers and toes crossed”).
The Sampler, being a white bordered, non-limited expansion, would not be
eligable for inclusion in Type II decks.
--
David A. Van Cleef AT&T Bell Laboratories
internet: d…@belldandy.hr.att.com 200 Laurel Ave, Middletown, NJ
+1 908 957 3816
Paul M Brinegar
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 3:19:46 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3g6pa6$7…@clarknet.clark.net,
Interesting that you would be upset about the above two official tournament
rules, as these two rules have been in the “Official Tournament Rules”
since before the publication of issue #2 of The Duelist (Summer, 1994).
As far as I know, there have been no prior complaints about these rules.
The new optional rule about all cards having the same ‘roundedness’ of
corners has the possibility of making decks more difficult to construct,
but it is an optional rule, and one that I would not enforce in any
tourney that I held (unless I caught someone marking their deck with
Alpha cards. I’d just disqualify that player rather than using this
optional rule.).
Bob Hearn
unread,
Jan 25, 1995, 11:52:56 PM 1/25/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3g67tj$1…@elaine30.Stanford.EDU, s…@leland.Stanford.EDU
(Edward Chen) wrote:
We think Type II will become the staple of
the tournament circuit.
That’s the WotC position. I sure hope not! See below.
Somewhat. It remains to be seen if most organizers are going to opt to
hold Type II tournies. Most people I see who are involved in setting up
tournaments are the type of people who do have the Power cards, generally
they are part of the old gaurd. What is going to be the incentive to hold
Type II tournaments?
I’m also not convinced that many Type II tournmants will be held, but
I was wondering other people’s opinions on this… I think this ‘old
guard’ factor will need to be overcome…
I hope that Type II tournaments don’t become the norm. I’d like to
see some, sure. And it would be more challenging to build a strong
deck with fewer available cards. But think of this: in a Type II
tournament, today, about half of the existing cards are not allowed!
It’s not just the out of print Unlimiteds we’re talking about.
No Arabian Nights. No Antiquities. No Legends. We paid good money
for those cards. Now they’re not officially sanctioned? And it will
just get worse as more expansions come out.
Type II is an interesting format, and one that is good for newcomers.
But if most tournaments become Type II tournaments, then then Magic
will have turned into a game that you can’t play unless you are
continually buying the latest expansion. And I’m worried that that
statement won’t apply just to tournament play. Most groups that
I play in follow tournament rules for deck construction. WotC
doesn’t say to do this, to be sure - but nonetheless, this is
the norm. There are reasons for the tournament rules, and they are
good. No one wants to play against a deck with 10 Black Lotuses,
Channels, & Fireballs, etc. If Type II becomes “the staple of
the tournament circuit,” the “tournament rules,” and hence
“general play guidelines,” will have changed. I don’t want my
cards to become obsolete!
So, I’m all for Type II, but at most on an equal basis with Type I.
Let’s not try to supplant it.
--
Bob Hearn
Chrome Sync
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 6:11:34 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
As long as people advertise aforehand that their Type I won’t allow any alphas
it’s not bad. I tend to use many rare alphas, and balance that with using
alphas for about half my land. I’ve yet to be seriously accused of marking
cards (or using alphas as an indicator). Of course, now I have to work on three different sanctioned tourneys for
the convention I represent …
Best,
-CS
Alexander Shearer
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 3:34:35 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- William Jockusch (jock…@news-server.engin.umich.edu) wrote:
These rules are wonderful. Way to go, WOTC! Makes it seem a bit like an exam though, especially the sealed-deck
rules. Kind of gave me the shivers reading about the time limits.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 6:43:06 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Dave Van Cleef d…@belldandy.hr.att.com wrote:
I’ll gladly retire my Library of Alexandria and Mishra’s Factories
- at least until the factories come back in the Sampler (“he said with
all fingers and toes crossed”).
The Sampler, being a white bordered, non-limited expansion, would not be
eligable for inclusion in Type II decks.
Actually, it’s entirely possible that Chronicles (the sampler) will be
allowed in Type II tournaments. These rules don’t mention it since, well,
it hasn’t been released yet. I don’t think a final decision has been
made on this point, but it would fit into the spirit of the Type II
tournament to allow Chronicles.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa…@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 6:48:40 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Upsyde Down ups…@clark.net wrote:
Optional Rule:It is required that all of the cards in a player’s deck
have the same rounding of corners. As Alpha cards (the first section of the
[snip]
What have you guys been smoking????? This is about the most absurd thing
I’ve ever heard of. I recgonize the fact that Alpha’s may be used to
mark a deck, but requiring all of the cards in the deck to either be
alpha or not prevents people who’ve been playing since the begining from
using the alpha’s they own in a deck with any expansion cards… First, note that this rule does not flatly apply to all Type I tournaments.
Rather, we leave it up to the Judge whether to apply this rule to their
tournament or not; this way Judges who care concerned about the “all alpha
land” means of marking their deck, or the “one alpha card” means of marking
it, can simply apply this rule to their tournament. If a Judge does apply
this rule, then yes, using alpha cards means you won’t be using any
expansion cards, and that’s a choice you’ll have to make.
- 7. Mulligan Rule…
Oh joy just what this game needs… another stupid rule…
This rule was added several months ago, actually (August?).
No proxy’s huh? Well that’s just fine. Make alpha’s unplayable,
then prevent the one simple option to solving the alpha problem.
Lets say the only Shivan I have is alpha and I want
to put it in a deck with expansion cards. Sorry optional rule is being
enforced. I’m screwed unless I spend $15 for a RV shivan to use in it’s
place. Why not just let me proxy it?
Suppose we do allow people to proxy their alpha cards. How do we know
that they really do have an alpha card? And now we’re back into all the
old issues of having to prove you have the original card, not to mention
the problem that your opponent doesn’t necessarily know what your proxied
card does. OK, in the case of a Shivan it’s not too hard to remember,
but what about something like Guardian Beast?
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 6:40:00 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Sean Chen sc…@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote:
We think Type II will become the staple of the tournament circuit.
Somewhat. It remains to be seen if most organizers are going to opt to
hold Type II tournies. Most people I see who are involved in setting up
tournaments are the type of people who do have the Power cards, generally
they are part of the old gaurd. What is going to be the incentive to hold
Type II tournaments?
Pressure from customers I think that the initial preference of Type I or
Type II tournaments is going to vary from region to region. I think that
over time, Type II tournaments will appear all over the place, and Type I
tournaments will appear less often and/or in fewer places. But I’m
talking months down the road here.
Upsyde Down
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 5:52:56 AM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Paul M Brinegar (pmbr…@uncc.edu) wrote:
In article 3g6pa6$7…@clarknet.clark.net,
Upsyde Down ups…@clark.net wrote:
-
Thomas R Wylie (aa…@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
- [various editing done…]
-
- 7. Mulligan Rule: If a player draws either (a.) no land or (b.) all land
-
- 9. The use of “proxy” cards in the tournament deck is not allowed. A proxy : Interesting that you would be upset about the above two official tournament
rules, as these two rules have been in the “Official Tournament Rules”
since before the publication of issue #2 of The Duelist (Summer, 1994).
As far as I know, there have been no prior complaints about these rules.
The new optional rule about all cards having the same ‘roundedness’ of
corners has the possibility of making decks more difficult to construct,
but it is an optional rule, and one that I would not enforce in any
tourney that I held (unless I caught someone marking their deck with
Alpha cards. I’d just disqualify that player rather than using this
optional rule.).
I am only against the no proxy rule as it applies to this new optional
rule, and what I believe is an easy solution to the roundness problem. I
hadn’t known of the roundness rule being included before now, though
I was aware of the re-shuffle rule, just didn’t know it was official.
I’m fully behind the proxy rule when it is used as intended to prevent
people from showing up for a tourney with a binder with their deck in it,
and a stack of land they play with. And I know it’s an optional rule…
it’s just that making it an official optional rule tends to encourage it’s
use IMHO.
Well that’s my 2 blue mana again…
Joel
boyes@forty2
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 1:37:55 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3g4cjt$3…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU, aa…@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
The Duelists’ Convocation Revised Tournament Rules
For Magic: The Gathering*
Its a good start towards an envionment where people who do not use the broken
cards can play competitively, but unfortuantely all of my competetive decks
contain a few low-powered cards from Legends or Antiquities, and since I don’t
own any of the OOP spoilers my decks are not legal for Type II or viable for
Type I!
Would it not have been better to just ban the OOP restristed type 1 cards
for type 2? I’m a post-revised player who is indeed ‘alienated’ by tournaments
with packed with Moxen and Loti, but what harm does Twiddle or Headless
Horseman do (apart from the setback that a newish player may have to learn
what these card does on the fly as they are played against them)?
+Mark+
Joe Cochran
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 4:27:07 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3g4cjt$3…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU,
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
Sealed Deck tournament: This tournament takes the final strides into
restricted environments, challenging players to create the best deck possible
from an extremely limited card pool, and without benefit of trading! Sealed
Why no trading? I can live with Type 1 and 2 (even though there are new
questions brought up by all of this), but what made the DC decide to use
a no trading sealed deck form?? Trading is as much a part of the game
as deckbuilding and playing, and in fact, trading is often done as a
direct precursor to the others. I’ve seen both versions done, and
a trading allowed version is much more fun than a no trading allowed.
There’s already an optional rule for adding lands, if nothing else,
PLEASE make an optional trading rule…
| If you’ve got a hot lead on a new | --Joe–
| PC game, call the announce line at | js…@vt.edu
| ** csi…@discus.ise.vt.edu ** |
+————————————-+———————————-
“Carnivores, oy!” – Timon, TLK
Nathan Engle
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 4:49:28 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
d…@belldandy.hr.att.com (Dave Van Cleef) writes:
Nathan Engle na…@psythird.psych.indiana.edu wrote:
I’ll gladly retire my Library of Alexandria and Mishra’s Factories
- at least until the factories come back in the Sampler (“he said with
all fingers and toes crossed”).
The Sampler, being a white bordered, non-limited expansion, would not be
eligable for inclusion in Type II decks.
Hmmm, from a close reading of the text that would appear to be
correct. If that’s really the case then I suppose there’s not much
point in me buying any Samplers. Too bad, really. WotC prints a product
for the explicit purpose of serving newcomers, but bans the use of that
product in the tournament format that was supposedly also designed for
newcomers. Brilliant.
Jason Carreiro
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 4:44:07 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Yup.
-MZ
Dave Winters
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 5:46:13 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
- to
for the explicit purpose of serving newcomers, but bans the use of that
product in the tournament format that was supposedly also designed for
newcomers. Brilliant.
Gee, maybe they didn’t include Chronicles in the Type II rules
because the set doesn’t yet. I can see the rules now,
“Allowed sets: Revised, The Dark, Fallen Empires, and Chronicles.”
On come the clueless!! “Where can I get Chronicles?” “Buying
Chronicles boxes $3000” etc etc.
Maybe, just maybe, when the cards actually exist, THEN the
Convocation will take them under consideration.
Dave
Eric M. Aldrich I
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 12:56:26 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
A few comments are in order here. First off, it is good to see the expansion of the tournament formats. No longer
will the official tournaments be effectively limited to those who’ve been
playing a while, are rich and willing to burn money, or great at swindling. The
Type II tournament is just what the convocation needed – I just hope it will
allow expansion sampler cards while not counting them as one of the two latest
expansions.
The Type III rules also appear solid. I’m glad to see them and will probably
play that style tournament in preference to any other.
This is because I was very disappointed with the Type I rules. It’s the same
bloody thing we had before! And it still doesn’t work! Restricted lists that
don’t make sense (Why were card denial decks so effective? Because we couldn’t
have many of the card replenishers in our decks. Heck, at Origins we couldn’t
have Psychic Purges – the one card that could have hosed these decks. Card
denial decks aren’t that tough, but the resticted list coupled with restriction
by fiat at major game tournaments made them look unstoppable). Why didn’t you
just say 4 of any non-banned card period? Maybe raise the minimum number of
cards. Also, reinstate the Time Vault – the combo that gives the infinite
turns is easy enough to stop. Yes, the games will get bloody, and they could
end on turn one. That is why I think raising the minimum number of cards might
be good. Also, it would be nice to have only nominal restrictions on common
cards – it would be fun to have the chance of seeing a Plague Rat or White
Weenie deck in a tournament.
I guess the bottom line is that we wanted more freedom of deck design, and
these rules didn’t address this in any way, shape, or form.
Also, if you’re going to restrict Alpha-print cards then you’re going to have
to allow proxies for those cards (and those cards only!). While I don’t play
with my alphas, I know many who do, and telling them they can’t use their
alphas in tournament is just plain rude, since these people are largely
responsible for the success of the game in the first place. If they are allowed
proxies for their alphas, then they can just buy a pile of revised terrain
and when the need arises … . The only caveat must be is that if they are
allowed to do this they must have the original alpha cards with them.
I’m sorry if this sounds a bit harsh. Most of the new set of rules is a welcome
change. But the Type I and the alpha restrictions are no progress and negative
progress, respectively.
