Author Topic: Rule Proposal: One Deck  (Read 8187 times)

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Rule Proposal: One Deck
« on: March 26, 2013, 11:59:49 AM »
0
I propose that in future tournaments, we eliminate the current rule which bases the number of decks you can enter on the number of rounds being players. I propose the following rule be used instead:

"Each player may enter one deck."

I believe this rule has several main benefits:
-allows players with smaller collections to build on the same level as those of us with huge collections
-eliminates Haman's plot abuse in small 50ish card decks
-prevents players from entering "tech decks" designed to beat specific matchups (i.e. Shride vs Maly)
-forces more creative deck building - no more building one deck without certain counters and just switching decks if you learn the meta of the tournament
-faster deck checking
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 12:19:27 PM by Alex_Olijar »

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Youth Minister
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2582
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2013, 12:03:36 PM »
-1
Could this include a 15 card sideboard that you could switch in and out of the deck between rounds?

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2013, 12:04:15 PM »
0
Signed.
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2013, 12:05:30 PM »
0
Could this include a 15 card sideboard that you could switch in and out of the deck between rounds?

It could. That's a more complex rule that I don't really want to tackle right now. I think that a One Deck rule would benefit Redemption (especially T1) without any other rulings being made, while also opening up the possibility for later, more complex, potentially beneficial rulings.

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2013, 12:07:16 PM »
0
How many decks can you check at tournaments for other CCGs? I only play Magic casually and have not played in a tournament to know.

Kirk
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Youth Minister
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2582
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2013, 12:09:16 PM »
0
Just saying that the 15 card side board would assuage the cries of being stuck with one deck the whole tournament, especially if what you thought would work in the local meta game isn't working. Not sure why this would be complex since the deck would still need to be legal (i.e. if a lost soul is sided out then a replacement lost soul would need to be sided back in).

Kirk: You can only check in one deck with a 15 card sideboard.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 12:11:48 PM by uthminister [BR] »

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2013, 12:09:43 PM »
0
How many decks can you check at tournaments for other CCGs? I only play Magic casually and have not played in a tournament to know.

Kirk

Pokemon: 1
Yu-gi-oh: 1 (with sideboarding/extras)

I think Magic is one as well but I'm not totally sure.

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2013, 12:11:29 PM »
0
MtG is one as well. I do not know of any other CCG that uses more than one main deck.
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2013, 12:12:42 PM »
0
Okay that makes a lot more sense why secrecy is not a part of other games. You are stuck with the 1 deck you check no matter what. Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.

Would make players think twice about checking a defensive monster.

Kirk
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2013, 12:16:05 PM »
0
Okay that makes a lot more sense why secrecy is not a part of other games. You are stuck with the 1 deck you check no matter what. Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.

True. But it also makes you think twice about building a deck without X counter and just hoping you don't see that deck.

Quote
Would make players think twice about checking a defensive monster.

Or that 51 card speed demon that can only block with HP.

Just saying that the 15 card side board would assuage the cries of being stuck with one deck the whole tournament, especially if what you thought would work in the local meta game isn't working. Not sure why this would be complex since the deck would still need to be legal (i.e. if a lost soul is sided out then a replacement lost soul would need to be sided back in).

Kirk: You can only check in one deck with a 15 card sideboard.

I don't really know if we should reward richer players who make bad meta calls with the ability to just change decks and suddenly be fine and dandy again.

Offline STAMP

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 5014
  • Redemption brings Freedom
    • -
    • Northwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #10 on: March 26, 2013, 12:16:28 PM »
+2
This deck-checker gives a double  :thumbup:  :thumbup:
Final ANB errata: Return player to game.

Offline Josh

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
    • -
    • East Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2013, 12:17:05 PM »
0
Signed.
If creation sings Your praises so will I
If You gave Your life to love them so will I

Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2013, 12:18:02 PM »
0
Signed.
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2013, 12:18:58 PM »
+1
This deck-checker gives a double  :thumbup:  :thumbup:

This is a great plus as well.

Offline Master KChief

  • Trade Count: (+9)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6963
  • Greatness, at any cost.
    • -
    • North Central Region
    • GameStop
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2013, 12:20:23 PM »
0
Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.

Not saying this is a bad tactic, but its a state of the game I don't agree with. Checking in multiple decks and picking one based on knowing your next matchup is essentially between-round siding, with a distinct unfair advantage to the person that does so vs the person that doesn't. It's why I favor traditional siding far more, as both players are allowed to see their opponents deck before having the opportunity to side for Game 2.
"If it weren't for people with bad decision making skills, I'd have to get a real job." - Reynad

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Youth Minister
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2582
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #15 on: March 26, 2013, 12:21:08 PM »
-1
You are not rewarding anyone. You are simply allowing a little more flexibility. We are talking about going from three complete decks down to one with 15 extra cards.

Everyone: quit signing it; we are still discussing it  ;)

MKC: I totally agree with you. If Redemption games were only a little quicker we could do a best two out of three. What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 12:23:44 PM by uthminister [BR] »

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #16 on: March 26, 2013, 12:22:45 PM »
0
You are not rewarding anyone. You are simply allowing a little more flexibility. We are talking about going from three complete decks down to one with 15 extra cards.

