Think you got what it takes to make it to the top? What if you started with six chains, wait..twelve, no, TWENTY-FOUR CHAINS!!! Do you have the skill, the cunning, the ...uh, chutzpah(am I reading this right?) to be shackled down among the elite and prove yourself a worthy champion to your Archon?

That's right, everyone starts round 1 with 24 chains. Then after each round, instead of adding chains to the winner, they lose six, count em, six chains.

Rounds will be single-win, single-elimination.

If there is concern about time constraints, you can either add more time for the earlier rounds or change the number of keys required to win. If there is not enough people for a full four rounds, you may adjust accordingly for however many you have.

4 rounds - 24 chains, winner loses 6
3 rounds - 24 chains, winner loses 8

35 minutes ago, KandyKidZero said:

Think you got what it takes to make it to the top? What if you started with six chains, wait..twelve, no, TWENTY-FOUR CHAINS!!! Do you have the skill, the cunning, the ...uh, chutzpah(am I reading this right?) to be shackled down among the elite and prove yourself a worthy champion to your Archon?

That's right, everyone starts round 1 with 24 chains. Then after each round, instead of adding chains to the winner, they lose six, count em, six chains.

Rounds will be single-win, single-elimination.

If there is concern about time constraints, you can either add more time for the earlier rounds or change the number of keys required to win. If there is not enough people for a full four rounds, you may adjust accordingly for however many you have.

4 rounds - 24 chains, winner loses 6
3 rounds - 24 chains, winner loses 8

Wouldn't your system just handicap the losers and make the winners that much more likely to win? I think you'd get better games if the winners stayed as is and the losers lost chains each round.

5 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

Wouldn't your system just handicap the losers and make the winners that much more likely to win? I think you'd get better games if the winners stayed as is and the losers lost chains each round.

It is single elim, so when you lose you are out.

Just now, KandyKidZero said:

It is single elim, so when you lose you are out.

Ah. In that case, it's not for me. I'm unlikely to play in an event where I could be knocked out in the first round and then unable to participate.

Typically, most places I have gone that run single elimination events also run other types for the reason you stated. Single elimination events are for those that are in for the high risk/high reward (And what is riskier than starting a game with someone at full chains?). Sometimes they are spaced out time-wise where those that are knocked out in the first round can queue up for the next one to try again where their round 1 is synced up with the first tournaments round 2, etc.

4 minutes ago, KandyKidZero said:

It is single elim, so when you lose you are out.

So round 2 everyone playing will have 18 chains, round 3 everyone playing will have 12 chains, then 6 then none.. you are in no way handicapping stronger decks, only slowing the game down for the early rounds of the game, and maybe hindering decks with Logos and Mars which tend to rely on having multiple cards of that house in your hand when called.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense that the losers lose chains?

2 minutes ago, KandyKidZero said:

Typically, most places I have gone that run single elimination events also run other types for the reason you stated. Single elimination events are for those that are in for the high risk/high reward (And what is riskier than starting a game with someone at full chains?). Sometimes they are spaced out time-wise where those that are knocked out in the first round can queue up for the next one to try again where their round 1 is synced up with the first tournaments round 2, etc.

There is literally no additional risk for starting with 24 chains. Everyone has it, so everyone is on exactly equal footing. It would just make the game super slow. This is just a more complicared version of a totally unchained single elim match

2 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

So round 2 everyone playing will have 18 chains, round 3 everyone playing will have 12 chains, then 6 then none.. you are in no way handicapping stronger decks, only slowing the game down for the early rounds of the game, and maybe hindering decks with Logos and Mars which tend to rely on having multiple cards of that house in your hand when called.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense that the losers lose chains?

True, everyone is on "equal" footing in that they start with the same amount of chains, but the flavor of the event itself is showing that your deck is still the best as you fight your way through the handicaps. Just because there is equality, there is still no guaranteed equity between your matches. It is also a variant that takes the handicap to the extreme (similar to fighting games that have damage modifiers that can make even the simplest of attacks brutal.)

As for the additional risk, you are betting that your deck you have confidence in can still do its thing with all the chains at the start. Then as the restrictions are lifted, things start speeding up. This is why I also suggested that if you are concerned about time in the early rounds, you can extend it or lower the number of required keys to win.

Early turns would go by fast since you are also limited between using what you got while you build your hand vs. just alternate houses until you are drawing a couple extra cards.

I think this would just exacebate the problem of the person that starts with a really good hand just rolling over their oppone t because it's hard to stabilize a game if you can't draw cards.

Doesn't sound like my thing but it's a different idea. Nothing wrong with trying it.

Either I don't understand you, or you don't understand me. If my opponent has the same number of chains as I do in every round, there is no handicap. I don't care if it is 0, 5 or 24. I'm not showing I have the skill to battle past anything, other than a slowed down game. It shows nothing about my deck unless, as I said, my deck has Logos or Mars in a build which relies on large hands, like Mother gun. You propose to remove all handicaping, and just slow the game as I understand it. You may as well just play an unchained game. It is single elim, it is still best player/deck wins, it is still both players playing on equal footing in as much as neither is being handicapped. It is also where your idea ultimately ends up.

I applaud the effort of coming up with a new game type. And I am not trying to bash it. In this case it doesn't seem like it does anything meaningful.

4 minutes ago, xbeaker said:

Either I don't understand you, or you don't understand me. If my opponent has the same number of chains as I do in every round, there is no handicap. I don't care if it is 0, 5 or 24. I'm not showing I have the skill to battle past anything, other than a slowed down game. It shows nothing about my deck unless, as I said, my deck has Logos or Mars in a build which relies on large hands, like Mother gun. You propose to remove all handicaping, and just slow the game as I understand it. You may as well just play an unchained game. It is single elim, it is still best player/deck wins, it is still both players playing on equal footing in as much as neither is being handicapped. It is also where your idea ultimately ends up.

I applaud the effort of coming up with a new game type. And I am not trying to bash it. In this case it doesn't seem like it does anything meaningful.

I think this is where experiencing it would be better than theorizing it. The games play very differently when you can only play 1-2 cards versus always having a full six from the start. You will definitely need to think about what deck you want to bring to it as with other variants for the reason you bring up as well.

I get what you mean by "there is no handicap if everyone is handicapped". It is how the handicap is being used that makes it the variant it is. It is clean and simple, and doesn't have to change any rules that are part of the game (other than the possibility of making less keys at the start if you are worried for time).

Basically, it boils down to how well you feel your deck can perform starting with just 2-3 cards. Do you go with a deck with more creatures to have board presence? Do you still run you aember control deck hoping your opponent does the work for you? Is your Library Access going to be busted or are you only going to get one card with it?

The focus is that you are familiar and confident to even try the format, to show that not even chains can keep you down because your deck is still going to do what it does.

Yeah, that makes sense. I don't think it would be for me, but explaining that way certainly makes a lot more sense.

Sounds stupid and against the games design, but glhf

7 minutes ago, jocke01 said:

Sounds stupid and against the games design, but glhf

*uses rules designed for game but is against the games design* That is why they are called variants. But thank you for taking the time to let me know it was stupid at least.