Eric
--
f****n_****o****___****r*******d** ^ ***
Eric M. Aldrich I * “And the Mayan panoramas / \
eald…@polyslo.calpoly.edu * On my pyramid pajamas /\
eald…@trumpet.calpoly.edu * Haven’t helped my little problem” /_____\
Greg Legowski
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 4:57:30 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3g7gk8$9…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU,
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
Suppose we do allow people to proxy their alpha cards. How do we know
that they really do have an alpha card? And now we’re back into all the
old issues of having to prove you have the original card, not to mention
the problem that your opponent doesn’t necessarily know what your proxied
card does. OK, in the case of a Shivan it’s not too hard to remember,
but what about something like Guardian Beast?
Simple. Proxies are allowed, ONLY for Alpha cards, AND the Alpha card that is
being proxied MUST be physically present. The proxy is used ONLY in the deck
itself to prevent “marking”. If the card comes into play, the actual Alpha
card must be put down.
We’ve played in games like that, with no complaints from anyone involved. The
Alpha player does still have to use his card (it’s not just sitting in a binder
somewhere) but he doesn’t get the (possible) advantage of seeing it coming up.
--
Greg Legowski gleg…@pit.legent.com (work)
gre…@telerama.lm.com (play) g.leg…@genie.geis.com (other)
http://www.lm.com/~gregleg/ (Web page)
Jennifer Schlickbernd
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 7:11:46 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
d…@belldandy.hr.att.com (Dave Van Cleef) writes:
I wonder about this. I think when the sampler comes out, it’ll be
considered part of the “Revised” set and will be included in a type II
tourney.
Jennifer
--
Copyright Jennifer Schlickbernd 1995, all rights reserved. Please email me
for permission to duplicate this message for any purpose.
Jennifer Schlickbernd (Lorini)
Communication paths:
lor…@netcom.com 72466…@compuserve.com
Day phone 8-5 PST (818) 354-2241
Jennifer Schlickbernd
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 7:25:08 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
IMHO, assuming that you are trying to encourage maximum participation in
your MtG tourney, you’d be an idiot not to use Type II; in fact I can see
people with limited space only using Type II, since that one will prove
to be the most popular. Unless someone has got a complete set of the
popular OOP’s, why spend +$200 to play in a tourney when you can spend a
fourth of that and get a competitive deck in a Type II tourney? Even if
you have a few Moxes or a Timewalk, you may not have all of them, and
it’ll be far cheaper to forget about playing the Type I and join in with
the Type II. Even I :) might play in a Type II, where as there is no
way I’m going to play in a Type I, too gross. Alpha land (and nothing else) have been a problem in mixed decks, I think
the optional rule (note it’s optional) may help that.
Lastly, and this is strictly my opinion, I think you’ll see a gradual
flattening and then falling of OOP/Arabian/Antiquities/Legends card
prices because of this. Assuming Type II becomes the “defualt” tourney,
the demand will not increase for the OOP’s. I realize that most people
do not play in tourneys, but seems as if demand for cards follows tourney
practices and this is a change to them. We’ll have to see.
--
Copyright Jennifer Schlickbernd 1995, all rights reserved. Please email me
for permission to duplicate this message for commercial purposes
Mike VandeBunt
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 8:03:45 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
You’ve never heard of Speed Chess?
--
Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va…@mixcom.com
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 9:25:00 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
SC>> The DC has expanded its earlier restrictions to accept one of each
SC>>tournament type in any given area per calendar month. Thus, DC
SC> members have >more opportunities to earn points. Also, we’ve added
SC> point categories for each >tournament type – so, for instance,
SC> points earned in a Sealed Deck tournament >apply to a member’s
SC> Sealed Deck rating. This balances varioius difficulty >factors
SC> between tournament types. Does anyone understand why only 1 per ‘area’ per month? Given the right
situation, most magic players would easily play 2 or 3 tournaments per
month if they are ANYTHING like the fanatics that follow chess. This
restriction is ridiculous, given the likely boom of M:TG this year (it
has been predicted to be the #1 played game for 1995..).
Why do you need a different rating for each type of tournament? This is
again overkill. No balancing is needed because no real advantage
exists. Simplify it by just not separating them. What is the real
difference? If we all can use spoilers, we all play on an even field. No
advantage. Let’s move to Type II; we all use only Revised+, again no
comparative advantage; Sealed Decks; although you might be a victim of
bad luck here mostly, you know the risks involved. Kinda like reaching
into your satchel blindly for a spell, eh? Again no real advantage here
over a reasonable amount of trials. It all evens out because at no one
time between players does a theoretical advantage exist. Material
advantages exist as better deck design and card availability, but you
accept that disadvantage when you enter the tournament. KEEP IT SIMPLE
WoTC!!!!!
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 31 * RoboMail – The ultimate QWK compatible message manager.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 9:35:00 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
EC> I’m also not convinced that many Type II tournmants will be held,
EC> but I was wondering other people’s opinions on this… I think this
EC> ‘old guard’ factor will need to be overcome… This theory of The Old Guard is a fantasy. If WoTC realises that THE
MAJORITY of players do not have these killer cards, the type II
tournament will be the most prevalent. What tournament directors HAVE TO
DO is avoid taking entry fees from the larger group (IMHO Type II
tourneys in the near future, providing they use the Swiss System of
play) and padding the other sections’ prize funds for the sake, or
pity, of the old guard.
In Chess (I know, you’re sick of this analogy but it is SOOO close it
cannot be helped….) some tournament players got tired of playing long,
drawn out games with lengthy time limits. The players themselves
petitioned informally to have faster time controls so tournaments could
be run quicker. We, as players, should petition WoTC to provide us, the
players, with a tournament format that is both fair and practical. We,
as players, would provide WoTC in return, active membership in the
‘Convocation’ to participate in these tournaments. To participate in
these tournaments would require entry fees, which a portion would be to
maintain a rating system. I know in chess that a portion of your entry
fee goes to having your rating calculated by the USCF. The same should
be done for Magic. It has been done before, and we are not breaking new
mana..er…ground here.
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 31 * RoboMail – The next generation QWK compatible reader!
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 9:50:00 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
BH> I hope that Type II tournaments don’t become the norm. I’d like to
BH> see some, sure. And it would be more challenging to build a strong
BH> deck with fewer available cards. But think of this: in a Type II
BH> tournament, today, about half of the existing cards are not allowed! But realistically, most players do not have those cards anyway.
BH> Type II is an interesting format, and one that is good for
BH> newcomers. But if most tournaments become Type II tournaments, then
BH> then Magic will have turned into a game that you can’t play unless
BH> you are continually buying the latest expansion. And I’m worried
BH> that that
Reading this seems funny: it used to be that tournaments were games you
couldn’t play unless you morgaged the house for some spoilers. The
compromise is to have both. Th only way you can be sure that TYPE I
tournaments would be the primary is to…now don’t get all mad when I
write this…
REPRINT ALL THE EARLIER CARDS.
This way, we all get the spoilers you use now, but we get to keep the
house in doing it. :)
Of course, careful deck design and skillful play have a big say in this
too…
Nathan Engle
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 7:27:59 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
dwin…@bu.edu (Dave Winters) writes:
for the explicit purpose of serving newcomers, but bans the use of that
product in the tournament format that was supposedly also designed for
newcomers. Brilliant.
[…]
Maybe, just maybe, when the cards actually exist, THEN the
Convocation will take them under consideration.
I hope so. If you were watching a couple of posts ago you might
have noticed where I expressed the desire to see Mishra’s Factories
return in the sampler so that I could buy a few and use them in a
type II tourny. It was somebody else pointed out that it wouldn’t
be allowed within the current rules. If you really need to vent your
sarcasm then please go find somebody more appropriate for a target.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 9:58:00 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
TW> Suppose we do allow people to proxy their alpha cards. How do we
TW> know that they really do have an alpha card? And now we’re back
TW> into all the old issues of having to prove you have the original
TW> card, not to mention the problem that your opponent doesn’t
TW> necessarily know what your proxied card does. OK, in the case of a
TW> Shivan it’s not too hard to remember, but what about something like
TW> Guardian Beast? Simple. Limit the proxy to one, two or five cards, and you MUST face the
card(s) prior to play. This gives the player the choice: do I play with
my beat up cards but let my opponent know what I got, or dump them in
favor of a conch horn and some lucky charms? Decisions..decisions.
Terence Lo
unread,
Jan 26, 1995, 11:54:42 PM 1/26/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3g8igr$7…@solaris.cc.vt.edujs…@megavolt.cc.vt.edu (Joe Cochran) writes:
Why no trading? I can live with Type 1 and 2 (even though there are new
questions brought up by all of this), but what made the DC decide to use
a no trading sealed deck form?? Trading is as much a part of the game
as deckbuilding and playing, and in fact, trading is often done as a
direct precursor to the others. I’ve seen both versions done, and
a trading allowed version is much more fun than a no trading allowed.
Consider this:
You show up at a sealed deck tournament. You get your deck and
start trading. After 45 minutes, you think you’ve done a pretty
good job of getting a decent three-color deck. Your first opponent:
some guy who entered the tournament with three of his friends.
He’s traded away all his red, white and blue cards for his friends’
green and black cards. It’s your decent three-color deck against
his good two-color speed deck. Is this fair? Is this fun? Do you
think this is a true measure of ‘skill’?
Terry.
Otis Raphael Leavister
unread,
Jan 27, 1995, 1:20:06 AM 1/27/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
I think that WotC is starting to remove expansion sets and OOP cards from
the Type II Tournaments, which are supposed to become the norm, so that
they can force the players who play in tournaments to continually buy
more cards in order to have a good deck. Anyone else think so? Think about it. Once ice ages comes out then every set except for the
revised, fallen empires, and ice ages will be banned from type II
tournaments. Doesn’t this upset anyone? I think we should let WotC know
that players who have been competing in tournaments since the Limited and
Unlimited editions don’t like having their cards made useless in the
tournaments of Type II, and furthermore this will probably make the cards
worth less in the market (ie less demand from tournament players).
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 27, 1995, 2:36:00 AM 1/27/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
MV> Single elimination has been the way Convocation Tournaments have
MV> been run since the start. It does not seem to have killed the
MV> tournament concept yet. :-) MV> The director of the Convocation says that they are working on
MV> setting up a multi-round point based system, they just aren’t ready
MV> with it yet.
MV> – Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va…@mixcom.com
This really should insult your intelligence, these new rules. How can
the WoTC spoon feed us this crap and expect us to accept this as an
‘improvement’ over current rules? What kind of BS is this?
Lets look at what they have done.
Type 1 is ‘basically’ the same.
Type 2 is what EVERY newbie has been screaming for.
Sealed decks could be fun.
But….
They missed the real problem which is…format.
Single Elimination Sucks. They know it. But they support it because they
cannot figure out how to do a simple multi-round system. Why not ask the
experts….Chess? Are you telling me that, being a gaming company you
have not one single tournament chess player in the group? NO WONDER THE
WORDING ON THE CARDS IS SO SCREWED UP!!!
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 31 * RoboMail – Version 1.3 – Available now!
Dave Winters
unread,
Jan 27, 1995, 4:18:12 AM 1/27/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
- to
[…]
-
Maybe, just maybe, when the cards actually exist, THEN the
-
Convocation will take them under consideration.
I hope so. If you were watching a couple of posts ago you might
have noticed where I expressed the desire to see Mishra’s Factories
return in the sampler so that I could buy a few and use them in a
type II tourny. It was somebody else pointed out that it wouldn’t
be allowed within the current rules. If you really need to vent your
sarcasm then please go find somebody more appropriate for a target.
That’s OK, you’re more than appropriate. You missed the point of
my post. Sarcasm aside, I believe that when the edition comes out,
WotC will adjudicate them with regards to Type II rules then.
It’s hard to include a set under current rules when it hasn’t come out
yet.
I did in fact read your post. It depends what the DC’s motivations
are behind this Type II thing. Logically, it would be to bring
in more players, who were previously intimidated by veterans with
mega-buck decks. That’d explain the exclusion of the high dollar
sets. In that case, I don’t see why they wouldn’t revise the
Type II rules and bring in Chronicles. At this point it becomes
very speculative (and we all speculation). Consider the
following questions, just for starters, inclusion of the set would
raise:
Modify Type II rules, or create “Type IV”?
Allow only white borders from Chronicles, or
also allow the corresponding black
border OOP’s?
Pretty crazy, and who knows whether or not the DC has any
proposed answers to them yet? I don’t even know if they
have started finalizing the set yet.
Alright this is mighty long winded. If I misconstrued your
post, I apologize. But whoever made the comment, I find
their logic flawed and they can deal with the sarcasm.
Dave
Eric M. Aldrich I
unread,
Jan 27, 1995, 6:17:48 AM 1/27/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article jschlickD…@netcom.com,
Jennifer Schlickbernd jsch…@netcom.com wrote:
IMHO, assuming that you are trying to encourage maximum participation in
your MtG tourney, you’d be an idiot not to use Type II; in fact I can see
people with limited space only using Type II, since that one will prove
to be the most popular.
