FAQ 1.5 & Tournament Rules 1.3

By TheProfessor, in CoC General Discussion

Things in the Ground, Diseased Sewer Rats and Doppelganger make it to the restricted list.

Descendent of Eibon is now unique.

Aspiring Artist has 0 skill and no icons (and draw 1 card).

Interesting stuff in the new FAQ.

New Tournament rules tell us 1 game per round. I'm disappointed in this, but what are you going to do? And that Stories won are the tie breaker if the game is not complete within the 50 minute period.

They also specify the legal card sets for the GenCon tournament, which was nice of them to do.

I'm glad they got this out to us before GenCon. And I have no complaints about anything except the 1 game per round. And that complaint is minor...

I am dissapointed by the single game rounsd as well, despite numerous rumblimgs about how it favors one deck type over another.

That said, I am perfectly happy to give it a shot and see how well it works. I don't attend many competitive events though so this has minimal impact on me.

If I play a rush deck I can still get my win in early no problem. I play a control deck then i have more opportunity to get my contorl in place rather than taking a draw or a loss because I didn't get the time to play it out. I get why people may want to play more games to rule out fluke bad opening hands, but that is after all the point of the mulligan rule. If I had to choose I'd rather actually lose the game or win the game based on my ability than simply because my deck wasn't capable of winning in 20 minutes... but like I said, I do see the other side.

Good FAQ.

I like the 1 game because it allows more diverse deck types in tournament play. Besides, what Penfold said about the Mulligan rule is spot on. With somewhat generic resourcing, an 8 card opening hand, and the Mulligan rule it is likely your deck is jank if you cannot get consistently solid starts.

This rule also somewhat vindicates our choice to proactively decide to play single game matches at the West Coast Regional. Now I will seriously start working on a Mill deck...

Nobody is alarmed at the growing restricted list? With the banning Sewer Rats and Things in the Ground, as they are arguably the weakest cards on the list, I would never pick them over other cards on the list(well a reanimator deck with TitG would be casual fun). Is the 'ganger really needed on the ban list after the best target(descendant) has been nullified anyway? To add insult to injury they restricted the rats too. I am surprised that they just didn't put the Magus on the list, I guess FFG will let us have a couple months of fun. Why doesn't FFG let decks have more than one good card in it? I don't feel like the restricted list creates more decks, I would argue that the restricted list has destroyed several strategies and archetypes I wanted to work on. The way to have diversity with decks is to create enough good cards with different strategies to drive people in different creative directions. I would really like to see an article explaining FFG's logic behind the restricted list and what gets put on it, right now it seems like random good-stuff. Surely we don't need the banned list anymore at the very least just put those cards on the restricted list...

I guess I am a little mad because I have a friend who had a chance to go to GenCon, but because of the new FAQ the core of his deck was ruined. I don't feel like a month is long enough for him to tune another deck.

As far as the one game now, I don't think I like it but I am willing to see how it plays out. Does anyone else feel that game two and sometimes three are better because you have an idea what your opponents deck do? It helps make resourcing easier and I feel best two out of three results in not just more, but better games and more strategic thinking. Well at least one game rounds open the door to fragile jank combo decks(but the restricted list will control that haha)!

I've got a LOT to say about this FAQ and not quite enough time to say everything.... yet.

But I wanted to point out a few quick things.

1. I saw nothing wrong with control decks who decided to win only 1 game out of 3 to get a win. Part of the risk of playing a control deck is if you don't win game one, then you're forced to play at a faster pace to win game 2 and possibly 3. However, the goal of a control or stall type strategy is that it only wants to play one game in a best of 3 (and not lose game 2). Have to remember, playing in a tournament isn't just about playing the games (though the games are by far the most important part) you have to play the tournament too.

2. Removing best of 3 once again gives "pregame knowledge" a lot of weight and I mean a TON! This is a major reason why people keep decklists secret as long as they possibly can. Knowing what to expect from your opponent changes the way you play. Before you could make adjustments for game 2 and 3 so getting a ton of knowledge beforehand wasn't a big deal. Now... knowing what you're up against before the game starts can give players a much greater advantage over their opponent. Keeping the mulligan rule around doubles this tremendous advantage.

