Simple translation question
Commander (EDH) forum
Posted on June 19, 2018, 1:04 p.m. by DerSchlund
Hi there,
I have a rather simple question wich is based on the fact, that I'm from germany and therefore english is not my first language.
I'm about to start an EDH league in my playgroup and befor developing my own rules I wanted to simply adopt rules from existing leagues who have more experience than me. So I decided to adopt the rules from Luan Phams league in Orlando which were discribed from Kya Vess' article on EDHrec (link:http://articles.edhrec.com/bringing-magic-to-life-creating-an-edh-league/)
Long story short: I don't understand the following (house) rule
"– all points for infinite combos, or combinations beyond 3-4 interactions between multiple cards at once"
So as I said... english is not my first language, thats why I don't understand what "combinations beyond 3-4 interactions between multiple cards at once" means.
Has someone an example for me? Could it mean: One creature enters the battlefield under my control and causes 4 permanents of mine to trigger? Sounds a bit strict to me...
I would be grateful for any help!
I read it as card A triggers card B which triggers card C which triggers card D which triggers card E which wins me the game.
June 19, 2018 3:49 p.m.
In this system, there are methods of gaining points, which will be used to determine the ultimate winner. Per this rule, you can lose every point you've earned thus-far if you do one of the following:
-
You create an infinite combo. Under a pure textural reading of the rule as written, this combo DOES NOT have to win you the game. You could get infinite Scry 1, and would still lose you all your points. The rule, as written, does not state that the combo has to actually go infinite, just that it is triggered. I agree with DrukenReaps that this is a tad toxic as it limits deck options.
-
You use three or four different cards in the same interaction. This is what DruneGrey discussed in more detail.
June 19, 2018 4:02 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #5
As I read it you are docked all your points for either performing an infinite combo (for example Ashnod's Altar+Sword of the Meek+Thopter Foundry) or for performing an interaction between cards more than four times (Sword of the Meek+Thopter Foundry without infinite mana, but paying more than 4 mana in any one step). But somehow you can pay as much mana as you want into Luminarch Ascension.
In case you couldn't tell I don't like rules that completely cut out one of the three major archetypes of magic. I always want to play a highly tuned Doomsday list against people that complain about infinites. "I won without infinites on turn 3, can you please not bitch about my Oloro that wins via infinites on turn 12."
June 20, 2018 12:26 p.m.
Agreed, Gidgetimer. That's why our playgroups for EDH only follow the rules on mtgcommander.net, with no houserules to alter them. If someone runs a deck that ends up completely trashing everyone else at the table time after time, then things just have a tendency to go a bit Archenemy for a while. But generally everyone's pretty good about keeping it casual and fun.
And yeah, if a deck that wins turn 3 without infinites is fine but a deck that goes infinite turn 12 isn't, then the houserule isn't doing its job.
June 20, 2018 9:07 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #7
The only house rule my group has actually stemmed from something I was doing voluntarily because my major psychographic is diversity gamer Timmy. Once a deck wins a game it is soft banned for the night. If someone wins a game with every deck they own (fewest in our group is three) then they can choose any deck again but it gets soft banned after it wins. This allows people to play what they want without fear of any one deck dominating.
June 20, 2018 10:44 p.m.
DrukenReaps says... #8
Gidgetimer that actually seems like an awesome house rule, I may suggest it to my group. Though I think making new decks exempt for a game night or 2 would be a good idea so that people can test out what works quickly.
June 20, 2018 11:04 p.m.
I like that house rule too. It still gives people a chance to play their decks, without letting them dominate.
June 20, 2018 11:40 p.m.
DerSchlund says... #10
Ok I didn't want to start a discussion about IF a rule thats banning combo is useful or not... but here we are.
But first let me say, that I still have problems with understanding the specific paragraph "combinations beyond 3-4 interactions between multiple cards at once". I know what infinite combos are and how the point system works. But isn't there a huge difference between the rule as interpreted by DruneGrey and interpreted by DrukenReaps with using an infinite combo more than 2 or 3 times?
To the topic of the usefulness:
The discussion about combo in EDh pops up evertime and I have seen multiple arguments in the internet about it, when talking about leagues. But no one seems to realize the following...
The goal of a EDH league doesn't have to be a competition in skill!
Simply speaking this kind of league works whith a rewarding system. So you have to decide what you want to be rewarded and why. If I wanted to have a competition in skill of playing the game, I didn't need all this achievement and bartering stuff. I want to have an environment where players can try out new stuff and get creative in deckbuilding without worrying about losing or winning. I also want players to have games that they want to tell and remember about rather than want to forget about. The problem with combo is, that it's simply to efficient in taking down all you opponents. In a game that wants to encourage players to interact with each other, in the game as well as socially, comboing out thats down this part of the game way to easy. The argument about beeing toxic in shutting down an entire archetype and limiting deck options is imo a little hypocritical, cause shutting down combo decks but at the same time establish a rewarding system that rewards janky stuff opens up a whole lot of other options.