No, I doubt this will be true out here on the west coast. Out here in SLO we
recently ran a non-sanctioned tournametn, had the best tourn out we’ve
ever had, and I didn’t see one deck that didn’t have some restricted cards
in it. Although I didn’t make the last L.A. cardcon, Jennifer, you probably
did and can you honestly say that a type II would outdraw a type I? In the
long run you’re probably right, assuming the magic market keeps expanding.
But I’m not so sure it is anymore.
Unless someone has got a complete set of the
popular OOP’s, why spend +$200 to play in a tourney when you can spend a
fourth of that and get a competitive deck in a Type II tourney? Even if
you have a few Moxes or a Timewalk, you may not have all of them, and
it’ll be far cheaper to forget about playing the Type I and join in with
the Type II. Even I :) might play in a Type II, where as there is no
way I’m going to play in a Type I, too gross.
Well, since you often judge these events that is a surprise coming from you.
Alpha land (and nothing else) have been a problem in mixed decks, I think
the optional rule (note it’s optional) may help that.
true. I think the main concern is that those who have many non-land alpha
cards could get hosed.
Lastly, and this is strictly my opinion, I think you’ll see a gradual
flattening and then falling of OOP/Arabian/Antiquities/Legends card
prices because of this. Assuming Type II becomes the “defualt” tourney,
the demand will not increase for the OOP’s. I realize that most people
do not play in tourneys, but seems as if demand for cards follows tourney
practices and this is a change to them. We’ll have to see.
We’ll see. I know that of late OOP’s have skyrocketed. I don’t see prices
ever falling until Magic itself collapses.
See ya at Orccon, Jennifer.
Eric
p.s. Although my initial reaction to the Type III rules prohibiting trades
was negative, in retrospect this was a GOOD decision. It would be too easy
for a few friends to gain a huge advantage be some creative trading.
Branslim
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 2:52:33 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
I can speak a little to the new DC rules. We’ve run two Magic conventions,one in October of last year and another
one just a week ago.
The sealed deck tournaments were,in both cons,larger draws than the opens.
The first one we had 56 people in sealed deck and 32 in open. This last
con we had 110 in sealed deck and 74 in open.
Both times I’ve run the sealed deck this way:
16 person sections
Trading only within section
25 minute trading period
60 card deck minimums
45 minute matches
We’ve never had the problem of the group of friends combining and
trading,mainly because it’s a specific rule that all trades must be 1 on 1
(not 1 card to 1 card but 1 player to 1 player) and we also try and split
the people coming in to different groups of 16.
We may try the new DC rules for Magic 3 in March but I doubt it. It seems
to work extremely well,as is and I see no reason to change.
I do like the idea of the two types of open tournaments. I’m sure we’ll
offer both at the next con,just to see what response we get. I’m sure that
out of the expected 250-300 attendees we can get enough people to play
both.
Ted McDonald
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 9:28:10 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Mark A Goodwin mark.a….@channel1.com wrote:
Does anyone understand why only 1 per ‘area’ per month? Given the right
situation, most magic players would easily play 2 or 3 tournaments per
month if they are ANYTHING like the fanatics that follow chess… And this is exactly why there is a quota; different areas are willing
to run more tournaments. If Lat-Nam runs a tournament every week and
Korlis runs a tournament every month, the average player in Lat-Nam
will earn four times as many points as the average player in Korlis,
simply because more tournaments are run in the former. Even if we
adjusted the membership structure such that there were different “circles”
which required winning X tournaments and not just getting points, Lat-Nam
would average more members in the higher circles, simply because they
had more opportunity to win tournaments. So we put a cap on the number
of tournaments which can be run in certain time fram, and the one a month
seemed like a good limit. Of course, now the cap is one per type per month.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 9:39:54 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Joe Cochran js…@megavolt.cc.vt.edu wrote:
It can’t be optional because 3 people out of 30 (or whatever number you’ve
got) that collude ruin it for everyone else. If you have a “pick up” game
Well, shouldn’t that be the judge’s call? Are you so sure that
every sealed deck tourney will have this problem? We feel that enough will have a problem that it’s not worth allowing
trading. If a judge does allow trading, then every time there’s a deck
that’s “too good”, the judge will have to wonder whether collusion went
on, and whether to disqualify the person or not. If we thought that
collusion would be a rare occurence, then it might be ok to allow trading
and deal with the rare headaches. But given what’s a stake in a sanctioned
tournament, when the player pool is not just a bunch of friends who
can police each other, collusion will cause problems on a regular basis.
and by the way, trading opens up another problem: slipping in cards.
It’s much easier to slide in a couple of lightning bolts and claim you
traded for them, than to slip cards in if trading is disallowed. I also
ran one Revised-only sealed deck tournament where a Word of Command
turned up; the trading aspect made it much harder to verify that the person
who had the Word was the guilty culprit, and hadn’t just picked up the
card from someone else. Of course, this is less of a problem than
collusion, but still.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 9:44:47 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Mark A Goodwin mark.a….@channel1.com wrote:
But….
They missed the real problem which is…format.
Single Elimination Sucks. They know it. But they support it because they
cannot figure out how to do a simple multi-round system… By the way, the Convocation is working on alternate tournament
formats. The question is how to integrate those scoring formats with
single elimination formats, since we won’t want to simply eliminate
those. But it’s much easier to simmply wsimply drop in alternate deck
construction rules (once you figure out what those are) than to
integrate the scoring systems. There will be other formats, though
I don’t know what they will be.
Christopher Cates
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 9:47:14 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Chrome Sync (chr…@netcom.com) wrote: : As long as people advertise aforehand that their Type I won’t allow any alphas
it’s not bad. I tend to use many rare alphas, and balance that with using
alphas for about half my land. I’ve yet to be seriously accused of marking
cards (or using alphas as an indicator).
Here, here. The vast majority of my basic series of cards are alphas.
I dread the first time I show up at a tourney and discover that they
didn’t give much nootice about invoking that rule. I’ll be working at
acquiring non-alphas now anyway so that I can play Type I’s, but in the
- mean time…
Of course, now I have to work on three different sanctioned tourneys for
the convention I represent …
Best,
-CS
Cheers,
Chris.
Christopher Cates
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 9:58:16 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Joe Cochran (js…@megavolt.cc.vt.edu) wrote:
In article 3g4cjt$3…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU,
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
-
Sealed Deck tournament: This tournament takes the final strides into
-
restricted environments, challenging players to create the best deck possible
-
from an extremely limited card pool, and without benefit of trading! Sealed
Why no trading? I can live with Type 1 and 2 (even though there are new
questions brought up by all of this), but what made the DC decide to use
a no trading sealed deck form?? Trading is as much a part of the game
as deckbuilding and playing, and in fact, trading is often done as a
direct precursor to the others. I’ve seen both versions done, and
a trading allowed version is much more fun than a no trading allowed.
Oh no. No No No No trading please. These are sanctioned tournaments
with a permanent point total. Want to know what happens in a good number
of sealed deck tournies I’ve been to with trading? Common place is for
punks to show up and trade off their CoP’s and unholy strengths for rares
and uncommons and then blow the game since they got the cards they wanted.
I’ve also seen a guy play with his wife and kid. Wife and kid have decks
that were pathetic, but that guy was kickin ass with his deck that ended
up having thee cream of all three of their cards. Friends going together
in trading blocks are another long time strategy. A few of the SD tourneys
have adressed this problem, but too many don’t and and even the ones that
can’t eliminate the prob. Esp, the ones there just to to get bargains
on rares. They’re always therre. I much prefer this.
Thanks WotC,
Chris.
Sean Chen
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 10:43:16 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 40.946…@channel1.com,
Mark A Goodwin mark.a….@channel1.com wrote:
EC> I’m also not convinced that many Type II tournmants will be held,
EC> but I was wondering other people’s opinions on this… I think this
EC> ‘old guard’ factor will need to be overcome…
This theory of The Old Guard is a fantasy. If WoTC realises that THE
MAJORITY of players do not have these killer cards, the type II
tournament will be the most prevalent. What tournament directors HAVE TO
DO is avoid taking entry fees from the larger group (IMHO Type II
tourneys in the near future, providing they use the Swiss System of
play) and padding the other sections’ prize funds for the sake, or
pity, of the old guard.
I need to clear up something about this ‘old gaurd’ thing, which I brought
up and Ed followed up on. In the Bay Area, it is the people who have
the Power Cards, and the money who organize tournaments, these people are
the ‘old guard’. It isn’t a fantasy because if you go into any large
gathering of players and look at the people who organize trading nights,
clubs, and competitions, are people who started back in the days of Alpha
Beta and AN, and who have every card, or access to every card.
The ‘old gaurd’ problem may not be an obstacle in other areas in the country
but in the Bay Area its going to be something which will be around as long
as space to hold tournaments is limited.
In Chess (I know, you’re sick of this analogy but it is SOOO close it
cannot be helped….) some tournament players got tired of playing long,
drawn out games with lengthy time limits. The players themselves
petitioned informally to have faster time controls so tournaments could
be run quicker. We, as players, should petition WoTC to provide us, the
players, with a tournament format that is both fair and practical. We,
as players, would provide WoTC in return, active membership in the
‘Convocation’ to participate in these tournaments. To participate in
these tournaments would require entry fees, which a portion would be to
maintain a rating system. I know in chess that a portion of your entry
fee goes to having your rating calculated by the USCF. The same should
be done for Magic. It has been done before, and we are not breaking new
mana..er…ground here.
Hmm. What your saying here is more or less what the Duelists Convocation
has done. They have responded to the pleas of their membership to a
solution to being effectively excluded from tournaments because they weren’t
lucky enough to get the OOPs. Or rich enough to buy them.
In terms of a rating system, there is one now, but it really doesn’t measure
anything, beyond winning tournaments. The way the USCF has their rating
system set up is that players are measured relative to each other. This
might be a welcome change, in the way the DC does things if membership
increases, and we see alot more Convocation members coming to sanctioned
tournaments.
Sean “sees some progress coming in the Convocation” Chen
--
Sean Chen
Christopher Cates
unread,
Jan 28, 1995, 11:55:46 PM 1/28/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Joe Cochran (js…@megavolt.cc.vt.edu) wrote:
In article 3ga36c$j…@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu,
Eric M. Aldrich I eald…@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu wrote:
-
p.s. Although my initial reaction to the Type III rules prohibiting trades
-
was negative, in retrospect this was a GOOD decision. It would be too easy
-
for a few friends to gain a huge advantage be some creative trading.
Why can’t it be an optional rule? That seems to me to be the best way
to do it. If the judge feels that the players will be honorable, he
or she can allow trading, and if not, then there’s no trading. That
way, it’s there if you want it.
Because the judgement of a ref on wether or not players on a whole will
be honorable is an unnaceptable method for awarding national (and eventually
international) points. These aren’t one shot games, so a standard to
prevent cheating that not only might happen, but is common place in
many sealed deck games is needed.
Cheers,
Chris.
George W. Bayles
unread,
Jan 29, 1995, 3:46:52 AM 1/29/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Thomas R Wylie (aa…@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
Mark A Goodwin mark.a….@channel1.com wrote:
-
But….
-
They missed the real problem which is…format.
-
Single Elimination Sucks. They know it. But they support it because they
-
cannot figure out how to do a simple multi-round system…
By the way, the Convocation is working on alternate tournament
formats. The question is how to integrate those scoring formats with
single elimination formats, since we won’t want to simply eliminate
those. But it’s much easier to simmply wsimply drop in alternate deck
construction rules (once you figure out what those are) than to
integrate the scoring systems. There will be other formats, though
I don’t know what they will be.
Look at how chess sets up it’s tournys and ratings - Swiss system pairings
insure everyone gets their moneys worth of fun on the weekend - the top
flight players get invited to round robins and the championship is decided
by elimination. The system is mature and works very well for chess and it’s
just as applicable to any two-player game.
Tom Christiansen
unread,
Jan 29, 1995, 6:30:05 AM 1/29/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In rec.games.deckmaster,
- aa…@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
- :Suppose we do allow people to proxy their alpha cards. How do we know
- :that they really do have an alpha card? And now we’re back into all the
- :old issues of having to prove you have the original card, not to mention
- :the problem that your opponent doesn’t necessarily know what your proxied
- :card does. OK, in the case of a Shivan it’s not too hard to remember,
:but what about something like Guardian Beast? Simple: make them produce the proxied card and play that on the table.
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen Perl Consultant, Gamer, Hiker tch…@mox.perl.com
I am Spinal Villain of Borg: Blue creatures will be assimilated….
Jennifer Schlickbernd
unread,
Jan 29, 1995, 6:43:34 AM 1/29/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
A couple of points here: I’d love to do Swiss. Just tell me how to do
it with 120+ players and not have it take an entire weekend (and yes, we
always get at least 120 players). Joe, while you know all of your players now, wait til your sanctioned
tourney gets advertised in the DC newsletter. Will you know all your
players then? You may be in the backwoods, but our LA players have been
known to drive 9 hours to get a sanctioned tourney, and I’m sure you’re
within 9 hours of several urban centers.