3. Seems to me this decision was based more on keeping a tight tournament schedule rather than competitive fairness. I'm not trying to acuse anyone, but this is what it certainly feels like to me whether they meant it or not. Sides, even if it was one of the reasons, its not a bad one. After all, especially at conventions, things tend to go badly if things don't run on time.

4. A better solution, for competitive fairness to me would be from extending the round 10 minutes and removing the mulligan. If time isn't super constrained, I'd imagine that it would serve the game better, but thats just my opinion.

5. Mulligans are meant to keep bad draws at bay. If you build your deck right bad draws don't happen. Suboptimal maybe, but not bad. Provided that the game is balanced and isn't relying on silver bullets.

6. "Players play 1 game in a round of Swiss. If time is called and the players have not completed their game, then they complete the round they are currently playing and then the player who has won the most stories wins the round."'

What? Reading as is... we play one game. Ok, but if I then we have to complete the round wouldn't that remove the need for a time limit? Ok, I'm just poking a little fun. But I ASSUME that it should read, "If time is called and the players have not completed their game, then they complete the turn they are currently playing..."

Not quite the overtime rules I would like to see, but at least (by assumption) we can complete the turn as opposed to what happened before where we had to stop mid resolution! This (by assumption) is a very positive step and fights my 'we did it for time' theory.

7. Anyone other than me think that the change in how gaining control of attachements is just wrong? Seems to me that being able to re-attach should be apart of an effect... not a hard rule. Not sure why this was changed. Though John Henry has a reason to smile a little more.

8. Things in the Ground. Good choice, I wouldn't be suprised if its banned one day. Doppleganger. Kinda suprised, card was so awkward to begin with so perhaps that played a factor in its restriction otherwise I just don't see it. Diseased Sewer Rats. Must have cards to win are bad, DSR was pretty close to a must have, but it wasn't one of those... 'i win' cards. I'm very sad that this is on the restricted list. I had a lot of hope that more cards of DSR's balance and usefulness would become the standard for COC. Seems that won't be the case is DSR is on par with Guardian Pillar and Descendant of Eibon.

9. Y'Glonac, Stalking Hounds, The Seventy Steps, not restricted. I'm shocked. Honestly. Those 3 kick the hastur out of DSR and Dopples. Can argue the steps maybe. I'm sitll reeling from last year.

I did way more than a few.... now I'm late. Sorry for the rushed post.

The big issue with cards like Descendant and DSR are the fact that they are neutral. Thus, any deck can run them, and lets be honest, any deck that isn't running them is just worse off for it. Honestly, i can't think of a single factioned 2 cost or 3 cost creature that is as good as either DSR or Descendant. Without the restricted list all decks should be 3 x DSR, 3 x Descendant, and 44 other cards. Sure, sure, you can win games/tournaments without them, but honestly, whatever deck you won with would have plain been better with them in. Homogeny in deck construction games is bad. When there are cards which every deck should run, no matter what faction or strategy they are employing, then it's just bad design. The most powerful cards in the game should not be neutral and thus run in every deck. But it seems that someone in the design team hasn't worked this out yet, as i have a feeling that the new Magus known as Magnus goes on the "your deck is worse by not running him" list.

marc_remillard said:

The big issue with cards like Descendant and DSR are the fact that they are neutral. Thus, any deck can run them, and lets be honest, any deck that isn't running them is just worse off for it. Honestly, i can't think of a single factioned 2 cost or 3 cost creature that is as good as either DSR or Descendant. Without the restricted list all decks should be 3 x DSR, 3 x Descendant, and 44 other cards. Sure, sure, you can win games/tournaments without them, but honestly, whatever deck you won with would have plain been better with them in. Homogeny in deck construction games is bad. When there are cards which every deck should run, no matter what faction or strategy they are employing, then it's just bad design. The most powerful cards in the game should not be neutral and thus run in every deck. But it seems that someone in the design team hasn't worked this out yet, as i have a feeling that the new Magus known as Magnus goes on the "your deck is worse by not running him" list.