I'm aware that these league rules are far from perfect. I'm not naive! I already can see another deck type which is way more unfun than combo, that don't get any restrictions... stacks. Fortunately everbody in our playgroup hates stacks so there is no need to deal with this... yet.
I don't hate combo. I have played with enough combos decks myself and had fun building and playing with them. But if your are ambitious you can tune these decks to a point where it's just to dominant and all other players have to play against you at first to have fun in the game. There is another way to think about combo decks: If the goal of the league is to have players a narrative experience making deals and work together in ways you normaly wouldn't is an integral part of the game. Cause you have to manage your resource different. Combo decks cheat there way around that part of the game by pressing the win button at the right time, without interacting with other players at all.
I think a compromise would be, that you can use your infinite combo not more than 4 times a turn (so 16 times a turn cycle). This way your combo can swing the game in your favour very quickly but other players have at least a chance to react.
I'm interested in what you guys have to say and please don't forget the first question :)
June 21, 2018 9:06 a.m.
To answer your first question, I think there are two problems in this rule as written.
First, it properly is two different rules combined into one, which is extremely poor (but quite common) statutory construction.
The first rule, on its face, seems easy--going infinite loses all your points. Unfortunately, it's not clear how that is done. Is simply activating the infinite combo enough, even if you do not carry through? Do you have to actually go infinite? From the text it is not exactly clear.
The second rule is a bit more complicated. Personally, I read it to mean you can't simultaneously have 3-4 interactions between multiple cards, based on interpreting "interaction" as how two cards trigger off one another, and the term "at once" to mean all these interactions must occur simultaneously. I read the rule as a method of cutting down on hard-to-explain combos with a considerable number of pieces.
But that's not a 100% perfect reading. You could count the entire combo involving 4-5 cards as a single "interaction." Personally, I don't think that's a correct reading, but I know there are plenty of people who do. Then, "at once" would not mean "while all these items are on the stack" but rather "one after another after another."
The entire thing is extremely vague, fails to define critical terms, and subject to multiple interpretations. Based on my experiences, whoever wrote this has a promising career in local government.
I would recommend determining what you want to prohibit, and then writing your own rules. When it comes to rules, more is more--trying to jam multiple rules into the same paragraph to save space ultimately ends up with unintended consequences.
I think your rule limiting the numbers of use of a combo would do as you intend, without overly limiting deckbuilding.
However, rather than punish someone for playing a deck they want, you can instead reward individuals for thinking outside the box. Since this is a point-based system with achievements, you can simply add some achievements for individuals to strive for, where the points for completing them might justify using a "worse" deck.
For some examples:
-
Awarding points for using lower-tiered generals from this list: [List - Multiplayer] EDH Generals by Tier.
-
Award points for using alternate win conditions (Felidar Soverign, Chance Encounter, etc.).
-
Points designed for less-played archetypes (Mill, stealing other's creatures).
-
Points for helping other players (ex. Fog or Donate effects).
June 21, 2018 9:37 a.m.
Gidgetimer says... #12
The problem with settling on one of the two interpretations is that the rule is poorly written and we can't speak to the intent of the author. Both interpretations are correct since "at the same time" has no formal definition and could either be "simultaneously" or "within a short amount of time" and the wording is ambiguous on if it is 4 interactions of cards or interaction of 4 cards.
When I made the comment about not liking rules that punish combo I was under the impression that this was a public league and not just between your playgroup as you later made it seem by mentioning that you see a problem with them not addressing stax, but it was ok because your entire playgroup is anti-stax. If this is for a private league have whatever rules and restrictions you want. If it is for a public one I recommend not punishing anyone for playing the way they want or having restrictions limiting how they can play outside the rules of the game.
Docking all points is a very harsh penalty and trivializes all the other things they had done along the way. I think it is much better to reward behavior you want and to make any downside exclusion from earning points rather than penalizing points. I'm not even a fan of limiting the amount of times a loop can be performed since some have no place where they can legally be stopped within the rules of the game. I think it would be better to have something more along the lines of "If a player demonstrates an infinite combo any two of their remaining opponents may award them this achievement and remove them from the game." and have it worth the same amount as winning the pod. This discourages combo by eliminating their chance to score more points and by increasing the overall number of points making their victory worth less in the context of the league, without cheapening their victory. It also allows people to not devote resources to stopping a combo they don't feel they can. You could introduce a similar rule for each behavior you want to discourage (MLD, I win cards, stax, etc)
June 21, 2018 12:26 p.m.
To get a bit unnecessarily philosophical, but I disagree that "both interpretations are correct". More accurately, both interpretations can be correct, but not at the same time. When dealing with an ambiguous situation, the ultimate arbiter of interpretation has the ability to apply the rule however they wish--taking into account factors such as the rulemaker's intent, the justifications for each interpretation, and which interpretation will produce the most desired outcome.
This exact situation is a large part of attorneys exist--court rulings and statutes are not always 100% clear, and you need an expert who can argue the ambiguity should be interpreted in your favour. This leads to some unusual situations, where an individual might argue for Interpretation A one day, but Interpretation B the very next.