I have no problem with Sealed Deck tourneys with trading given your
circumstantes, but I have a lot of problem with Sealed Deck sanctioned
tourneys allowing trading. We don’t do it in LA because there is no way
I can watch the 75+ people (probably now to be 100+, given the
opprotunity to win points).
Jennifer Schlickbernd
unread,
Jan 29, 1995, 6:46:59 AM 1/29/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Tom, why can’t there be averaging? If someone particpates in 4 tourneys in
the same area in one month, why can’t they just get an average per
tourney? I understand the reasoning, but for example, whatever the
decision is in an urban area like LA, someone gets screwed. Either the
LA’ers for not having the same number of tournaments as other people on a
players-per-region basis, or the other players if LA is split into
several regions. I think averaging would solve this.
Bruce G Strang
unread,
Jan 29, 1995, 3:59:25 PM 1/29/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 40.946…@channel1.com,
Mark A Goodwin mark.a….@channel1.com wrote:
There are some seriously flawed assumptions here. I’m a student. The only
way I can afford to play Magic, at any serious level, is because it is a
collectible card game. Even Type II Tournaments require an enormous
investment in order to the necessary level of rare or hard to find cards
to make an effective deck. The only way that I can justify the
expenditure is that, at the end of the day, my sometimes astute
acquisition of cards will pay off, and I can re-coup much of the money
that I’ve put in, or perhaps more (when Canada’s equivalent of the IRS
comes calling). Note that I am neither a collector nor speculator; I value
cards only to the extent that they make my decks better. I wanted to play
in elite tournaments, so I set out to acquire moxen, a lotus, and other
OOPs that I deemed necessary for the type of deck I wanted to play to
function. If people such as yourself, or, more importantly, WOTC, decide
to destroy the aspect of collectability of the game, then I for one shall
leave. I simply will not be able to afford the sustained expenditure to
buy even a box of boosters for the 4 or 5 sets that WOTC will likely
continue to release each year. Nor is it impossible to acquire OOP cards. I didn’t start playing Magic
until shotly before the release of the Dark. I have never had a Legends,
Arabians, Antiquities, Unlimited, Alpha, or Beta booster, but, through
careful trade and selected purchases, I’ve built up a pretty good
collection of cards.
In addition, people put far too high an emphasis on the value of Moxen
and Loti. For my main Tourney Deck, they are important; it’s slightly too
slow otherwise, and I feel that they’re a useful addition. But in
slightly more than 50% of games they are of no advantage whatsoever. Even
worse, there are many more effective ways to destroy artifacts than to
destroy land, and artifact destuction is usually more flexible. Moxen
sometimes hurt my deck.
In playing in Tournaments, I notice that many people play with
decks that aren’t particularly well-tuned. It’s not that they do not have
good cards; many of them do. They insist on having 100+ card decks, with
overly complicated combinations that I, and many others, consider to be
poor ideas for Tournament decks, where speed is of the essence. I can
build a deck using only Revised, Dark, and Fallen Empires cards that will
pretty consistently beat even the most expensive Tournament Decks.
The point I’m trying to get across is that the beauty of Magic is that
one can play it at many different levels. Multi-player games are often a
great leveller, and they often are much more fascinating than
conventional duels. I also play for ante, but only with decks that are on
par regarding OOP cards with my opponents’ decks. I also play just for fun,
and try out a large variety of decks to find out what kind of things
work. If a particular person can’t build a deck to win a Type I
Tournament, then either do not play in them, or convince the Convenor to
use some kind of Swiss style where you are guaranteed to play many games.
As I well know, losing is instructive. Look at what people do to make
awesome decks. The lessons should give any clever player many ideas for
building stronger decks.
Forgive this sometimes rambling screed, but I think your suggestion
regarding reprinting old cards would seriously damage WOTC and Magic as a
whole. Type I and Type II Tournaments, offered, one hopes, in roughly
equal measure, will allow a wide variety of experiences for players at
different levels of the game.
Now, if we can only get WOTC to dispose of sideboards. :)
Christopher Cates
unread,
Jan 29, 1995, 10:09:24 PM 1/29/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
This has left me with a question about pre-revised cards: In type I matches, if I’m playing with say unlimited Fungosaurs, do
I use the current card text or the card text on the card?
What about in Type II?
Just curious,
Thanks,
Chris.
Tom Christiansen
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:22:14 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- In rec.games.deckmaster, jsch…@netcom.com writes:
:Can you spell Consortiums? Probably, although I spell it Consortia.
--tom
--
Tom Christiansen Perl Consultant, Gamer, Hiker tch…@mox.perl.com
I am Sir Shandlar of Borg: Lady Orca is futile.
Upsyde Down
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 6:02:45 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Greg Legowski (gre…@telerama.lm.com) wrote:
In article 3g7gk8$9…@darkstar.UCSC.EDU,
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
-
Suppose we do allow people to proxy their alpha cards. How do we know
-
that they really do have an alpha card? And now we’re back into all the
-
old issues of having to prove you have the original card, not to mention
-
the problem that your opponent doesn’t necessarily know what your proxied
-
card does. OK, in the case of a Shivan it’s not too hard to remember,
-
but what about something like Guardian Beast?
Simple. Proxies are allowed, ONLY for Alpha cards, AND the Alpha card that is
being proxied MUST be physically present. The proxy is used ONLY in the deck
itself to prevent “marking”. If the card comes into play, the actual Alpha
card must be put down.
We’ve played in games like that, with no complaints from anyone involved. The
Alpha player does still have to use his card (it’s not just sitting in a binder
somewhere) but he doesn’t get the (possible) advantage of seeing it coming up.
–
Greg Legowski gleg…@pit.legent.com (work)
gre…@telerama.lm.com (play) g.leg…@genie.geis.com (other)
http://www.lm.com/~gregleg/ (Web page)
This is exactly what I’m advocating!
How about it Tom? Proxies for alpha’s only if the optional rule is enforced?
Joel
Vincent ARCHER
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 1:24:29 PM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
pal…@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
One slight suggestion for alternate format of matches (alluded to
in Tom’s message). The Swiss system works extremely well for
chess tournaments and leads to good games for all players, especially
at the end.
…
Oh well, you get the idea. The main point is that everyone who enters
the tourney gets a chance to player more than one duel and in later
rounds, you get matches between players of equal ability. It’s also
possible to mount a come from behind run. As a long-standing organizer/referee in Arenes & Arcanes, the french
organization devoted to running MtG tournaments and providing the french
ranking, I think I can provide input on this.
We’ve been using Swiss form for all the tournaments since the beginning,
for the following reasons:
- Single elimination leaves too much to chance
(more than half of the decks that end up 1st have one bad
match)
- Half the people will pay mondo bucks (well, not that many) for
one hour of play, then you’re out
- With swiss ratings, after a while, all the matches are between
players of same strength, and we’ve had so far only ONE player
(out of 1250 ranked countrywise) that managed to end a tournament
with NO victory in any duel.
(and it’s a boost to your deflated ego to win at least one
duel)
If you’re used to run this kind of scheme, it’s very fast to pair the
opponents. This week-end, the Epita tournament had 76 players in the
Wotc-classic (type 1) event. After 5 rounds, it still took us three
minutes to pair off all people.
The ‘95 french finals will use a mixed single-elimination/swiss system:
All players selected for the finals will enter the single-elimination
tournament (we’ll have selections adjusted to get a power of 2), while
the others non-selected enter the ‘secondary’ swiss tournament. As players
lose in the main event, they’re re-inserted in the swiss tournament with
the top score possible in the round (people eliminated during 1st round
come in the swiss tournament during the 2nd round, with a full victory).
The last two rounds of the swiss tournament will have no new players, to
allow for the top contenders to sort themselves after being put there.
--
Vincent Archer Email: arc…@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr
aka: ne…@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr
Vincent ARCHER
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 1:52:49 PM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
And this is exactly why there is a quota; different areas are willing
to run more tournaments. If Lat-Nam runs a tournament every week and
Korlis runs a tournament every month, the average player in Lat-Nam
will earn four times as many points as the average player in Korlis,
This is an artefact of any scoring system that use a cumulative system
of points. For Magic, a ELO-style rating would be more efficient, and
allow any player that plays 10 times as many tournaments as another
to be ranked fairly against each other.
MtG rating system used here in France:
NC - unclassed are assumed to be at 1000.
When you meet an opponent in a match, you get a performance of your
opponent’s score +400 if you won, or -400 if you lost, or +0 if you tied
(which is possible, since we use swiss ratings). All your performances
have a minimum of 1000 (you lose against a 1200-rated player, your
performance is 1000, not 800).
Your overall score is the average of all your performances over the year,
with 7 “fake” duels ranked at 1000 (so you can’t get to score 1700 in
a single tournament by winning against an average of 1300-ranked players).
Duels are dropped after one year.
This requires keeping track of all matches. For a simpler approximation,
you just take the average points of all players in the tournament, and
do a simple interpolation from the number of duels you won. Let’s say
that the average score of the last tournament was 1250, and you won 10
out of 16 duels. You performance is 1250 + 400 x (2⁄8), or 1350 for 16
duels. This produces good results, even for an approximation (actually,
this drives your score a little upward).
One of the benefits of this is that you are fairly ranked, unless you
play only two or three tournaments per year. And even then, a thirty-
tournament-per-year bad player won’t climb above 1300, while a
five-tournament-per-year good player will find 1500 an easy goal.
For the record, the highest ranked player in France is at 1780…
(given the average strength of tournaments, keeping 1750 requires a 85%
win for duels).
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 4:02:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
JJ> Joe, while you know all of your players now, wait til your
JJ> sanctioned tourney gets advertised in the DC newsletter. Will you
JJ> know all your players then? You may be in the backwoods, but our LA
JJ> players have been known to drive 9 hours to get a sanctioned
JJ> tourney, and I’m sure you’re within 9 hours of several urban
JJ> centers. And this is the problem with having 1 tourney per area per month.
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 34 * RoboMail – The ultimate QWK compatible message manager.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 2:30:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
JC> Yes, this can happen. But for the most part, people all go for one
JC> color (or two colors depending on the mana). Frequently, even a
JC> cabal of three to five people doesn’t have the mana to make a single
JC> color deck for each, because the mana distribution is But if a cabal of three people can guarantee to a point a finalist or a
winner in a tournament due to collusion, as opposed to 3 people
floundering, then you have defeated the purpose of the tournament in the
first place.
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 34 * RoboMail – The next generation QWK compatible reader!
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:47:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
SC> Hmm. What your saying here is more or less what the Duelists
SC> Convocation has done. They have responded to the pleas of their
SC> membership to a solution to being effectively excluded from
SC> tournaments because they weren’t lucky enough to get the OOPs. Or
SC> rich enough to buy them. SC> In terms of a rating system, there is one now, but it really doesn’t
SC> measure anything, beyond winning tournaments. The way the USCF has
SC> their rating system set up is that players are measured relative to
SC> each other. This might be a welcome change, in the way the DC does
SC> things if membership increases, and we see alot more Convocation
SC> members coming to sanctioned tournaments.
SC> Sean “sees some progress coming in the Convocation” Chen
SC> – Sean Chen sc…@CSUA.berkeley.edu
What the Convocation has done is created a system that is beneficial to
the player who plays frequently. The USCF system is a MATHEMATICALLY
PROVEN system to rate players within a competitive group relative to
each other. You do agree with the need to instill a new rating system.
We, as players in a game that was given the title as ‘Most likely played
game of 1995’, are required to insure the judicious application of a
fair rating system that measures RELATIVE strength between opponents. If
you say that the Convocation has responded to the pleas of the
membership in creating this membership, I think you are wrong. They
simply have responded to the membership in thier pleas to the rules of
tournaments, which I have (not much) problem with. The BIG trouble is
How these tournaments,the rating system, and WoTC conduct themselves
in relation to administering this system, should they choose (and they
have) to control such an environment. If they choose to shove an
inadequate system down our throats, we should not eat it. By reatricting
the # of tourneys in a region, they have tried to justify thier rating
system. But this fails miserably. Do you think that the World Champ is
nearly twice better than his competition (based on rating published in
duelist #3)? If you read the article, you would say no. If you looked at
the #’s, yes.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:58:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
JJ> A couple of points here: I’d love to do Swiss. Just tell me how to
JJ> do it with 120+ players and not have it take an entire weekend (and
JJ> yes, we always get at least 120 players). If you have room for the first round of play in ANY tournament, then you
have room for ALL rounds in a swiss. Th only difference is that everyone
plays every round and you work harder!
Here is how. You reduce it to sections, based on # of players. If you
get 120 people, reduce it to 3 40 player sections, or whatever. In a
Swiss, you match people up with like cumulative scores (High to low)
per round. Should the Convocation advocate such a format, I’m sure
they will produce some rules. As a tournament director, you should be
more concerned with people getting to play their share of games, getting
their moneys’ worth, and not propagating some guys card shop, as in the
convocation guidlines. If WoTC uses a rating system similar to chess,
you’ll get no gripes because everyone will play an even amount of games
each tournament. You can always resolve ties after the last round by
Head to head tiebreak matches, and then that would be REAL interesting,
No? Your frequent players will get more duel for their buck.
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 34 * RoboMail – Version 1.3 – Available now!
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:24:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
TW> By the way, the Convocation is working on alternate tournament
TW> formats. The question is how to integrate those scoring formats
TW> with single elimination formats, since we won’t want to simply
TW> eliminate those. But it’s much easier to simmply wsimply drop in
TW> alternate deck construction rules (once you figure out what those
TW> are) than to integrate the scoring systems. There will be other
TW> formats, though I don’t know what they will be. You MISS THE POINT!!! You want to work on an alternate tournament
format, which is needed, but the base problem is the inadequacey
of the rating system. There should not be any debate about the single
elimination format, because, as an option should not exist in a
torunament. Within a localized club championship, maybe, but in a
regionally SANCTIONED event, you should be guaranteed, as an entrant, a
minimum amount of rounds of play, period. Single elimination is NOT an
option in a standard tournament. It must be X rounds per tournament.
This is the only fair way to go about rating the public relative to
each other. Ask any Chess player.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 2:34:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
JJ> Eric, while the Type I tourneys do draw, we are not seeing even 10%
JJ> of the MtG players in the SoCal area at the Card cons (my opinion,
JJ> but based on sales and observation). Keeping Type I and including
JJ> Type II can do nothing except increase participation at the
JJ> tourneys. There will always be people who don’t want to play in
JJ> tourneys, no matter what the rules, but I think we could get much
JJ> better participation if it didn’t appear to cost so much to play.
JJ> It gets pathetic when you see these 10 year old kids in tears
JJ> because they just can’t afford a Black Lotus and all they are
JJ> getting for Xmas is 3 Moxes. (Yes, I saw this). With the kids
JJ> making this their new activity, WotC has to do something to better
JJ> support them and everyone else who isn’t rich or lucky (I was
JJ> lucky). The problem is not so much as the type of tournament but more the method
that one is rated by. Even offering Type II tourneys will not increase
tourney participation enough to make a difference. The problem is the
rating SYSTEM. It simply rewards participation, and not quality of play.
This inherently rewards Joe Suitcase who has a deck that sucks but can
make every tournament west of the ‘sippi as opposed to he who can play
infrequently but put in quality time.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 2:39:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
JJ> Strategicon in LA has never allowed trading in Sealed Deck tourneys
JJ> and we’ve never had any complaints about it. Of course, our Sealed
JJ> Deck tourneys draw 75+, so there’s no way I’d (or Paul Matsumoto who
JJ> is now running things, I just help) allow trading. Way to go. Somebody SLAP WoTC into reality about real life tournament
situations. Is it me or do they NOT understand the basic math behind a
true rating system based on relative skill? Did I hear someone say that
it was a bunch of amateurs designing Magic? Prove to us we are wrong and
come up with –no copy!!–a system that has been PROVEN to work!
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 2:43:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
PL> One slight suggestion for alternate format of matches (alluded to in
PL> Tom’s message). The Swiss system works extremely well for chess
PL> tournaments and leads to good games for all players, especially at
PL> the end. PL> Here’s how it works (for those of you who don’t know). For chess, a
PL> ratings system is used to determine pairings. I’m modifying the
PL> Swiss system to deal without.
PL> Round 1: Random pairings. If an odd # of players participate, one
PL> person gets a 1 point bye. Winning a duel =1 point, losing a duel
PL> counts as 0.
PL> At this point, half the players should have 1 point, half 0.
PL> Round 2: Randomly pair all the players with 1 point against each
PL> other. Do the same for the 0 pointers. If there is an odd # of
PL> players in both sections, randomly pair one winner against one
PL> loser.
PL> At this point, 1⁄4 of your players have 2 points, about 1⁄2 1 point,
PL> and the remainder 0.
PL> Round 3: Randomly pair all playhers in the 2 point group against one
PL> another. If there is an odd #, pair one chosen randomly from this
PL> group against a 1 pointer. Randomly pair the one 1 group against one
PL> another, rejecting any pairing which results in a repeat match.
PL> Again, drop one player down to play vs. a 0 pointer if necessary.
PL> Finally, pair those players who have lost their first two duels
PL> against one another. Give a randomly selected bye, if this is an odd
PL> group.
PL> Round 4: Repeat round 3 as above for 3,2,1,0 points.
PL> You could run a tourney with a full swiss system, but it might be a
PL> good idea to select a set of finalists after 4 rounds. Say, take the
PL> top 4 players and have a knockout to determine the winner. In this
PL> eventuality, you may have several players tied for a lower position.
PL> Perhaps one game knockouts.
PL> Oh well, you get the idea. The main point is that everyone who
PL> enters the tourney gets a chance to player more than one duel and in
PL> later rounds, you get matches between players of equal ability. It’s
PL> also possible to mount a come from behind run.
PL> Paul
PL> – Paul A. Lane pal…@iastate.edu
The Voice of Sanity.
Thanks Paul. You are the FIRST to voice a similar opinion to mine in
relation to tournament play. Maybe WE can convince the masses we are
right.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:51:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
GB> Look at how chess sets up it’s tournys and ratings - Swiss system
GB> pairings insure everyone gets their moneys worth of fun on the
GB> weekend - the top flight players get invited to round robins and the
GB> championship is decided by elimination. The system is mature and
GB> works very well for chess and it’s just as applicable to any
GB> two-player game. Another advocate. pay attention WoTC.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:10:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
TW> And this is exactly why there is a quota; different areas are
TW> willing to run more tournaments. If Lat-Nam runs a tournament every
TW> week and Korlis runs a tournament every month, the average player in
TW> Lat-Nam will earn four times as many points as the average player in
TW> Korlis, simply because more tournaments are run in the former. Even
TW> if we adjusted the membership structure such that there were
TW> different “circles” which required winning X tournaments and not
TW> just getting points, Lat-Nam would average more members in the
TW> higher circles, simply because they had more opportunity to win
TW> tournaments. So we put a cap on the number of tournaments which can
TW> be run in certain time fram, and the one a month seemed like a good
TW> limit. Of course, now the cap is one per type per month. And this is EXACTLY why your 10-20-30-X point per round rating system is
bogus! If you rate a player based on his PERFORMANCE and not on his
FREQUENCY OF PLAY you avoid this problem. Let the Lat-Nam run a tourney
every week and Korlis every month. Guidlines can be (and have already
been in chess ) developed to minimize any type of advantage in this. The
fact remains that ANY self-respecting player wants to be judged against
his piers – and that is with an ’s’ as in not getting bounced in the
first round– and not judged by blind luck of the draw to determine his
RELATIVE RATING TO HIS OPPONENTS. Your system dissallows this! You avoid
allowing someone who has a bad first round to find his real skill level
because he is–CHEATED– out of playing in the next round. Take a vote
Tom and you will see that this system is MUCH the best. Remember that
you have alot of x-chess players playing. When it comes to gaming,
rookies we are not. If the WoTC wants to shove this innane system down our
throats, then I’d rather eat at Dominoe’s. If you, in your heart, think
that the system you use now is better that the rating system used by the
Chess Federation, give US a better argument than this.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 2:27:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
JC> In article 3ga36c$j…@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu, Eric M. Aldrich I
JC>eald…@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu wrote: >p.s. Although my initial
JC> reaction to the Type III rules prohibiting trades >was negative, in
JC> retrospect this was a GOOD decision. It would be too easy >for a few
JC> friends to gain a huge advantage be some creative trading. JC> Why can’t it be an optional rule? That seems to me to be the best
JC> way to do it. If the judge feels that the players will be
JC> honorable, he or she can allow trading, and if not, then there’s no
^^^^^^^^^^
JC> trading. That way, it’s there if you want it.
Of course you must be joking….
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 2:47:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
JJ> It can’t be optional because 3 people out of 30 (or whatever number
JJ> you’ve got) that collude ruin it for everyone else. If you have a
JJ> “pick up” game in a store where people mostly know each other, then
JJ> it’s easier to do self policiing. But when it’s a “sanctioned”
JJ> tourney that has prizes and gives out WotC recognized points, then
JJ> “all bets are off” so to speak, and people will (and IMHO should) do
JJ> whatever it takes (that’s legal of course) to win. And if it takes
JJ> collusion, they are going to do it or convince others to do it.
JJ> The sanctioned tourneys (again IMHO) are for competers, not your
JJ> casual player. Competers could not be blamed if they colluded in a
JJ> Sealed deck sanctioned tourney that allowed trading. An OBVIOUS way around it is to have a random draw to determine WHO you
can trade with. This will prohibit collusion to a point.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 2:49:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
PL> One slight suggestion for alternate format of matches (alluded to in
PL> Tom’s message). The Swiss system works extremely well for chess
PL> tournaments and leads to good games for all players, especially at
PL> the end.
Someone alluded to the fact that WoTC, in thier efforts to instill
(energy?!) a tournament system, completely blew it by not taking a page
from thier chess-playing brothren, or as one had put it ‘done by a bunch
of amateurs.’ What gives?
Did WoTC actually consider that the system they put into use was better
than ANY other system they could come up with? An honest answer here
would help. It reeeks of laziness and lacks any ingenuity, which
immediatly disqualifies it for any type of innovation award, not that it
would get one! In short, did you NOT use a reasonable mathematical
system to rate players because of PRIDE or did you just not think of it,
which would lead one to agree with the amateur status plunked upon WoTC?
What was your reasoning behind the current rating system??
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:04:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
BB> I do like the idea of the two types of open tournaments. I’m sure
BB> we’ll offer both at the next con,just to see what response we get.
BB> I’m sure that out of the expected 250-300 attendees we can get
BB> enough people to play both. B> Ted McDonald
Hello Ted. Do you feel as a tournament organizer that the current
Convocation rating system in place is a fair determination of skill for
a player, or is it simply canted toward one who is available to play on
a more frequent basis? As it stands, the rating system does favor the
frequency of play as opposed to the quality of play. Being a rating
system designed to compare opponents, quality of play is the
determining factor in ranking players. Therefore, by playing often
enough, I can ovecome my lack of skill. is this fair?
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 3:03:00 AM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
ZZ> I agree. Single elimination is lame. Too much is left to chance.
ZZ> A swiss system is overall more fun and is in some ways automatically
ZZ> seeded as good people play good people as the rounds continue. It
ZZ> also guarantees that going ZZ> to a tournament means you get to play several games even if your not
ZZ> the best.
Hello WoTC? Are you reading?
Cris Snyder
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 8:45:47 PM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Mark A Goodwin (mark.a….@channel1.com) wrote:
PL> One slight suggestion for alternate format of matches (alluded to in
PL> Tom’s message). The Swiss system works extremely well for chess
PL> tournaments and leads to good games for all players, especially at
PL> the end.
PL> Here’s how it works (for those of you who don’t know). For chess, a
PL> ratings system is used to determine pairings. I’m modifying the
PL> Swiss system to deal without.
PL> Round 1: Random pairings. If an odd # of players participate, one
PL> person gets a 1 point bye. Winning a duel =1 point, losing a duel
PL> counts as 0.
PL> At this point, half the players should have 1 point, half 0.
PL> Round 2: Randomly pair all the players with 1 point against each
PL> other. Do the same for the 0 pointers. If there is an odd # of
PL> players in both sections, randomly pair one winner against one
PL> loser.
Ok, A friend of mine held a Tourney in Madison, Ind. last weekend and used
these rules, as he is an old chess player. BUT he used the following for
assigning opponents past the first round:
to start with, he flipped a coin and decided if all odd numbers would go first
or second in the first round (each round consisted of three games with the same opponent).
(each contestants had a number - decided upon when they signed up for the tourney..i.e.“you’re caller number 5, and your friend you are also registering is number 6.”)
So when the second round came around all folks with the same point totals would
be grouped together, then assigned a new opponent based upon wether they started
the first round as the first or second player. EX : coin flip…all even numbered people go first in round one (loser of previous game goes first on second game and third game of the round). Now all people with 3 points are grouped together…and assigned a partner. If you won all three games in Rnd 1, and started the first game, you would then be assigned a partner that also won three games
but had gone second in the previous round. Now, you switch - you went first
last round, now you go second in the first game of Round 2. So each round your
should technically switch from first positition to second posistion each round
We had about 40 players and 5 round (15 games). It went fairly smoothly.
It is a lot easier to do than explain.
AlberCrombie
as per standard rules for
--
--==-=-=-=-=-====-==—–===-=-====—–=-==-=-=-=-=-===-=-====-=—-===-===-
cesn…@starbase.spd.louisville.edu
URL: http://www.spd.louisville.edu/~cesnyd01/
AlberCrombie —- The One And Only Space Gopher
Frederick Scott
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 9:20:28 PM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
jsch…@netcom.com writes:
A couple of points here: I’d love to do Swiss. Just tell me how to do
it with 120+ players and not have it take an entire weekend (and yes, we
always get at least 120 players).
…and just WHAT’S wrong with a tournament taking an entire weekend?!?
Just hook an IV in one arm to feed me and another in the other arm to pump
- in the caffine and I’ll be fine!
:)
Fred
Frederick Scott
unread,
Jan 30, 1995, 9:35:19 PM 1/30/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
I don’t want to state an opinion on the various systems here. I would,
however, like to respond to the implied criticism of the Convocation.
It may have been laziness and/or lack of ingenuity or may not be. One
problem I have with the people who’ve been pointing at the chess system
as a model is that they automatically assume that the Convoncation has
precisely the same motivations as the people who issue the rating system
for chess. That’s not really true. Noone owns the game of chess. The
organization(s) that governs its play are made up of players and are not
concerned with profit motive, liability (as much as a commericial organization
would be), copyright infringement, and some knowledge of (in fact, probably
participation in as well) the ongoing devolpment of the game itself. The
differences may seem irrelevant at times but I believe they should be kept in
mind.
Fred
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 1:36:15 AM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
I keep seeing posts saying that we aren’t aware that there are tournament
systems other than single elimination. We are very much aware that there
are other systems, the question is how to integrate the scoring from the
various systems we’d want to let people pick from, into one composite
score. The fact that this release of the rules dropped in alternate
deck construction rules but no alternate formats should not be taken as
an indication that the Convocation will be single elimination ladder
format forever. It is simply much easier to drop alternate deck construction
rules into an existing format than to expand the number of formats
available. Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa…@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 1:42:50 AM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Mark A Goodwin mark.a….@channel1.com wrote:
Someone alluded to the fact that WoTC, in thier efforts to instill
(energy?!) a tournament system, completely blew it by not taking a page
from thier chess-playing brothren, or as one had put it ‘done by a bunch
of amateurs.’ What gives?
Did WoTC actually consider that the system they put into use was better
than ANY other system they could come up with? An honest answer here
would help… I’m not sure what the question is. During this thread I have seen
people accusing WotC of being “done by a bunch of amateurs” because
the Convocation simply hasn’t adopted the chess tournament format.
But I haven’t seen anyone calling the chess federation a bunch of
amateurs, and we certainly wouldn’t think of doing so.
So rather, I think I do know what the question is, but that it’s
based on misremembering some posts.
Now on to the other question…
In short, did you NOT use a reasonable mathematical
system to rate players because of PRIDE or did you just not think of it,
which would lead one to agree with the amateur status plunked upon WoTC?
What was your reasoning behind the current rating system??
I don’t know what the actual Convocation position on this is (if any),
but personally I think that the mere fact that chess has a fixed set
of pieces and Magic does not makes any scoring of what someone’s
absolute skill is much more suspect in Magic than in chess. In chess,
if person A is rated twice as high as person B, then A is going to win
most of the time. In Magic, all B has to do is construct a deck designed
to kill A’s, and assuming B designed it correctly, B will win the majority
of the time. It would be very difficult for B to engineer the same kind
of turnaround in chess.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 1:47:23 AM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
From a judge’s point of view, there is a problem with allowing people to use
“placeholders” while they shuffle, and produce the proxies as needed. Sooner
or later, and probably sooner, someone is going to leave one or all of
their proxied cards at home, and the judge will be forced to disqualify them
since they can’t prove they own the card they so they do. Maybe this isn’t
a problem in games at the local store, but remember that in Convocation play
we have to assume an impersonal environment. If the unbacked proxy isn’t
discovered until the late rounds of the match, that’s embarrassing, and
it makes all the people that person has beaten angry that they were
beaten by a “cheater”. That’s not the only reason for not going with the “placeholder” approach,
but it’s probably the biggest one.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 1:48:31 AM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Jennifer Schlickbernd jsch…@netcom.com wrote:
Tom, why can’t there be averaging? If someone particpates in 4 tourneys in
the same area in one month, why can’t they just get an average per
tourney? I understand the reasoning, but for example, whatever the
decision is in an urban area like LA, someone gets screwed. Either the
LA’ers for not having the same number of tournaments as other people on a
players-per-region basis, or the other players if LA is split into
several regions. I think averaging would solve this. I’ve never asked about averaging, but I will forward the message.
Upsyde Down
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 4:28:22 AM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Thomas R Wylie (aa…@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote: : From a judge’s point of view, there is a problem with allowing people to use
“placeholders” while they shuffle, and produce the proxies as needed. Sooner
or later, and probably sooner, someone is going to leave one or all of
their proxied cards at home, and the judge will be forced to disqualify them
since they can’t prove they own the card they so they do. Maybe this isn’t
a problem in games at the local store, but remember that in Convocation play
we have to assume an impersonal environment. If the unbacked proxy isn’t
discovered until the late rounds of the match, that’s embarrassing, and
it makes all the people that person has beaten angry that they were
beaten by a “cheater”.
Well couldn’t that be made the responsibility of the coordinator to check
proxies at the start of the tourney. I remember way back when I went to
my first tourney that I had to sumbit a written list of my deck in
duplicate before I could play. If they can’t produce the card at the
begining of the tourney then tough luck they can’t use the proxy.
- Joel
That’s not the only reason for not going with the “placeholder” approach,
Vincent ARCHER
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 10:19:18 AM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Our esteemed Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
What was your reasoning behind the current rating system??
I don’t know what the actual Convocation position on this is (if any),
but personally I think that the mere fact that chess has a fixed set
of pieces and Magic does not makes any scoring of what someone’s
absolute skill is much more suspect in Magic than in chess. In chess,
In the french experience (we’ve used an absolute-skill-rating system for
a year now), we’ve found that a 1600-ranked person will almost constantly
win against a 1200-ranked person. At least 90% of the time. Which is what
a 400-points difference is supposed to indicate in ELO-style ratings.
if person A is rated twice as high as person B, then A is going to win
most of the time. In Magic, all B has to do is construct a deck designed
to kill A’s, and assuming B designed it correctly, B will win the majority
of the time. It would be very difficult for B to engineer the same kind
of turnaround in chess.
This doesn’t occur. Why? Because in a tournament, B will not play against
A twice. And he is not allowed to retool his deck between matches. B’s
“A-killer” deck will fare poorly against most opponents. Unless B’s deck
is versatile enough to deal against these other opponents. Then, I’d doubt
that B would be low-ranked…
Remember that we’re not talking generic playing ability. We’re talking
about a rating system that rates your performance in tournaments. In
these events, you will encounter 8 or so different opponents, most of
whom you won’t know beforehand what they will play. If you’re stupid
enough to play a special-killer deck, you’d better pray that all your
opponents play that special, or you deserve a low ranking…
For tournament play, an absolute ELO-style ranking system is good. Much more
than any cumulative system.
The only problem that exists is that “niches” can exist and host, say 1600
ranked players that will lose big time against 1400-rated players in another
area. An ELO-type rating has an universal value only if there is enough
cross-pollination between all groups of players. But then, even the
current cumulative system suffer from this.
Jason
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 7:22:48 PM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Thomas R Wylie aa…@cats.ucsc.edu wrote:
From a judge’s point of view, there is a problem with allowing people to use
“placeholders” while they shuffle, and produce the proxies as needed. Sooner
or later, and probably sooner, someone is going to leave one or all of
their proxied cards at home, and the judge will be forced to disqualify them
since they can’t prove they own the card they so they do. Maybe this isn’t
a problem in games at the local store, but remember that in Convocation play
we have to assume an impersonal environment. If the unbacked proxy isn’t
discovered until the late rounds of the match, that’s embarrassing, and
it makes all the people that person has beaten angry that they were
beaten by a “cheater”.
That’s not the only reason for not going with the “placeholder” approach,
but it’s probably the biggest one.
Tom Wylie rec.games.trading-cards.* Network Representative for
aa…@cats.ucsc.edu Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
How is this different than someone being beaten by someone with 5 black
vices in the deck, and it only being discovered in the final round… Same
problem, same solution. Check the decks.
A good general rule is if you lose to someone, check their deck. I have
had my deck checked twice in 2 different tournaments, and THATS IT. If I
wanted to cheat [and I haven’t and won’t] it would be a joke to do. If this
is too time consumeing, at least have it done in the first and last round.
--
(E-MAIL AU…@FREENET.CARLETON.CA || gru…@gaul.csd.uwo.ca) && I != BNR
I think people tend to forget that trees are living creatures.
They’re sort of like dogs. Huge, quiet, motionless dogs, with bark
instead of fur. – Jack Handey
Jordan Lev
unread,
Jan 31, 1995, 10:33:05 PM 1/31/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Dennis F. Hefferman (heff…@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
In 1995Jan26.133755.1@forty2 boyes@forty2 writes: : |Would it not have been better to just ban the OOP restristed type 1 cards
|for type 2? I’m a post-revised player who is indeed ‘alienated’ by tournaments
|with packed with Moxen and Loti, but what harm does Twiddle or Headless
|Horseman do (apart from the setback that a newish player may have to learn
|what these card does on the fly as they are played against them)?
It would have been better to just ban the OOP restricted cards, period.
The new rules use a Patriot missile to shoot down a mosquito. The Type II
rules are better than nothing, but they went way overboard. I’ll be sticking
to (effectively) Type I rules with my extensions to the Restricted/Banned lists
for my group.
Yes, but WotC stated that another reason for the type II rules was to
keep the game environment “ever-changing, as it was originally
envisioned”, or something like that. They weren’t made just to deal with
the spoiler problem.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 5:02:00 AM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
FS> I don’t want to state an opinion on the various systems here. I
FS> would, however, like to respond to the implied criticism of the
FS> Convocation. It may have been laziness and/or lack of ingenuity or
FS> may not be. One problem I have with the people who’ve been pointing
FS> at the chess system as a model is that they automatically assume
FS> that the Convoncation has precisely the same motivations as the
FS> people who issue the rating system for chess. That’s not really
FS> true. Noone owns the game of chess. The organization(s) that
FS> governs its play are made up of players and are not concerned with
FS> profit motive, liability (as much as a commericial organization
FS> would be), copyright infringement, and some knowledge of (in fact,
FS> probably participation in as well) the ongoing devolpment of the
FS> game itself. The differences may seem irrelevant at times but I
FS> believe they should be kept in mind. FS> Fred
The implied criticism may have been a bit too strong I admit; these
people have developed one hell of a game system. But the fact does
remain that if you look at what you are trying to achieve with a rating
system, the current one in place fails miserably. You can never lose
points in the current system, therefore, it is grossly misleading
because, as I’ve said, quantity precludes quality, and the points you
gain do not reflect the opponents ability at all.
I do not believe that WoTC is using any profit motive, liability or
copyright excuse for the adoption of their current system. As they have
said, they just didn’t think of it. Simply time for a change?
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 36 * RoboMail – Version 1.3 – Available now!
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 5:03:00 AM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Continued from the previous message…
.
“bad draw” or any other excuse) over a period of time. If you maintain a
skill level equal to your current rating, it should not change.
This is what players’ 6,7,8,9,10
and 11 did. They scored .500 in the tournament, and their rating
reflects that they are the average of the group. If their opposition was
such that the ratings were different, some would be rated higher or
lower depending on the opponent. You get the picture. Looking at the Convocation ratings, obvious flaws are apparent. It
simply cannot be used for a swiss style tournament because of the
difference in points per round. Fixing that, it would still
reward the frequent player unfairly. You have NO MECHANISM for a player
to lose rating points! How is that possible? Do I Always improve?
A closer look reveals some strange things.
Player #6 scores 2 wins in four games (.500) yet is only at 40% Maximum
score possible (100 points). On the other hand, player #15 scores 1 win
for 40 points. Player #13 and 14 score 1 win, but player #7
and 8 do the same, yet get 1/4th and 1/3rd the points respectively for
the same effort. Again, bogus. A rating system must be CONSISTENT
throughout the entire spectrum of the player pool.
Now it becomes apparent that the system in place is unusable in a Swiss
Style environment, hence WoTC’s reluctance to endorse such a tournament
format at this time.
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 36 * RoboMail – The ultimate QWK compatible message manager.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 5:03:00 AM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
TW> Now on to the other question… TW>>In short, did you NOT use a reasonable mathematical >system to rate
TW> players because of PRIDE or did you just not think of it, >which
TW> would lead one to agree with the amateur status plunked upon WoTC?
TW>>What was your reasoning behind the current rating system??
TW> I don’t know what the actual Convocation position on this is (if
TW> any), but personally I think that the mere fact that chess has a
TW> fixed set of pieces and Magic does not makes any scoring of what
TW> someone’s absolute skill is much more suspect in Magic than in
TW> chess. In chess, if person A is rated twice as high as person B,
TW> then A is going to win most of the time. In Magic, all B has to do
TW> is construct a deck designed to kill A’s, and assuming B designed it
TW> correctly, B will win the majority of the time. It would be very
TW> difficult for B to engineer the same kind of turnaround in chess.
First off Tom, I think you misunderstood the actual purpose of rating
someone. It is simply to get a general idea of their skill level
relative to the current player base. Your current system does not do
that.
Second, your argument about constructing a specific deck to kill another
person’s deck might work ONCE. If you are a tournament player, you are
trying to get as many points as you can, and not set your deck up to be
Fireball Joes. If you do not play Fireball Joe in the tournament, what
have you accomplished? You have more than likely weakened your deck.