Exactly. And I think DSR had to go on the restricted list. Elsewise it would be in every deck and reduce the interest of the game.

Magah Bird is no longer banned? (Was it ever banned?)

Megah Bird and Endless Interrogation are still banned.

sbmriatdh said:

Nobody is alarmed at the growing restricted list? With the banning Sewer Rats and Things in the Ground, as they are arguably the weakest cards on the list, I would never pick them over other cards on the list(well a reanimator deck with TitG would be casual fun). Is the 'ganger really needed on the ban list after the best target(descendant) has been nullified anyway? To add insult to injury they restricted the rats too. I am surprised that they just didn't put the Magus on the list, I guess FFG will let us have a couple months of fun. Why doesn't FFG let decks have more than one good card in it? I don't feel like the restricted list creates more decks, I would argue that the restricted list has destroyed several strategies and archetypes I wanted to work on. The way to have diversity with decks is to create enough good cards with different strategies to drive people in different creative directions. I would really like to see an article explaining FFG's logic behind the restricted list and what gets put on it, right now it seems like random good-stuff. Surely we don't need the banned list anymore at the very least just put those cards on the restricted list...

I guess I am a little mad because I have a friend who had a chance to go to GenCon, but because of the new FAQ the core of his deck was ruined. I don't feel like a month is long enough for him to tune another deck.

As far as the one game now, I don't think I like it but I am willing to see how it plays out. Does anyone else feel that game two and sometimes three are better because you have an idea what your opponents deck do? It helps make resourcing easier and I feel best two out of three results in not just more, but better games and more strategic thinking. Well at least one game rounds open the door to fragile jank combo decks(but the restricted list will control that haha)!

With rats/dOppel/abductor, I can handle 4-6 fisrts turns with nothing else. Don't need. Furthermore, I didn't see anything that can handle this team. The fun part is, it's just 9 cards. With jeffrey, dreamlads fanatics, sacrifice, more bounce, I can do a lot of recursive effects just to kill, bounce sacrifice permanently and every turn your board. I'm glad rats are in the restricted list. I can think of something else now.

For the 2 best of 3, I don't need 2 games to know what my opponent will play. ressources are public and coc hasn't produced thousands of cards. It is part of strategy to calculate the risks and see trhough the player and his ways of deckbuild, react and think.

Factioned 2 cost character cards that are either better or 'on par' with Diseased Sewer Rats:

Albino Goat Spawn
Clover Club Torch Singer
Dangerous Inmate
Faceless Abductor
Ghoulish Predator
Hard Case
Museum Curator
Obsessive Insomniac
Repo Man
Somnambulant Dreamer
Twilight Cannibal
Victoria Glasser
Wraith
*props to cardgame_db for a quick access card search engine.

I could probably make an argument for a few more. But thats a good bit of factions cards that are 'as good as' Diseased Sewer Rats. Many of them represent the best 2 cost characters of their faction. DSR is merely the best 2cc of his faction. Not that theres much competition mind you. The ONLY advantage DSR might have is that its neutral.

As for its use in any deck. I might disagree only for technicality sake. Neutral Ground, Interrogation Center, and Y'ha-nthlei Statue are 3 reasons I'd consider not playing the rats. I might also consider keeping the rats off the list for combo decks and recursion decks as it would only serve as a stall card.

Must include cards are indeed a negative, but just because a solid card is versitle doesn't make it broken or overpowered. I THOUGHT that was the banned and restricted card lists were for. Cards that made the game unfair. Not popular cards that a lot of people use. Honestly, thats the argument here. Does not every agency deck run prize pistol, shotgun blast and A small price to pay? Does not every hastur deck run Victoria Glasser, Infernal Obession, and Dangerous Inmate? Does not every Yog deck run Many-Angled Thing and Stalking Hounds? Does not every shub deck run Y'Glonac, Hungry Dark Young, and Under the Porch? Does not every Syndicate deck run Hard Case, Low Blow, and Panic? Does not every miskatonic deck run Chess Prodigy and Rabbit's Foot? If not wouldn't a deck be better with them?

