Commander Tournament Survey - please participate
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on April 5, 2013, 11:04 a.m. by Epochalyptik
Thank you for taking the time to read this post.
I am a university student currently researching possible structures for a free-for-all Commander tournament. This work is part of an ongoing assignment for my technical writing class, and my research will culminate in a report that (hopefully) proposes a list of guidelines tournament organizers can use to host Commander events.
In order to get player opinion about what is a player-driven game and format, I have created two surveys. Each has only nine multiple-choice questions, and I would greatly appreciate if you could take some time to complete them. The first survey deals with personal experiences and opinions about Commander, and the second survey deals with philosophies on possible Commander tournament structures.
Commander Tournament Survey, Part I
Commander Tournament Survey, Part II
Additionally, if you would like to post here with your thoughts on Commander tournament structure, the feasibility of Commander in a tournament environment, or anything else you might find relevant, please do so. Include in your post whether you give consent to be referenced or quoted in a formal report (you will be referenced by username unless you would like to provide your actual name).
Again, thank you for your time, and keep on playing!
Papdaddy_44 says... #2
I like way you guys play, cause I really see infect as a problem, cause 10 infect damage is so easy to do. Come on a few hits from Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon and its over. ResurrectedSage I like it the way that you addressed it. I guess thats true with both cards.
April 8, 2013 6:34 p.m.
ResurrectedSage says... #3
It's just how I view it, but the fact that those are basic to me means that others who can use Green and Black better than me. Hell, I run a Skithiryx, the Blight Dragon
deck so that part is kinda annoying to me.
April 8, 2013 7:56 p.m.
Well, you need to deal 40 instead of 20 normal damage to kill someone, so it makes sense to me that you'd need 20 instead of 10 poison counters to do the same thing.
April 8, 2013 8:18 p.m.
Papdaddy_44 says... #5
yea... i got him in my Kaalia deck as another win con for the deck.
April 8, 2013 9:45 p.m.
theemptyquiver says... #6
Poison counts are not a life total though. It's a death mechanic.
I think ratio-wise the argument to increase it makes sense, but for the game mechanic it does not.
Your life total can fluctuate up and down in the game, so where it starts is a bit arbitrary. 20 is standard, but higher amounts are used depending on formats During the game a life total could decrease by 10 only to increase by 20 next turn.
Poison counters are not a life total. They are counters, and the game mechanic states 10 will be fatal. If its changed to accommodate one game format the mechanic is irreparably broken.
Why would it makes sense or an EDH playing planeswalker to be twice as resilient to poison counters?
April 8, 2013 9:54 p.m.
ResurrectedSage says... #7
I dunno, that's just how we play. I know it's part of a game mechanic, but if that flipside were to be true, I know a buddy who would just play Infect G/B and use every unblockable trick in the book/life use trick.
April 8, 2013 10:44 p.m.
@theemptyquiver
Because the format being set at 40 life is designed to make it so the rounds take longer, and allow for late-game big bombs to feature in a way they rarely do in faster formats.
You're functionally dividing every creature's power by 1/2 by doubling life totals. By that same token, creatures with infect would be dealing half the damage, and thus half the poison counters. So doubling the needed poison to 20 keeps the scale the same.
Also, it is MUCH easier to do 10 poison compared to 40 regular damage than it is to deal 10 poison compared to 20 regular damage.
April 8, 2013 10:48 p.m.
@hiddengibbons: No, you wouldn't do Swiss style for pods. I mean you would do 1v1 Swiss, with players being divided into pods after a few rounds. So rather than having time limits on four-man pods, you can finish the tourney in a timely manner and let people play more games.
@SaberTech: That's why I think there needs to be an updated banlist. Trying to decide when it's appropriate to use an infinite combo and when it's not seems so arbitrary. What if someone just sits there for 40 minutes with the combo in hand, stalls the game, then goes off the second the judge says they will no longer be penalized? The easier solution, to me anyway, would be to ban common two and three card combos, plus their respective support cards. If someone manages to combo off with an eight card combo, it's more of an achievement.
@Bobgalarneau: Purely competitive tournaments have always benefited each format in Magic. It gives a better idea of what's truly broken and ban-worthy, and what isn't. It also gives less experienced players a better idea of how to improve their skills and their decks. There's a reason the Black Lotus doesn't see play in casual games, and it has nothing to do with its price. It's that years of competitive play have shown what a broken card it is to the point more casual players don't want to play against it.
April 9, 2013 2:38 a.m.
@sylvannos: The issue with an updated ban list is that there's nothing wrong with competitive EDH. I see combos as a good thing due to the massive amount of time that an EDH game can eat up without combos to end them. I'm personally not a fan of decks that depend on combos as their sole win condition, and while I play decks with infinite combos I run them in a "oh hey, I actually get to pull this combo off" sort of sense. Regardless, I think that even unfairly efficient combos have a place in EDH so banning them right out of the format isn't something that I agree with. The competitive players should have a chance to play the way they like to as well.
The problem is keeping the casual players and the competitive players separate in tournament settings. Keeping players with expensive, fine tuned decks from preying on the more casual crowd is tough. You could go with an in-house banned list for tournaments aimed at less competitive players but that tends to not work out well because people often forget to read the rules before showing up, which ends with disgruntled players because they only expect the official banned list. I wonder if a ranking system based on competitiveness could be developed that gives a rough outline that tournament hosts could use to express the types of deck levels that they wish to have in their tournament?
In regards to your comment about my time rule suggestion and a player stalling the game long enough for him or her to combo; I think that typical tournament Slow Play rules in combination with the rule of allowing combos the turn after the announcement is given (so it doesn't benefit the active player to stall on their turn) should keep that sort of play in line. If the combo player survives that long then there is still the matter of people being ready for combos once the announcement is given. The idea behind my suggestion is that it encourages more rounded deck designs because a deck doesn't benefit from being super fine-tuned to combo early, which gives more causal decks a chance to build up and get into the game before the haymakers start flying.
April 9, 2013 4:49 a.m.
hiddengibbons says... #11
with regards to poison in Commander, I think in a sanctioned tournament where a prize is awarded to the winner, people are going to want to play something that wins easy. If the amount of poison counters required to eliminate someone is 10, then Infect as a competitive tournament deck in Commander would become so prevalent that there would be a lack of deck diversity. Even if they change the requirement to 20 poison counters, its still easier to do 20 poison damage to someone rather than 40 regular damage or even that silly damage from a general. Furthermore, 1 game rounds would eliminate sideboarding and because there are so few cards in Magic that combat poison and remove poison counters from a player, I think they should ban Poison/Infect from sanctioned Commander tournaments. Lastly, the reason I recommend 1 game rounds is because I don't see how there could be more than 1 game per round in a multiplayer game with pods of 4+ people. In that situation it would have to be best 3 of 5 or worse.
April 9, 2013 1:32 p.m.
@ Epochalyptik: Is there anything else that you were hoping to see discussed in this thread?
theemptyquiver says... #1
whoa...that guy is quite a fanatic! haha
April 8, 2013 4:58 p.m.