A rating experiment:
I run a 16 player, 4 round tournament, Swiss style. Using the Chess
rating system, lets assume I pair up the player # High to low like this:
1-16, 2-15, 3-14, 4-13, 5-12, 6-11, 7-10, 8-9.
lets assume we give everyone a starting rating of 1000 points.
Lets also assume that The lower number in each pairing in each round
wins the match, with like totals playing each other. Trust me on the
pairings.
If I use the Chess system (for simplicity, we’ll use the provisional
formula), the following ratings are obtained:
Player Wins Final Rating
1 4 1400
2,3,4,5 3 1200
6,7,8,9,10,11 2 1000
12,13,14,15 1 800
16 0 600
(notice the “Bell Curve” of the player distribution)
The formula is simple: If you win the game you get your opponents rating
- 400 points, if you lose, you get his rating -400 points. Then you
average your points for the tournament after all play is complete. In
this example, each win would then be worth 1400 points, and a loss would
be worth 600 points, averaged out after the tournament.
If you use the current convocation scoring (and I read your explanation
of it right) then each player, regardless of results, would get 100
points in this Swiss System, because you score points by playing in a
round, and not by winning in a round (by your explanation), and so
makes the rating system you use now inappropriate for swiss style
tournaments. If I got this wrong, and you score by winning in a
round, the players end up with the following points (this gets sticky
because of the unequal distribution of points per round):
Player Wins Convocation points
1 4 100 (max)
9 3 90 (lost in 1st round)
5 3 80 (lost in 2nd round)
3 3 70 (lost in 3rd round)
2 3 60 (lost in 4th round)
11,12 2 60 (lost in 1st AND 3rd rounds)
10 2 50 (lost in 1st AND 4th rounds)
6 2 40 (lost in 2nd AND 4th rounds)
15 1 40 (won ONLY 4th round)
4 2 30 (lost in 3rd AND 4th rounds)
13,14 1 30 (won ONLY 3rd round)
7,8 1 10 (won ONLY first round)
16 0 0 (that’s me.)
Lets examine what we have here.
First, in the Chess type system, notice how the players who fared poorly
actuall LOST points. This is key to any rating system. This says that,
at any given rating which you have achieved, you can conceivably lose
points due to poor performance (translated into “bad deck design”, or
.
Continued in the next message…
Benjamin Sanders
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 1:39:34 PM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Would this not be exactly the same as being beaten by someone using two
time walks (for example) in their deck.
It is just as easy to check at the end of the game that the proxies are
matched by real cards as it is to check for restricted duplicates.
Ben Sanders
Mario Robaina
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 6:02:14 PM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3gk4rb$r…@darkstar.UCSC.EDUaa…@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
From a judge’s point of view, there is a problem with allowing people to use
“placeholders” while they shuffle, and produce the proxies as needed. Sooner
or later, and probably sooner, someone is going to leave one or all of
their proxied cards at home, and the judge will be forced to disqualify them
since they can’t prove they own the card they so they do. Maybe this isn’t
a problem in games at the local store, but remember that in Convocation play
we have to assume an impersonal environment. If the unbacked proxy isn’t
discovered until the late rounds of the match, that’s embarrassing, and
it makes all the people that person has beaten angry that they were
beaten by a “cheater”.
That’s not the only reason for not going with the “placeholder” approach,
but it’s probably the biggest one.
The problem that I have with this argument is that I could play a
tournament with 5 Counterspells in my deck and it would be almost
impossible to detect in play. It would just seem like I was getting
lucky to pull so many. This would be cheating and equally embarassing if
it was not caught until the late rounds of a tourney.
I think that a good solution would be that a player is responsible to
reveal all their proxy cards before beginning play. If the real card
cannot be produced then the proxy cannot be used.
Mario.
Frederick Scott
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 7:27:44 PM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
mark.a….@channel1.com (Mark A Goodwin) writes:
The implied criticism may have been a bit too strong I admit; these
people have developed one hell of a game system. But the fact does
remain that if you look at what you are trying to achieve with a rating
system, the current one in place fails miserably. You can never lose
points in the current system, therefore, it is grossly misleading
because, as I’ve said, quantity precludes quality, and the points you
gain do not reflect the opponents ability at all.
I do not believe that WoTC is using any profit motive, liability or
copyright excuse for the adoption of their current system. As they have
said, they just didn’t think of it. Simply time for a change?
The point I was trying to make by bringing those factors up (profit motive,
liability, etc.) was not that there were factors themselves in the decision
concerning a rating system. I was just trying to point out that the
Convocation is not the World Chess Association (or whatever the organization
calls itself) and shouldn’t try to be. It’s a different game with different
parameters and the Convocation is in a different position than a group of
players. For instance, the critism that you can never lose points doesn’t
mean as much to a branch of a commercial organization that has every reason
to encorage maximal participation in the tournaments they’re offering. In
short, they may not care as much that their system is less fair to people
that miss some tournaments unlike a truly player-based group. Note that
I’m not saying they shouldn’t consider the point at all. Maybe they should,
if for no other reason then to improve their credibility. But let’s at
least understand that such differences are inevitably going to affect how
they do things.
Fred
Cris Snyder
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 8:05:31 PM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Thomas R Wylie (aa…@cats.ucsc.edu) wrote:
I’m not sure what the question is. During this thread I have seen
people accusing WotC of being “done by a bunch of amateurs” because
the Convocation simply hasn’t adopted the chess tournament format.
But I haven’t seen anyone calling the chess federation a bunch of
amateurs, and we certainly wouldn’t think of doing so.
Tom, I believe the ‘amateur’ tag was generated because a single elimination
tournement is not the way to go for Magic. This is the majority of the
opinions on the net (of those that actively post). A single elimination is
“a no-brainer” but a chess-like tourney is more fun and competative. In single elmination, a person only has one chance per round to win. a 50% shot to
advance to the next round. He loses, he’s out. period. With a point system
(i.e. chess) you can loose all three games one round (I’m used to seeing a
3 game round) you can still win the tournement because your other opponents
in your brackets may also lose games. The point is - a single elimination
- tournement does not happy players make.
So rather, I think I do know what the question is, but that it’s
based on misremembering some posts.
Now on to the other question…
-
In short, did you NOT use a reasonable mathematical
-
system to rate players because of PRIDE or did you just not think of it,
-
which would lead one to agree with the amateur status plunked upon WoTC?
-
What was your reasoning behind the current rating system??
I don’t know what the actual Convocation position on this is (if any),
but personally I think that the mere fact that chess has a fixed set
of pieces and Magic does not makes any scoring of what someone’s
absolute skill is much more suspect in Magic than in chess. In chess,
if person A is rated twice as high as person B, then A is going to win
most of the time. In Magic, all B has to do is construct a deck designed
to kill A’s, and assuming B designed it correctly, B will win the majority
of the time. It would be very difficult for B to engineer the same kind
of turnaround in chess.
I believe that Magic is infinite game. The rules change, the phyiscal game
changes, the style changes, every thing changes. In chess, that is a finite
game. The game has not changed at all in who knows how many years. If you
look at a chess roster, you find a bunch of people who know how to play a game
and how to counter pretty much every move. I respect that, but there are
still a finite number of moves to make. In chess, the idea is not to come
up with a new stragety, but to play an old combination of moves at the right
time. In Magic, the player must design a deck, with new combinations,
prepare for emergencies and think on their feet. Because of this I feel
that Magic is a totaly different game than chess. So a chess score reflects
how well a chess player responded to another player’s set of moves. In
Magic, a point total would reflect how he plays, how he builds, and how he
thinks.
Yes, your player B could build a deck to beat player A, but I don’t think that
would last long. No deck is unstoppable. period. A magic point total system
like chess would reflect this. I high score would reflect a strong player
not just a strong deck. It boils down to the player not the deck, not the
rules. So I say let’s get a chess point system.
AlberCrombie
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 9:37:00 PM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
VA> As a long-standing organizer/referee in Arenes & Arcanes, the french
VA> organization devoted to running MtG tournaments and providing the
VA> french ranking, I think I can provide input on this. VA> We’ve been using Swiss form for all the tournaments since the
VA> beginning, for the following reasons:
VA> * Single elimination leaves too much to chance (more than half of
VA> the decks that end up 1st have one bad match) * Half the people will
VA> pay mondo bucks (well, not that many) for one hour of play, then
VA> you’re out * With swiss ratings, after a while, all the matches are
VA> between players of same strength, and we’ve had so far only ONE
VA> player (out of 1250 ranked countrywise) that managed to end a
VA> tournament with NO victory in any duel. (and it’s a boost to your
VA> deflated ego to win at least one duel)
VA> If you’re used to run this kind of scheme, it’s very fast to pair
VA> the opponents. This week-end, the Epita tournament had 76 players in
VA> the Wotc-classic (type 1) event. After 5 rounds, it still took us
VA> three minutes to pair off all people.
I think we have our test without even having to wait for the results!
This is really great. Was WoTC aware of France’s system?
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 37 * RoboMail – The next generation QWK compatible reader!
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 9:52:00 PM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
FS>>The implied criticism may have been a bit too strong I admit; these
FS>>people have developed one hell of a game system. But the fact does
FS>>remain that if you look at what you are trying to achieve with a
FS> rating >system, the current one in place fails miserably. You can
FS> never lose >points in the current system, therefore, it is grossly
FS> misleading >because, as I’ve said, quantity precludes quality, and
FS> the points you >gain do not reflect the opponents ability at all. >I
FS> do not believe that WoTC is using any profit motive, liability or
FS>>copyright excuse for the adoption of their current system. As they
FS> have >said, they just didn’t think of it. Simply time for a change? FS> The point I was trying to make by bringing those factors up (profit
FS> motive, liability, etc.) was not that there were factors themselves
FS> in the decision concerning a rating system. I was just trying to
FS> point out that the Convocation is not the World Chess Association
FS> (or whatever the organization calls itself) and shouldn’t try to be.
FS> It’s a different game with different parameters and the Convocation
FS> is in a different position than a group of players. For instance,
FS> the critism that you can never lose points doesn’t mean as much to a
FS> branch of a commercial organization that has every reason to
FS> encorage maximal participation in the tournaments they’re offering.
FS> In short, they may not care as much that their system is less fair
FS> to people that miss some tournaments unlike a truly player-based
FS> group. Note that I’m not saying they shouldn’t consider the point
FS> at all. Maybe they should, if for no other reason then to improve
FS> their credibility. But let’s at least understand that such
FS> differences are inevitably going to affect how they do things.
FS> Fred
I see your point, but Magic has evolved to the point where the player
base is such that it may WANT a rating system that is fair and
equitable. The Convocation, in my opinion, is in the same position as
any body that chooses to govern a group of players, be it chess, bridge,
baseball or whatever. The should consider responding to issues that the
player feels is important to the spread of the game itself. The TYPE of
game (‘..different game with different parameters…’) really has no
bearing on the rating system. It is simply a competition between 2
players (like chess) and lends itself nicely to a similar rating system.
We are not asking WoTC and the Convocation to govern the same as the
United States Chess Federation, or for that matter, any other governing
body; we only want them to endorse what we, the players and consumer
feel is needed at this point; a fair rating system.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 1, 1995, 10:02:00 PM 2/1/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
CS> I believe that Magic is infinite game. The rules change, the
CS> phyiscal game changes, the style changes, every thing changes. In
CS> chess, that is a finite game. The game has not changed at all in
CS> who knows how many years. If you look at a chess roster, you find a
CS> bunch of people who know how to play a game and how to counter
CS> pretty much every move. I respect that, but there are still a
CS> finite number of moves to make. In chess, the idea is not to come
CS> up with a new stragety, but to play an old combination of moves at
CS> the right time. In Magic, the player must design a deck, with new
CS> combinations, prepare for emergencies and think on their feet.
CS> Because of this I feel that Magic is a totaly different game than
CS> chess. So a chess score reflects how well a chess player responded
CS> to another player’s set of moves. In Magic, a point total would
CS> reflect how he plays, how he builds, and how he thinks. CS> Yes, your player B could build a deck to beat player A, but I don’t
CS> think that would last long. No deck is unstoppable. period. A
CS> magic point total system like chess would reflect this. I high
CS> score would reflect a strong player not just a strong deck. It
CS> boils down to the player not the deck, not the rules. So I say
CS> let’s get a chess point system.
CS> AlberCrombie
To understand this argument, you must get off this game comparison kick
you are on. You can rant and rave about comparing chess to Magic,
complication levels, infinite vs finite, etc., but the real point is
that, at the end of each match, someone wins or loses (or draws in
chess). This is the same for both games. This is where ratings kick in.
Your comments about chess being simply playing ‘an old combination of
moves at the right time’ is not true, though. Give a little respect to
the game and its players, please!
Benedikt Erik Heinen
unread,
Feb 2, 1995, 12:27:42 AM 2/2/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
aa…@cats.ucsc.edu (Thomas R Wylie) writes:
Sean Chen sc…@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU wrote:
[……] Most people I see who are involved in setting up
tournaments are the type of people who do have the Power cards, generally
they are part of the old gaurd. What is going to be the incentive to hold
Type II tournaments? Pressure from customers I think that the initial preference of Type I or
Type II tournaments is going to vary from region to region. I think that
over time, Type II tournaments will appear all over the place, and Type I
tournaments will appear less often and/or in fewer places. But I’m
talking months down the road here.