Everyone: quit signing it; we are still discussing it  ;)

You are reward players who can build 3 complete decks. That's a huge gap. See below:

Checking 3 decks begs for players to figure out their upcoming matchups and choose decks accordingly for later rounds.

Not saying this is a bad tactic, but its a state of the game I don't agree with. Checking in multiple decks and picking one based on knowing your next matchup is essentially between-round siding, with a distinct unfair advantage to the person that does so vs the person that doesn't.


Offline Captain Kirk

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+29)
  • *****
  • Posts: 3835
  • Combo? Yes please.
    • -
    • Midwest Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #17 on: March 26, 2013, 12:25:15 PM »
0
Not saying this is a bad tactic, but its a state of the game I don't agree with. Checking in multiple decks and picking one based on knowing your next matchup is essentially between-round siding, with a distinct unfair advantage to the person that does so vs the person that doesn't. It's why I favor traditional siding far more, as both players are allowed to see their opponents deck before having the opportunity to side for Game 2.

I would like to point out that the rules state players are supposed to pick decks before knowing their opponents but I have witnessed the opposite happen before and you can often have a pretty good guess at your opponent anyways. I think it would be good for the game to get rid of checking 3 decks.

Good point Travis - I just wanted to express I have interest in getting rid of 3 decks. :)

Kirk
Friends don't let friends play T1 multi.

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Youth Minister
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2582
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #18 on: March 26, 2013, 12:26:38 PM »
+2
We are saying the same thing. Current system rewards those with deep pockets. Proposed system with sideboard would reward those people with deep pockets considerably less and would still allow for the flexibility to modify your one deck if need be. Not everyone can make the right call in deck building the first time like you can Alex.  :P

Offline Ken4Christ4ever

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+64)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
  • Three Lions Gaming + Goodruby Christian Bookstore
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Three Lions Gaming
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #19 on: March 26, 2013, 12:27:38 PM »
+1
I am in favor of getting rid of multiple decks, and since we don't have 'best of 3' matches, I'm not sure where sideboarding would fit in...

browarod

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2013, 12:29:16 PM »
0
I am in favor of getting rid of multiple decks, and since we don't have 'best of 3' matches, I'm not sure where sideboarding would fit in...
I think they're bringing that up as a possible future step AFTER reducing checked decks to 1.

I also would be in favor of this change.

Offline Alex_Olijar

  • 16plus
  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • *
  • Posts: 8124
  • This guy is my mascot
    • -
    • Northeast Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2013, 12:30:00 PM »
0
We are saying the same thing. Current system rewards those with deep pockets. Proposed system with sideboard would reward those people with deep pockets considerably less and would still allow for the flexibility to modify your one deck if need be. Not everyone can make the right call in deck building the first time like you can Alex.  :P

I agree with what you are saying about the sideboarding and would support it, but I would want to seperate it from this idea, which is great even without sideboarding in my opinion.

Offline uthminister [BR]

  • Youth Minister
  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+19)
  • *****
  • Posts: 2582
  • Jesus Loves Gamers!
    • -
    • South Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2013, 12:30:37 PM »
0
What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.

At least this is what I proposed as a way to use the sideboard.

Alex: I don't like the idea apart from side boarding. That is why I am suggesting it.  8)

Offline Professoralstad

  • Tournament Host, Redemption Elder
  • Trade Count: (+47)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10841
  • Everything is Awesome!
    • -
    • North Central Region
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2013, 12:38:42 PM »
+2
My only reservation is that it removes the appeal of checking in an experimental deck and a more standard meta deck. I know in 2011 Nats Prof U used an experimental deck that he used for a few rounds before switching to his more standard speed deck which allowed him to take 4th. Some/most may say that's a good thing, but as someone who likes to try out non-standard decks but also likes to win, it would be kind of sad to at least a few of us. A standard, reliable, speed deck is like Alex Smith. It's going to win more often than not. But an experimental deck could be Kaepernick, or it could be Joe Webb. The variety of decks would be restricted even more than it was last year.

I'll admit it does have advantages, but I will have to be convinced more before I could support the idea. Allowing a sideboard would definitely help convince me to support it, but I'm not sure if sideboards are really all that important without 2 out of 3 (which I think everyone agrees can't be done logistically in a Redemption tournament).
Press 1 for more options.

Offline Ken4Christ4ever

  • Tournament Host
  • Trade Count: (+64)
  • *****
  • Posts: 1751
  • Three Lions Gaming + Goodruby Christian Bookstore
    • -
    • Southwest Region
    • Three Lions Gaming
Re: Rule Proposal: One Deck
« Reply #24 on: March 26, 2013, 12:40:08 PM »
0
What if players were able to look at their opponents deck before playing them and then siding out without their opponent seeing those changes.

At least this is what I proposed as a way to use the sideboard.

Alex: I don't like the idea apart from side boarding. That is why I am suggesting it.  8)

Sorry, I missed that. This will make things take longer, but I don't have a preference for or against it at first thought. :)

 


SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal