TheProfessor said:
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).
Yeah. I guess consistency is more important really.
FAQ 1.5 & Tournament Rules 1.3
Magnus Arcanis said:
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.
The only effect of "Best of 1" on slow decks would be to take the pressure off the Slow Deck player not to lose game 2 since their won't be one. I suppose that strengthens them in a sense, they're no longer forced to decide between dragging their feet on Game 1 (and risking a loss if they delay too much) or taking the chance of a rapid win by the Fast Deck player in Game 2.
I agree that more time is the best solution. It's *always* the best solution for any tournament with time limits when those time limits are disrupting the normal metagame. It's just not always a practical one because the event can only be stretched out so long. But it does not seems like we're anywhere near the limit, you could easily add a couple more hours. So why not allow more time? What is the counterargument?
dboeren said:
The only effect of "Best of 1" on slow decks would be to take the pressure off the Slow Deck player not to lose game 2 since their won't be one. I suppose that strengthens them in a sense, they're no longer forced to decide between dragging their feet on Game 1 (and risking a loss if they delay too much) or taking the chance of a rapid win by the Fast Deck player in Game 2.
I agree that more time is the best solution. It's *always* the best solution for any tournament with time limits when those time limits are disrupting the normal metagame. It's just not always a practical one because the event can only be stretched out so long. But it does not seems like we're anywhere near the limit, you could easily add a couple more hours. So why not allow more time? What is the counterargument?
Gotta love the quotes working eh? Anyway.
Don't both strategies have the same pressure to not lose game 2? The only real difference between a slow and a fast deck in a best of 3 is that if the faster deck gains the upper hand in game 2 it actually straight up wins the match before time is called.
As for the faster deck getting in a quick win in game 2. Thats one of the perks to using a fast deck. It seeks to utlize all 3 of the granted games. The downside to that is that it has to usually win twice. While the slower decks only need to win once. So if anything... slower decks might actually get more of an advantage since if they lose quickly game 1, they can usually take a few more risks to play faster to seek a tie. Meaning slower decks will more often than fast decks at least end up with a win or a tie. Further pointing out the obvious...the slow deck didn't lose. Further still, not losing is better than losing.
Granted, this isn't always the way it'll work when players can concede games, or things go faster or slower depending on actual strategies and playstyles. But in general... Slower decks aren't slighted by best of 3. They never were.
I have a feeling that people who believe that is does too often lose game one too slowly and don't have enough time to 'make a comeback.' Granted, having that come up often stinks, but... come on. Eh, thats about the only rational conclusion I can come to as to why so many think slow decks are at a disadvantage in best of 3.
Speaking of rational conclusions... I have zip as to why an increased time limit option wasn't implented. Perhaps they didn't want to be watching over a CoC tournament for much longer than they have to. I mean could you stand me for 6+ hours at a tournament? lol, I kid. But on a more serious note perhaps payroll, time slots, and resources are a factor? I doubt it, but its not impossible to believe. Though, to be honest, if that was the 'real' main factor consider me rather disappointed. But, I doubt it, so... ya. No clue on that one.
When/if I get more time... perhaps I'll start a thread on why mulligans are a negative. Also guys/gals while I still hope to see one day tournaments be best of 3 with no mulligan as not only the most fair way to determine a winner but to help level the playing the field in deck building. However, as shameful as mulligans are, if I am stuck with best of 1 then I rather have a mulligan than not have one.
Just sayin.
I agree on the mulligans. *IF* you're doing just one match then they may be somewhat useful to help counter the odds of getting a bad draw. But if you have multiple rounds they aren't needed since doing several draws for several games takes care of it automatically and mulligans just become a time sink, something you already are short on.
I was assuming that a slow deck may be able to stall enough that there really isn't a game 2 (in a 3-game format). That either game 2 never happens or it has so little time left that it doesn't get to the stage where either side can win on the tiebreaker criteria. Essentially, if you're slow ENOUGH, then you can try to force it to be equivalent to a one game format. But, stalling may carry risks that if you let the game go an extra turn to eat up the clock your opponent may pull something out of his hat. Or maybe that makes no sense and you just can't be that slow? Talking theory here.