Should all those cards and more(!) be restricted as well because they are a common choice if their respective faction is used in a deck? My opinion, absolutely NOT! And neither should Diseased Sewer Rats. DSR doesn't make the game unfair, break the game, have a dominant prescense, nor is it far above and beyond similar cards in terms of power and usefulness. DSR is nothing more than a solid card that is easy to insert into a deck. Commonly used cards are common for a reason. They're solid, fun, and a good idea. In a perfect world all cards would be like this where none truely stood above one another. However, for some reason people who design card games believe that bad and subpar cards need to exsist and create them on purpose (for the record I don't know if CoC designers of past and present share this belief, but evidence of cards printed stand against them).

Another thing is I may mention is that DSR is not on a level where its a use it or lose. Like alasken sledge dogs used to be, or Endless Interrogation. Saying that 'most' decks would be better with DSR than without is not on the same level as saying 'most' decks would be better with the Dog Team (pre-erratta) than without.

For the neutral cards should not be as powerful as factioned cards... you're right. I for one would welcome some better factioned cards that could compete with neutral cards on the resrticted list. And I mean more than just 1 or 2. If its less than a handful then theres no disadvantage to running those AND a competing neutral card. Which is the primary problem of why DSR is so common. Sure, each faction may of a card or two on the same or higher level than DSR, but I think shub has the most competing cards and it only has 3-4 cards. Which leaves plenty of room for DSR.

At minimum, we are to include 17 different cards in a deck. If decks were truely, 3x DoE and 3x DSR then your strategy only found 15 other cards that suited it. What 2 cards did you 'have to' sacrifice that you couldn't of fit into the first 15? I imagine that any cards mentioned would be... shall we say... a step or 2 below any other similar cards in the deck. Meaning, if the card pool contained more quality and 3x DSR still made the list over equally 'stepped' cards then I could see it being restricted, but in my most loudest opinion, the quality of the card pool is not a point where its not an easy decision to put DSR in over cards of a (much) lower calibur.

Whew, I could probably go on and on but thats my veiw on the DSR subject anyway. Banned and restricted lists should be for cards that create an unfair enviroment. Not for cards that simply are seen frequently on deck lists. Common does not equal broken or overpowered.

B_P said:

*snip*... ressources are public and coc hasn't produced thousands of cards. It is part of strategy to calculate the risks and see trhough the player and his ways of deckbuild, react and think.

I could've almost agreed with you 2 years ago. Now, there are more 'hoser' cards in the card pool that offer a huge unfair advantage to those that have pregame knowledge. In a best of 1, cards like Y'ha-nthlei Statue are a risk. At worst its a resource. But if I find out before hand my opponent is indeed running a bunch of 1 skill characters, I win the round if he didn't have pregame knowledge on me. In a best of 3 cards like Y'ha-nthlei Statue are still a risk, but now for a different reason. If I have pregame knowledge, I win game 1. Games 2 and 3 my opponent adjusts and plays differently by not playing to omany his 1 skill characters so we have a fair game.

Just to point out, if neither player has pre-game knowledge, its a fair game. If both players have pre-game knowledge its a fair game. Best of 1 gives a rather unfair advantage to a player that does have pre-game knowledge against a player that does not. While best of 3 still gives the player that does not have pregame knowledge a chance at a level playing field. Sure, knowing your opponent's cards before you play is still an advantage, but theres a major difference betweening winning game 1 and winning the round.

Note* cards like Y'ha-nthlei Statue are the most extreme example. Even more basic cards like holding burrowing beneath for a specific support card or running out a card because you know that your opponent can't handle it can often be the difference between a fair game and a unfair one.

Granted, best of 3 doesn't solve the issuse of pre-game knowledge, but nothing will short of putting every match in a inclosed enviroment and not allow people to communicate in between rounds (which is just silly). All best of 3 can do is reduce its impact. On the other side, best of 1 only seeks to bolster its potency.

Again, having a mulligan around only makes it worse. Now, if 'hoser' cards didn't exsist or they were never played it would make my last sentence less true... but they do exsist and are played.... so ya.

So as far as I'm concerned, the only valid reason to go back to best of 1 is to keep the 50 minute time limit so tournaments are shorter/tighter. Which... as a someone who enjoys tournament play I find it to be a sad reason.

Case in point, as the card pool grows the more of a need there is for best of 3. Didn't mean to jump on ya B_P, not my intent, just trying to point out some things. Truth be told I love games that get you to think on the fly and whether you win or lose is completely dependant on how quickly and correctly you can react, but I think with the card pool we have best of 3 is neccessary.

You raise a great point about a bugbear of mine which is "pregame knowledge". I hate the secrecy. It does nothing to promote the game beyond keeping a decklist secret in order to have advantage to win a single game or tourney. The game ultimately suffers for it without the knowledge being shared with the overall playerbase and creates a stagnate environment where everyone else apes other peoples winning decks instead of exploring more creative options for the game to evolve in.

I see a valid point in such harming a best in 1 tourney format.

Perhaps deck lists submitted prior to the games and open knowledge of decks prior to each match might help create the even playing field? Give each player a minute or two to read your current opponents list and then start the match. Normally the deck lists are just submitted to the TO, but what if everyone got a couple minutes prior to each game to see your opponents decklist?

Buddies will always talk about their matches between games and either intentionally or unintentionally reveal their opponents deck in doing so. etc. There will always be an issue of such advantage and removing that advantage by evening the playing field seems (to me at least) to be a valid option to consider.

I know this flies in the face of years of learned programming for constructed card games especially this one, but perhaps it is time to leave that bullcrap behind and just make the playing field even once and for all. The advantage was always to the person who had pregame knowledge of an opponents deck, regardless of tourney format. It was one of the reasons why "scouting" at M:tG tourneys used to get you warnings.

The game would then be more geared towards strategy and not surprises. You still have to be a good player to decipher a decklist and how it can possibly be played to best effect.

If single game matches are to be the norm from now on, then this may be a valid option to explore in order to make single game matches more successful.

Hellfury said:

You raise a great point about a bugbear of mine which is "pregame knowledge". I hate the secrecy. It does nothing to promote the game beyond keeping a decklist secret in order to have advantage to win a single game or tourney. The game ultimately suffers for it without the knowledge being shared with the overall playerbase and creates a stagnate environment where everyone else apes other peoples winning decks instead of exploring newer options.

I see a valid point in such harming a best in 1 tourney format.

Perhaps deck lists submitted prior to the games and open knowledge of decks prior to each match might help create the even playing field? Normally the deck lists are just submitted to the TO, but what if everyone got a couple minutes prior to each game to see your opponents decklist?

I know this flies in the face of years of learned programming for constructed card games especially this one, but perhaps it is time to leave that bullcrap aside and just make the playing field even once and for all. The advantage was always to the person who had pregame knowledge of an opponents deck, regardless of tourney format. It was one of the reasons why "scouting" at M:tG tourneys used to get you warnings.

The game would then be more geared towards strategy and not surprises. You still have to be a good player to decipher a decklist and how it can possibly be played to best effect.

That idea... isn't... bad... Might expand it a little. Laying out your deck (as opposed to or included with a list) prior to beginning of each round for review and authentication would be a great way to not only eliminate pre-game knowledge inbalances but would also eliminate a lot of other possible ways to cheat.

Unfortuneatly it kinda takes away most, if not all, suprises players could have. Which is an underlying part of fun for card games in general. However, for competitive reasons doing this would be a most excellent way of leveling the playing field.

So... hmm. Based on this game's casual nature it might not appeal to many of its players, but... if competition, tournaments, etc. where a larger part of this game's draw I could easily see this as a good thing and could give way to best of 3 as being not necessary.

In fact it could even help increase the size of the community (could hurt it too) if this was implemented for high level tournaments only. Say regionals or higher. This way people won't be annoyed at local tournaments, leagues and casual play, but for when it really matters fairness is ensured. Adding this in any fashion would probably require serious polling and feedback before implentation. Otherwise, especially if people are intent on keeping best of 1, I would really really like to see this implented.

Good thinking there hellfury.

Magnus Arcanis said:

Unfortuneatly it kinda takes away most, if not all, suprises players could have. Which is an underlying part of fun for card games in general.

I think it just depends on how you look at it.

For instance, just because I saw your decklist and had a few minutes to read it doesnt reveal the intricacies of the deck strategy. It takes a seriously good player (nearly professional level you would see at a M:tG Worlds event) to know right off the bat what that deck is going to do. It may even take several plays with and against the deck to fully understand the capabilities.

There will still be plenty surprises, no doubt. The surprises come from how the cards are played, and not the deck list itself.

But the advantage of say a guy who plays with a ton of skill one characters being waylaid by another guy running Yha'Nthlei statues would not be so disadvantaged and could change their strategy accordingly since that card would cripple such a deck, as one rather unlikely example. If you are the type of player who cries foul over your opponent knowing that you possess a single card that could cripple them, then you arent playing the game. You are just 'gaming' the system.

I would even hazard to make a supposition that there would be less mirror matches as was seen last year at Worlds due to just trying to play a deck type which seems to be strongest at the moment by trying to guess what everyone else will bring. So people just shrug and bring what seems competitive in a rather uninspired attempt to 'game' the game instead of actually playing it.

But deck list secrecy is so ingrained in the mindest of players of constructed card games for so long, that there will be the inevitable cries of foul and such, so it will likely never come to pass.

But I still stand by my reasoning that deck list secrecy doesn't promote the game one iota and does nothing but keep people from exploring the competitive side of the game, or even getting into it in the first place with such a dirth of helpful lists that function well.

How many official decklists are there for this game?

Compare this to the questions of how to assemble a good deck let alone a good decklist as a starting point for players to make up their own strategies and you have stagnation in the making. Merely stalled by the hardcore fans of the game.

Too much in the thread to respond to, and in most cases other people did a better job than I would explaining reasoning, however I like the mulligan rule and to think that a deck is impervious to bad draws seems a little off to me.

As for rats I find that they can be cut pretty easy as they hurt resourcing and there are other faction alternatives. Ask yourself did the rats deserved to be banned? They pretty much were, everything else on the list is just better so nobody will play with the rats, that is why I feel the restricted list is flawed and destroys deckbuilding. The list hasn't created anything new, it only takes stuff away.

As for the one game rule unless the "Hellfury" rule is adopted no one will ever post decklists, which everyone seems to think is a bad idea(me too). I think it is very arrogant to look at my starting three domains and automatically know what your opponent is up too, you can't even be sure what factions are played with the opening setup (I have laid down three same faction in a double faction deck), rogue combo decks(if they will be permitted to exist) will eat this thinking up. With ten more minutes many of my draws this tournament season would have been won/losses.

Admission of guilt:

Knowing we were going with single game matches at the West Regional I played a mono Cthulhu deck as my "serious" deck against local players for the weeks leading up to the event. I only tested my Private Club deck... in private. Part of the reason i did this was because I did not want people to be used the tempo and pattern of my deck. The interesting thing is another player ran a rush focused Agency+Silver Twilight deck that was being played a bunch in public during the weeks leading up to the event and it did not do as well. I am not saying that familiarity had everything to do with it, but I am sure it had something to do with it.

I'm certainly not thrilled about the official tournament rules. Good thing the definition of 'official tournament' is quite murky so when there is a tourney, I can pretty much ignore these 'suggestions.'

"We have not changed the maximum time limit for Swiss, nor have we done away with the mulligan rule so players will still have ample opportunity to for their decks to click without having to worry that a second, let alone a third game, having to be played in order to gain the win."

This explanation seems to be particularly weird. The point of playing a game is playing a game, right? This seems to be more like an apology for playing the game. "Sorry you have to play, but you can also roll a dice or something. God forbid you have to play more." it almost says. Uhhhm ok. That's a unique position to have there.

I prefer my Swiss to be as game-agnostic as possible. Strength of contest as a tie-breaker, instead of some in-game element. An average of 20 minutes should be more than enough to have an outcome in the game, so 60 minutes for a maximum of 3 rounds, and a 5-turn extention period seems more than enough to me. Mulligans promote some less-efficient deckbuilding. I don't know if that's a good thing or not. Might introduce some variance, but I tend to go for the hardcore approach.

All in all I think I'll choose my own format if possible.

Marius said:

An average of 20 minutes should be more than enough to have an outcome in the game, so 60 minutes for a maximum of 3 rounds, and a 5-turn extention period seems more than enough to me.

At Stahleck I've seen both extremes of players: There was one player who played so fast I had difficulty following what he did which at times required a roll-back so I could play my interrupts. Then there was a player who was very strict about following the phase sequences and paused to ask if you wanted to play a card at every possible point and expected the same thing from me, slowing the game down a lot.

You shouldn't be required to rush through the game like a madman to meet a success condition and have to stop most of the games before a winner has been determined. Giving decks a chance that need more time to build up their strength is a good thing.

Reserve the best-of-three for the finale, for the previous rounds it's okay.

Having lost many games due to a terrible opening hand I'm also glad about the mulligan rule (even though, again, this is probably just a problem because my decks aren't really tournament-quality).

I'm very new to the game and have no tournament experience in any CCG, but here's sort of an outsiders perspective. I do play various miniatures wargames at a competitive level so my views on tournaments mostly come from that.

Apparently one problem is that the time per round is insufficient to play three games and allow enough time for each game to complete. OK, fair enough. So then you've got three choices. You can play fewer games, you can force each game to be short (in which case it may be difficult to properly determine a winner), or you can extend the time per round. Has this third alternative been explored? Why not keep it at three games per round and just allow more time? The tournaments at Gencon do not seem that long and the number of players isn't huge. Adding an extra hour or two to the tournament might be a better solution *AND* players would get to play more games which is a positive thing too. Now, if you do drop to just one game I agree that the mulligan is a positive thing. If you only have one chance to play it protects you from a bad starting hand, which you're at higher risk of without multiple games. Personally I'm of the opinion that it's always better to have time to finish the game. Requiring victory in a shorter time restricts the type of decks that can be played as there is pressure to play a faster deck or a deck that competes favorably on whatever tiebreaker criteria is being used. Solid competitive decks that are neither fast nor dominate the tiebreaker condition fall out of favor despite being competitive in normal game conditions.

Secret vs. Public. I'm used to everything being 100% public, because that's how miniatures games do it. Therefore I am not opposed to the idea that deck lists be public as well, and the lessening of the effect of scouting other players. Much more importantly though, I feel like public decks would be a vast improvement to the community. With top level players being obsessed with keeping their decks secret, it stifles discussion. I'm used to seeing a lot of very open discussion of the plusses and minuses of different options, and it's a topic that players enjoy reading and participating in quite a bit. Here there is very little of that, or else it's only about older decks or cards that are "behind the curve" now. Let's face facts here. CoC is not a big tournament game, there is not big money to be made. It's relatively casual and as far as I can tell the main benefit of winning tournaments is personal prestige and getting to help design a new card at the Gencon championships. That's a cool prize, but it's not worth stifling the growth of the community. Open decks would promote less keeping of secrets and therefore experienced players would feel more free to talk about their deck building strategies to the benefit of all. Open discussion of this sort may even lead to the development of new deck types.

I don't have the experience to compare the banned or restricted cards and decide whether they're overpowered or not. If something is showing up in almost every deck then that's certainly a sign that it should be looked at for balance issues though, and I do agree with the idea that Neutral cards should typically not be as strong as the better Faction cards because it dilutes faction diversity and an OP Neutral card has more effect than an OP Faction card because it can show up in all faction decks. It seems like one possible solution to Neutral cards might be to limit them to 2 copies instead of 3? Then even if a Neutral card was strong you'd be slightly hesitant to rely on it as part of your core strategy. There may be reasons not to want to do that though, not the least that it makes existing decks invalid. Essentially it would just be a milder type of restriction than banning it outright. More radically, maybe limiting Neutral cards to 2 copies in general would encourage more emphasis on faction cards but that's sure to raise some objections I think :)

jhaelen said:

Reserve the best-of-three for the finale, for the previous rounds it's okay.

I really like this idea. A lot.

Ok... as I put more thought into this the more I don't understand the reasoning for best of 1 and the anti-reasons for best of 3 for that matter.

Lets see if I can put this into an example(s).

Player A is playing a slow deck. (be it control, stall, whatever)
Player B is playing a average deck. (not fast, not slow, but average paced)

In a best of 1. They get 50 minutes to dertmine a winner of the match. Outcome: Player A wins in 40 minutes or player B wins in 20. Reasonable?

In a best of 3. They still get 50 minutes (desire to increase the time limit aside) to determine a winner of the match. Outcome: Player A wins game 1 in 40 minutes and doesn't lose game 2 winning the match. Player B wins the game 1 in 20 minutes, and doesn't lose or wins game 2. Player B wins the match.

How are they any different? Game 1 was all important in both scenarios. So how is it allowing a slower deck to be more competitive? Changing from best of 3 to best of 1 isn't actually changing a thing for slower decks! Other than the "don't lose game 2" part.

Now, best of 3 does change things for average and fast decks. Quite often they will see completed game 2's and 3's. Decks designed(by intent or not) to take up most if not all of the time in a round have the advantage/risk of only needing to win 1 instead of 2 games! The amount of risk doesn't change. So unless average decks and players rarely ever see a completion of game 2 (not completeing game 3 isn't nearly as bad) then I could see going back to best of 1. Aka, if the average game took longer than 30-35+ minutes to complete best of 1 would mean that the game simply isn't fast enough to handle best of out 3 in a timely manner.

From my own testing (me playing myself) I would say that my average game completes in roughly 25 minutes. However, accounting that I'm shuffling both decks, playing both sides, moving markers for both players I could easily see the average game taking 15-25 minutes. Which, if correct, sounds about right for a 60 minute round.

Now, obviously some of you've claimed that your average game (played with average decks) take longer, some people have claimed shorter. Either way, switching to best of 1 doesn't help slower decks AT ALL!

Also, if anyone didn't realize this already. Best of 3 does not force you to play a faster deck just so you can play a the max of 3 games. That belief baffles me a little. As if people believed that if the average game takes 15-20 minutes then there deck must be able to win in that time frame. Which is simply not true. Your goal as a tournament player is to win the round so you can advance. You can do this by playing a fast deck that can utlize all 3 games or you can even play a slow deck that seeks to decide the outcome by only playing 1 game. And theres nothing wrong with that.

Keep in mind, I'm trying to point out the best way to determine a winner of a round. Not play more games. If you want to play more games... than simply ask more people to play. Thats how you get to play more games :)

So I'll ask this question, what actual advantages are there to best of 1 instead of best of 3?

I already gave one answer, time constraints. But that doesn't allow us a more equal playing field... and as I and other have suggested... can't we just have more time to determine a winner?

Hellfury said:

jhaelen said:

Reserve the best-of-three for the finale, for the previous rounds it's okay.

I really like this idea. A lot.

I don't.

Suprised? lol

My opinion, best of 1 and best of 3 (and mulligans) can widly change how decks are built and played. Tournament rules should stay as consistant as possible throughout the tournament. One exception is that in single elmination rounds must/should be completed without a time limit as there cannot be a tie.

Still one the of the strangest things Hata did for last years worlds. Top 4 (at the last minute this was added) had 120 minutes, and the final didn't have a time limit. Again, all seemingly decided at the last minute. *shivers* sorry hata, but there was a lot done wrong last year; tournament wise anyway. Still not as bad as '08 though, so theres that at least.

Regarding finals versus the "season", I agree that the finals should have the same format as the rest of the tournament (with the exception of no ties allowed).