Not that I disagree with your ultimate conclusion--that it is poorly written and should be replaced with something more clear or entirely different--I just find discussion of statutory interpretation quite interesting (probably more so than is necessary).
I am not sure I'm a fan of your way of dealing with combos, in that other members of the pod can keep playing. Ultimately, this ends with two members of the given Pod receiving victory-level points, which might skew the ultimate outcome of the tournament.
June 21, 2018 1:24 p.m.
DrukenReaps says... #14
The rule is poorly written and I gave the best explanation of it I could think of but I don't think other explanations are necessarily wrong. As you can see from the above comments you have some interpretations to choose from... I would actually recommend stealing the rules from Star City Games Commander VS series found here about 11 minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA-29TlDrjY&t=935s&index=2&list=PL5d1KNNFArSNNRrpJjhf1WrwwuZqUcg0K
They are very simple and discourage the use of certain types of decks without outright banning them. They can be easily adjusted to better suit your group as time goes on too. I agree with some of the other thoughts above that rewarding points is a better way to do things too, rather than -1 point for X get +1 point for Y.
I didn't mean to cause this whole thing to get off topic... Sorry about that but I think some great ideas have appeared here so bonus points!
June 21, 2018 3:57 p.m.
Gidgetimer says... #15
If "victory level points" is a thing that exists and winning isn't just another achievement I would argue that too much emphasis is already being put on winning for there to be any constraints on deck building. I am firmly in the camp of "the combo deck won, give them the same points as anyone else who won." If you wanted you could award no points, half points, or some sort of three-fifths compromise if you think combo wins are somehow less of wins. I am however firmly against any sort of a penalty.
June 21, 2018 5:48 p.m.
DerSchlund says... #16
Ok, so thank you all for your help! It was very interesting to read all your opinions and I will keep several things in mind.
For the start I will go with the "- all points for repeating an infinite loop more than 3 times". This isn't set in stone, cause to prevent a league from falling apart your have to have your rules adaptable to your playgroup. If to many players see this rule as a hindrance, than I will change it and see how the meta will shift.
DrukenReaps I'm familiar with the Commander VS point system and think it's very cool for a very small playgroup of 4 to 5 players. I have tried it out with friends who I met frequently for EDH. It's very fun! But for the league I'm about to start with 10 to 12 players they are a bit to unexciting in my taste. Don't worry about the off topic stuff. It was interesting to read. If you guys are interested I can report the result of my efforts for my new league. :)
June 22, 2018 8:04 a.m.
Hi DerSchlund, this is Luan Pham from the article you mentioned by Kya Vess. I just want to clear some things up for you that I hope will serve you well in the future.
The ruling of negative points after a certain iteration of loops was an archaic ruling that existed BEFORE I completed all the changes to the league, and it was never intended to stay. This way of punishing players for going infinite (regardless of how you feel infinites should or should not be in a casual league) is incomplete and a poor idea for a very simple reason.
You are attempting to take a series of actions meant to be performed infinitely, and binding it into a firm and quantified limit of 4.
To give you a brief example of why this doesn't work; 4 loops of Mikaeus and Triskelion will result in 4 damage somewhere. Where 4 loops of Deadeye Navigator and Palinchron will result in 28 lands untapping. Well the player running the deadeye palinchron can still easily win from that position, whereas the mike and trike could not. In this sense, the iteration limit rule has failed in its purpose to fairly assess all infinite combos. If you try to quantify individual infinite combos fairly, you will have to do it in a case by case basis, for each infinite, and as new infinite combos are established. Attempting to make a singular blanket ruling such as iteration limits DOES NOT WORK.
The current way our leagues do infinite combos now is simpler; If you go infinite, you don't score points for winning the game (which is 5 points), eliminating players (1 point per elimination), or any achievements. You do keep bartering or points earned prior to that moment. This does not exactly suggest that players should NOT be going infinite, but more so recommends that the combo-ing player is fully prepared to do so after considering cirumstances such as who has the most points, how long has the game been going, and is the player ahead enough to end the game and still win in points.
Let us also not forget that infinite combos are not the only combos that can break backs - and for my league specifically I have not addressed the non infinite combos as a way to suggest to my players that there are still very broken mechanics that have been yet to be abused that they could be exploring, rather than worrying about just infinite combos.
July 6, 2018 9:22 p.m. Edited.
DerSchlund says... #18
Hi Gwent,
we were talking about sending the Achievements. I hope I don't bother you with this topic, but I don't really know how to contact you properly on tappedout since there seems to be no PM function.
DrukenReaps says... #2
Don't worry the rule is poorly written... It is aimed at hindering combos (I always hate it when people get rid of an entire archetype of play...).
An example is the best way I can lay this one out:
I have Najeela, the Blade-Blossom and Druids' Repository and 5 random warriors.
I attack with the warriors which gives Druids' Repository enough counters to activate Najeela, the Blade-Blossom.
I can then do this as many times as I choose.
Provided I'm reading the rule right if I do this twice I'm fine but if I do this 3 or 4+ times I lose all my points.
June 19, 2018 1:32 p.m.