I completely agree with Magnus Acarnus' reasoning.
So, you managed to weather an assault for 60 minutes. There is a good chance that you would have done that twice. You at least get the win for it.
Assuming you play your entire deck, and your side of the game takes 10 minutes to deal with, that means in the most extreme scenario (3 games are played) you are spending 12 seconds per card avarage thinking about them and handling them. A good number of them are resources.
If you play a deck of 50 cards, that means that after resourcing, you'll have 42 cards in your deck. Drawing 2 per turn means that the game ends in 21 turns latest. That gives you 28.571 seconds to deal with your turn. Including setup time, that's an average of 25 seconds to handle your turn, when all 3 games are played.
Say the time limit is increased by 50%, so you'll have 30 minutes per game. Then you can spend 18 seconds per card per game average. And then there is a 5 round extention (no time limit!) at the end of the time limit.
Even if the game ends in a draw, that's still a result. You're equally matched and get points accordingly.
Yeah, so not everyone is a cardboard ninja with lighning quick moves. Still, results are generated, even if some of them are draws. With "game agnostic Swiss" it shouldn't favor one playstyle over another, especially if the "stories won" tiebreaker is gone and strength of contest is used to determine an overall winner at the end.
dboeren said:
I agree on the mulligans. *IF* you're doing just one match then they may be somewhat useful to help counter the odds of getting a bad draw. But if you have multiple rounds they aren't needed since doing several draws for several games takes care of it automatically and mulligans just become a time sink, something you already are short on.
I was assuming that a slow deck may be able to stall enough that there really isn't a game 2 (in a 3-game format). That either game 2 never happens or it has so little time left that it doesn't get to the stage where either side can win on the tiebreaker criteria. Essentially, if you're slow ENOUGH, then you can try to force it to be equivalent to a one game format. But, stalling may carry risks that if you let the game go an extra turn to eat up the clock your opponent may pull something out of his hat. Or maybe that makes no sense and you just can't be that slow? Talking theory here.
Risking giving your opponent extra turns so you can drag out the game is strategy (for better or for worse) of the player. Not a folly in best of 3.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
However, as Marius is loudly hinting at (and I agree), counting stories does slight against slow decks. Especially Mill decks who don't win stories at all! By this token, the new tournament rules actually make things worse for very slow decks!!!!
Maybe not everyone has caught that point yet. So there it is in bold, unlderlined and italic text with ALL-CAPS-RAGE!:
THE CURRENT TOURNAMENT RULES MAKE IT HARDER FOR SLOW (ESPECIALLY MILLING) STRATEGIES TO WIN!!!! THEY DO NOT MAKE IT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD SO MORE DECKS TYPES CAN BE VIABLE!!!!!!
lol, all caps rage.
Seriously. None of the changes help slow decks. If we want an actual, for realz, level playing field that doesn't slight any of our current strategies... We need best of 3 with a 60+ minute time limit for swiss rounds and best of 3 with no time limit for single elimination rounds. We would need a tiebreaker that uses 'number of wins' to determine a match winner and no story counting to determine unfinished game 1's and 3's. 1-5 turn overtime rules should apply.
Getting at least that would make me a happier tournament player. Remove mulligans and you've got yourself a deal. Now... show of hands. Who knows why mulligans are bad? And what the ACTUAL effect(s) they have on games is?
Magnus Arcanis said:
Now... show of hands. Who knows why mulligans are bad? And what the ACTUAL effect(s) they have on games is?
Well, mulligans help inconsistent decks to function. Encourages combo based decks.
No mulligan requires a more balanced, consistent deck.
Note I'm not saying mulligans are good or bad.
Mulligans changes the balance away from Strategy, towards Tactics - The game moves a little bit towards more short-term thinking. To me, the 'problem' is that mulligans seem like an artificial fix, even though it's neither good nor bad. Sure, it allows you to get away with more things. Things can move towards more variance, instead of streamlined precicion in deckbuilding.
Good or bad is relative. It makes tournaments less 'hardcore' and more 'accessible.' Not a fan of the whole process, but accessibility is also a useful trait for a game.