But, I suppose, DC will draw upon itself the hatred of many people that spent
a lot of money on Moxes, Libraries of Alexandria, or similar *really old and
mystic* cards…
Why not use other ways to discourage the use of or drop the effectivity of the
usual 5mox+lotus+alotofothercardsmanypeoplecannotafford decks?
Have you (or the Duellists Convocation) ever thought about
restricting the total number of restricted cards in the deck, or
penalizing every player with more than x cards from the limited
list if his opponent has less than x cards from the limited list
(like letting him start with less life points, forbid the use of
CoPs for him, of offering his opponent one virtual permanent
card from the beginning [like Ivory Tower, Arboria, Underworld
Dreams, …), or
- requiring a player with more than x restricted cards to win more
than a “2 out of 3” duel, but require him to make a 3 of 4 with
his “cheaper-deck-opponent” only needing a 2 of 4 against him, or
…..
[to.be.continued]
any comments?
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Feb 2, 1995, 4:28:56 AM 2/2/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Cards are played as they are written, plus any errata, even in Type II
tournaments. We would have to circluate lists of which cards had
changed printings in order to change this policy, perhaps by circulating
them in the Duelist.
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 2, 1995, 10:01:00 PM 2/2/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
VA> For tournament play, an absolute ELO-style ranking system is good.
VA> Much more than any cumulative system. VA> The only problem that exists is that “niches” can exist and host,
VA> say 1600 ranked players that will lose big time against 1400-rated
VA> players in another area. An ELO-type rating has an universal value
VA> only if there is enough cross-pollination between all groups of
VA> players. But then, even the current cumulative system suffer from
VA> this.
Also note that should the US adopt such a rating system, French-rated
players and US-rated players could be compared to each other reasonably.
Is there any other countries out there who use such a system already?
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 38 * RoboMail – The ultimate QWK compatible message manager.
Cris Snyder
unread,
Feb 2, 1995, 10:03:28 PM 2/2/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Mark A Goodwin (mark.a….@channel1.com) wrote:
To understand this argument, you must get off this game comparison kick
you are on. You can rant and rave about comparing chess to Magic,
complication levels, infinite vs finite, etc., but the real point is
that, at the end of each match, someone wins or loses (or draws in
chess). This is the same for both games. This is where ratings kick in.
Your comments about chess being simply playing ‘an old combination of
moves at the right time’ is not true, though. Give a little respect to
the game and its players, please!
* RM 1.3 * Eval Day 37 * RoboMail – The next generation QWK compatible reader!
I do give respect to the chess players. I still feel that it only has a finite
number of moves, tho. IMHO
And if nothing else…I still say to lose the single elimination tournement
for something that allows players to compete for the length of the tournement.
Hell, maybe something like 2 out of 3 or something.
Jeffrey Davi Verzak
unread,
Feb 2, 1995, 10:44:34 PM 2/2/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In article 3grkrg$q…@hermes.louisville.edu,
Cris Snyder cesn…@vulcan.spd.louisville.edu wrote:
And if nothing else…I still say to lose the single elimination tournement
for something that allows players to compete for the length of the tournement.
Hell, maybe something like 2 out of 3 or something.
In the tournement that I’m holding you will play at least three matches
of best of of three duels. Then, the people with win-loss ratios of 2:1
and 3:0 go to the finals which will be single elimination simply to speed
things along. The point is that no one has to pay $2.00 just to go
against someone and lose in 10 minutes.
+Jeff
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 2, 1995, 10:48:00 PM 2/2/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
AK> yeah, but then part of the games is in trading. A tournament is not
AK> meant to test how you play an individual game but how well you can
AK> design decks, etc. Part of the larger game of magic (as R. Garfield
AK> has said in many an article) is trading for the cards you need to
AK> make that deck. Is there really much in revised that you would trade FOR to give up one
of your OOP hard-to-get cards? Trading is part of the game, but since
such a huge difference exists between quantity of the print runs, it is
unlikely that you can acquire these cards for reasonable amounts of
money or trading stock.
AK> Now, I admit that it is unfortunate that a lot of people don’t have
AK> the OOP cards that kick in tournaments, and that those are the cards
AK> that are now worth hunderds of dollars, but there is no reason to
AK> prevent other people from playing with those cards. What will happen
AK> is that new players will play in type II and old players will play
AK> in type I tournaments, increaseing the differences between the two
AK> groups.
Who said anything about preventing someone from playing with those
cards? The type II tourney simply allows us newbies (read Revised+) to
compete knowing we aren’t gonna get Time-blasted or whatever. A fairer
playing field amongst the competitors.
AK> nah, don’t reprint cards that put the game out of balance. But don’t
AK> force people to keep buying new cards. So i only have unlimited
AK> cards… eventually all of them will be taken out of the current
AK> revised edition.. then what do i do. What needs to happen is that
AK> people need to refuse to pay so much for the OOP cards. This will
AK> drive market prices down to a reasonable level, and those who wish
AK> to play in tournaments can get them.
True, leave the truly unbalancing cards out of a reprint. But if you
mean don’t reprint at all, then your previous paragraph makes no sense.
Getting people to refuse to pay for something is not going to happen.
People in general have no respect for money anyway. Just look at the
cost of cards already. Also, you seem to indicate by that last sentence
that tournaments should be reserved for only those who can afford the
OOP cards. This is absurd. There are far more players WITHOUT these
cards than those with them, hence the Type II tournaments.
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 38 * RoboMail – The next generation QWK compatible reader!
Michael Ronn Marcelais
unread,
Feb 4, 1995, 10:49:42 AM 2/4/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Vincent ARCHER (arc…@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr) wrote:
We’ve been using Swiss form for all the tournaments since the beginning,
for the following reasons: What is the Swiss tournament format?
--
+————————–+—————————+
| Mike Marcelais | mrma…@eos.ncsu.edu |
| The Moonstone Dragon | Fourth Bryan Productions |
| -==(UDIC)==- | Author of ChrHack 2.3 |
+——————Signature-Virus-Shield-v1.0-enabled-+
Mark A Goodwin
unread,
Feb 4, 1995, 2:58:00 PM 2/4/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
MM> Vincent ARCHER (arc…@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr) wrote: : We’ve been
MM> using Swiss form for all the tournaments since the beginning, : for
MM> the following reasons: MM> What is the Swiss tournament format?
Each player is guaranteed to play X amount of rounds. In the first
round, you either pair the players off by lot or High vs low if they
have ratings. After that, the players are grouped in each round by the
number of cumulative points they have gotten by then; all the people
with 1 point after the first round will be paired off amongst
themselves, and all the people with 0 points the same. The effect you
get is as the tournament progresses, the players who are doing well will
be playing each other. No knock-out elimination is used, so you know
you are going to be playing all day. This lends itself particularley
well to a rating system, but not like the one the Convocation uses.
- RM 1.3 * Eval Day 40 * RoboMail – The ultimate QWK compatible message manager.
Thomas R Wylie
unread,
Feb 5, 1995, 12:34:26 AM 2/5/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Benedikt Erik Heinen b…@tequila.oche.de wrote:
Pressure from customers I think that the initial preference of Type I or
Type II tournaments is going to vary from region to region. I think that
over time, Type II tournaments will appear all over the place, and Type I
tournaments will appear less often and/or in fewer places. But I’m
talking months down the road here.
But, I suppose, DC will draw upon itself the hatred of many people that spent
a lot of money on Moxes, Libraries of Alexandria, or similar *really old and
mystic* cards…
The theory would be that if it had been six months or a year since anyone
had requested to sanction a Type I tournament (and I’m skeptical that this
would ever be the case), then obviously people wouldn’t be caring that
much about the cards, and the rules would be jettisoned as excess
baggage. If peopl want to keep Type I tournaments around then it’s
really easy to do so: keep getting sanctioned Type I events.
Have you (or the Duellists Convocation) ever thought about
Well, these are my personal opinions…
- restricting the total number of restricted cards in the deck, or
This is too cumbersome.
- penalizing every player with more than x cards from the limited
list if his opponent has less than x cards from the limited list
(like letting him start with less life points, forbid the use of
CoPs for him, of offering his opponent one virtual permanent
card from the beginning [like Ivory Tower, Arboria, Underworld
Dreams, …), or
Extremely cumbersome, and strays into telegraphing the contents of your
deck, which is a bad thing for us to force people to do.
- requiring a player with more than x restricted cards to win more
than a “2 out of 3” duel, but require him to make a 3 of 4 with
his “cheaper-deck-opponent” only needing a 2 of 4 against him, or
This would just drag things out for the most part. Basically we’d just
be finding out how often the person with the extra-limited deck gets
manahosed; if they can reliably beat their opponent 2 out of 3 then they
can reliably beat them 3 out of 4.
Dennis F. Hefferman
unread,
Feb 6, 1995, 7:36:48 PM 2/6/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
In 3gmdr2$b…@ankh.iia.orgle…@iia.org (Jordan Lev) writes:
|Yes, but WotC stated that another reason for the type II rules was to
|keep the game environment “ever-changing, as it was originally
|envisioned”, or something like that. They weren’t made just to deal with
|the spoiler problem.
They still would have been “ever changing” with the constant flow of
new expansions. Removing the old ones isn’t really necessary for ensuring
change.
--
Dennis Francis Heffernan IRC: FuzyLogic heff…@pegasus.montclair.edu
Montclair State University #include 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”
prophet
unread,
Feb 6, 1995, 8:39:45 PM 2/6/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
- Dennis F. Hefferman (heff…@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
They still would have been “ever changing” with the constant flow of
new expansions. Removing the old ones isn’t really necessary for ensuring
change.
I disagree. Even with the number of expansions already out, the
main theme in tourney decks is the same: Mox, Lotus, Timewalk, Channel,
Juzams, ad nauseaum….. The reasoning is sound, I believe.
-prophet
\==============================================================================
The above opinions are not mine, I have been forced to repeat them by the
man holding the gun to my head. The fact that I am holding the gun makes
no difference. I am resolved of all responsibility.
\==============================================================================
The Corinthian
unread,
Feb 8, 1995, 5:26:10 AM 2/8/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
rge…@ucs.indiana.edu (prophet) writes:
- Dennis F. Hefferman (heff…@pegasus.montclair.edu) wrote:
They still would have been “ever changing” with the constant flow of
new expansions. Removing the old ones isn’t really necessary for ensuring
change.
I disagree. Even with the number of expansions already out, the
main theme in tourney decks is the same: Mox, Lotus, Timewalk, Channel,
Juzams, ad nauseaum….. The reasoning is sound, I believe. Even with type II rules, the main theme in tourney decks is not
going to change. It’s still gonna be based on speed and more speed.
Whoever gets their stuff out faster will win. A lot more people will
have green or black in their decks just for that purpose.
I never believed the Convocation instituted type II tourneys
in order to encourage more varied tourney decks. The only major
type I theme decks that were not greatly weakened are wennie horde,
card denial, and permissions decks. We’ll just see more of them in
type II tourneys. More people will have 4 black vices in their decks.
There will be an increase in decks with black/green. That’s about the
extent of it.
You do not eliminate 500 cards from tourneys to encourage
variety. Will there be change? Yes. Variety? No. Type II rules
were made in order to allow newer players to compete effectively.
It doesn’t encourage more themes. It just limits them to a certain
collection of cards.
Bin
--
Bin Chen | “I’m sure they’ll listen to reason”
gt6…@prism.gatech.edu | – Fisheye, SnowCrash
Vincent ARCHER
unread,
Feb 6, 1995, 1:38:22 PM 2/6/95
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to
Michael Ronn Marcelais mrma…@eos.ncsu.edu wrote:
- Vincent ARCHER (arc…@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr) wrote:
We’ve been using Swiss form for all the tournaments since the beginning,
What is the Swiss tournament format? The swiss tournament system is a format that allows all players to keep
playing till the end, and against players of the same level.
Roughly, each turn, you award some points for wins, some points for ties,
and you put together all people with the same number of points, and pair
them randomly.
After three turns, you then pair together all the players who won three
times, then everybody who won twice and tied once (in any order), and
so on. If you won three times, your opponent is always a strong player,
with the same number of wins. The reverse is true: if you lost three times,
you will face another loser.
After a while, all players end up losing or tiying at least once, and all
players get a chance to win once or twice…
It makes for a more satisfying type of tournament, as you still get the
strong players together, everybody plays till the end, almost all players
will win once, and even if you lose a match, you can still prevail in the
end.
(It also gives birth to the ‘submarine’ tactic, in which a strong player
will purposely lose his first match, to be paired off against weaker
opponents for half of the tournament. You take your chance: in the
event of a tie, the Bucholtz tie-breaker system counts the results of
your opponents, and the winner is the one who met the strongest players
overall)
--
Vincent Archer Email: arc…@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr
aka: ne…@cett.alcatel-alsthom.fr
0 new messages