As I think about it, mulligans also favor the more experienced player. With more experience it is easier to determine if a hand should be kept or not, whereas the less experienced player might not be able to make such a decision as effectively.
So the mulligan disadvantages the neophyte.
Marius said:
If you play a deck of 50 cards, that means that after resourcing, you'll have 42 cards in your deck. Drawing 2 per turn means that the game ends in 21 turns latest.
Just two examples from the top of my head.
Regarding the mulligan:
It allows you to play a deck that isn't particularly well-balanced, e.g. a deck that has too few low-cost characters or relies on a(n early) combo (like the Magah Bird + Seventy Steps). I don't think it favours more experienced players. As someone already mentioned, an experienced player probably has a well-balanced deck that will work regardless of the starting hand. Less experienced players are much more likely to rely on a one-trick-pony strategy.
jhaelen said:
Marius said:
I don't think it favours more experienced players. As someone already mentioned, an experienced player probably has a well-balanced deck that will work regardless of the starting hand. Less experienced players are much more likely to rely on a one-trick-pony strategy.
Consider two players with the same deck - one experience and one not. The experienced player will be able to judge the need for a mulligan more effectively than the neophyte, gaining yet another advantage (in addition to the many associated with experience!).
TheProfessor said:
Consider two players with the same deck - one experience and one not. The experienced player will be able to judge the need for a mulligan more effectively than the neophyte, gaining yet another advantage (in addition to the many associated with experience!).
Do you agree?
You can make the same statement using every card in the game, resulting in a trusim: Every card that is beneficial to a neophyte will be even more beneficial to an experienced player.
Now let's look at the mulligan rule:
If an experience player can put together a deck that will work well regardless of the player's starting hand and the neophyte player is only capable of putting together a deck that will work 50% of the time, depending on the cards in his starting hand, who's going to benefit more from the mulligan rule?
The experienced player probably won't care either way, since the starting hand doesn't decide the game (unless the game is currently suffering from a broken combo), but for the neophyte player this is a huge advantage even if it's not quite huge enough to win him the game.
How do you win against a better player? You don't, unless you're lucky. Mulligan increases the chance to get a 'lucky' start.
jhaelen said:
If an experience player can put together a deck that will work well regardless of the player's starting hand and the neophyte player is only capable of putting together a deck that will work 50% of the time, depending on the cards in his starting hand, who's going to benefit more from the mulligan rule?
...
Mulligan increases the chance to get a 'lucky' start.
Yes. Combo decks benefit from the Mulligan rule more than consistent decks do. And I've certainly played with experience players who have used Combo decks and inexperienced player who use consistent decks. In my limited experience the neophyte tends to have a more consistent, curve driven deck because they need that grounding in security to play. The Combo decks are usually only tried by experienced players because they are tricky to pull off.
But, if there was no mulligan, the experienced player would not use a combo deck that is inconsistent of course, because it reduces their chance of a "lucky start".
What a fascinating thread. It's quite interesting to note the general differences in opinion and practicality between the LCGs.
That said, in regards to the more recent mulligan rule, I have to say that I'm in favor. I've something of a soft spot for combos and newbs (go figure) so anything that help them achieve something closer to parity with min/max- ers recieves my approval.
Mulligans are nice because these increase the quality of the games you play, which helps you become a better player. Games are not fun or exciting because my opponent draw a hand of all expensive stuff, or a hand that just doesn't work. Good decks, even great decks can get bad draws and I am glad that the mulligan is there.
Mulligans add another dimension to the game, do you keep your good hand or do you try to mulligan into a descendant =p Everyone brings up that mulligan decks help inconsistent decks but they also make sure that highly tuned decks never misfire. I would argue that the mulligan adds a layer of complexity that make the game more fun and challenging.
Magnus Arcanis said:
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.
Except if your deck is really just designed to stall out the game you might not win fast enough, or get your lock soon enough and then you are in a hole. You could try to slow play your game... but of course that can get you DQ'ed.
Magnus Arcanis said:
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.
For the last two FAQ's you had the ability to move an attachment you took control of to your side... the problem was you could only move it to your side, meaning a card you controlled. So the change here is really now you can just legally attach it to any legal card regardless of who controls it. Much better.
Penfold said:
Magnus Arcanis said:
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.
For the last two FAQ's you had the ability to move an attachment you took control of to your side... the problem was you could only move it to your side, meaning a card you controlled. So the change here is really now you can just legally attach it to any legal card regardless of who controls it. Much better.
Turns out... its been longer than that. v1.0 under gaining control specifically mentions re-attaching equipment... means I've been playin that wrong for overy 3 years now. Fantastic. My bad on that one. Not sure if it thats the way it was in the CCG days or not though...
So... based on (at least) lcg rules the latest change/fix is good.
However... I'm still of the opinion that the unattaching/reattaching of attachments when control is switched should be apart of the card's effect not a hard rule. Just makes more sense and seem cleaner to me.
Penfold said:
Magnus Arcanis said:
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.
Except if your deck is really just designed to stall out the game you might not win fast enough, or get your lock soon enough and then you are in a hole. You could try to slow play your game... but of course that can get you DQ'ed.
If you don't win fast enough then your deck is too slow. Best of 1 or best of 3 doesn't matter.
If you don't get your defense online... your losing. Best of X doesn't matter.
Good point on the slow play though. Just want to point out to everyone, when I (and others in this thread) talk about slow decks we don't mean people playing slow to drag out a move/turn/game/match/etc. Some strategies... simply take a long time before before they can generate a win (especially when their opponent struggles). Don't cheat. Its bad and I won't be your friend.
As for the mulligans... you guys brought up some of the points but suppose its time I delve a little. I'll try and keep it short.
Mulligans came to exsistance for one basic reason. Sometimes a game would be unplayable based on an initial starting hand. So mulligans were introduced so that this at least happened less.
You see, when I've said a bad hand... I mean unplayable or near unplayable. I have a feeling most of you meant a suboptimal hand. LIke... you drew to many copies of a unique card, or you didn't find one of the combo pieces, or you didn't get one your deck's better opening hands.
To elaborate with our common example, magic the gathering needs mulligans because sometimes(a lot of times) you draw too many lands, not enough lands, or any lands at all! So the person who too easily doesn't get a playable opening hand will be at a near imsurmountable disadvantage if they get to play at all. Which is just aweful, thus they added mulligans. In MTG, you don't mulligan(often) because you didn't get your good card, you do it because you can't play the game the way it was meant to be played.
Call of Cthulhu doesn't have this problem! The ONLY time that CoC comes into a similiar area is when you don't draw anything under 3 cost. Which... unless you did it on purpose, it doesn't happen to often. In fact every card over the 9th that costs 3 or more grants a small chance that you won't find any of your cheaper cards on the first turn. The percentage of the time that you will only find high cost cards is rather small so I'm not saying that decks should never include more than 9 3+ cost cards, but part of the deck building process that used to be apart of this game was the risk you took for each high cost card you included in your deck.
Honestly, its no mistake as to why the difference in power between 2- and 3+ cards is so massive. Honestly, its huge! So in case anyone hasn't noticed yet I'll point out that part (a small part) of the balance of this game is that risk. While mulligans don't remove this risk completely it does greatly marginalize it.
Thats pretty much why its not needed. However, I'm of the opinion its actually harmful in more ways than its positive for CoC.
Mulligans tend to have the effect of making good cards overpowering, average cards barely effective (if at all competitive). Take for instance Endless Interrogation. Without mulligans (back in '09) it was a good card, but what I found during my own testing is when I got it was great, but if didn't draw it early it was usless or at best I would only get one card so I cut it. Granted, I still believed back then it was a bannable card, but I didn't believe that my deck at the time could handle bad top decks. Then in 2010, mullgians were introduced. So now the odds that I could draw Endless Interrogation early enough were greatly increased making it too good to pass up and it of course was immediately banned .
In essence, a powerful card in a mulligan enviroment became game breaking. Of course thats an extreme example, but it holds true for multiple if not all examples. Hoser cards become more powerful if you have the pre-game knowledge to make use of them and grants pre-game knowledge even more power. Strong combat cards, especially the non-unique ones, get a significant incease of power over even slightly weaker combat cards because of the increased odds that they will show up early and often. Also, niche cards go from moderately useful to possibly unbalancing.
Things in the ground would be a good example of a niche card that gains a ton power from mulligans. A TitG deck often fills its coffers with large intimidating character cards which are often unplayable until much later in the game. However, with mulligans the odds that I don't have TitG to cheat those large characters into play goes down significantly. Which is why we see it on the restricted list. Though, mulligans aren't the only reason... as I still think it has the potential to be banned at some point. But in a mulligan-less world TitG is much closer to being balanced.
The game worked fine for 5+ years without a mulligan. Sure every now and then someone would get a hand they didn't want, but by adding best of 3 that person could still make a comeback. Which is one of MANY reasons why I think best of 3 and no mulligans is better than best of 1 with mullgians.
Best argument so far to keep mulligans is that its more fun to get your good cards earlier and more often. No, if we're sacrficing some game balance for more fun and I can't substitute with best of 3... then... well... all I can do is furiously sit on my hands and play within the rules. Which I will do this year, but I still think that this is a step back in cthulhu's progression. This game just doesn't need a mulligan especially if best of 3 is involved.
Magnus Arcanis said:
So... based on (at least) lcg rules the latest change/fix is good.
However... I'm still of the opinion that the unattaching/reattaching of attachments when control is switched should be apart of the card's effect not a hard rule. Just makes more sense and seem cleaner to me.
I agree with this completely. I actually ran across Damon in a regional a month or so back and he said he didn't like this rule either. He mad some mention of polling players at GenCon about this rule in general and see if people felt that changing the rule would be a positive idea. Sadly I won't be making it this year, but hopefully some of you will be able to engage him in conversation about this stuff.
Taking control of the attachment just feels very strange to me. Likely that's because I come from an AGOT background where that doesn't happen, but really, attachments are already a weak enough card type, does there have to be another way to 2 for 1 them?
Well, it might be a little late now, but I wanted to commed Damon on listening to his player/tournament organizers. While I don't agree with a few of the changes made (espeically for the reasons given) it still warrents a pat on the back for trying to do what (at least some of) the community wanted.
Its definately a better way to interact (despite some lashings from people like myself, sorry about that) than the snub that a few previous FFG staff members (and I'm not talking about Hata and I'm certainly not limiting this to only CoC game designers either) had given us.
So while I may have been a little rash with my 'constructive criticism' I do want to make it perfectly clear that I appreciate the effort.
When all sides work together is how things can truely start to heal.
DO OVERS are weak. The arguments above are correct and brilliant, excellent points I would have failed to notice (love the point about Endless Interrogation, evaporated though it is). Mulligans may be better for newbs (or pros as argued) and most importantly general game happiness.
I'm just not buying. In the vicious world of mythos, you'd best prepare to lose something. Oh, except if your playing LCG Cthulhu. Just have a pb & j and a glass of milk and do it over. And invite your 21 month old niece. Don't worry. Everybody's welcome. FAQ 1.6 will enact the open hand rule anyway.
In tennis (which is not too macho) you can fault a serve once. For mulligans that's about it for serious games. And ours is a card game, for Hastur's sake! You're going to draw a dud. I'd prefer that a riskier deck or a combo deck suffer the disadvantage than to feel like I'm playing parcheeesi (which probably does not have a mulligan rule, but just sounds like a good example).
Maybe it's because I am one of those neophites or sycophants or neo-sick-o oliphants the prof is aluding to. Hey, it takes all cultists. (oh and boston is definitely beating philly this year.)
Now, speaking of which, baseball has the infinite foul a pitch rule, but you earn it by making contact.
"Cthulu will devour you!"
"Oh, in that case, I'm taking a do-over."
Did Bill Buckner get a do over? Did Charles Dexter Ward? I think not.
Lame. Do-overs. I feel like if Texas hold 'em dudes were in the room we'd all get smacked and taunted and lose our fantasy game store sh*tty pizza and mr pibs money. That's what happens when you act like you're ten.
Oh man, Johnny Shoes. We Have missed you.
On a side note concerning mulligans: Where was all this ire last year from Magnus when the rule was first introduced?
216.139.243.236/edge_foros_discusion.asp
Just giving ya some crap, Magnus.
