SCG Sudden Death rules

[jamis]

So, I'm sure many of you watched the SCG Kansas City 10K that went on this weekend. In the event, one of the matches in the top 8 went to time after 90 minutes, and as per the tournament rules, the match went to sudden death. For those who did not see the match and aren't familiar with SCG sudden death rules, the players start a new game and the first change in life wins the game. So things like cracking fetchlands, casting FoW, or casting Thoughtseize will cause you to lose. Likewise, casting StP on your own dude, will cause you to win.

Now, these rules highly favor certain decks over others. A combo deck like Reanimator or Ad Nauseum will almost certainly always lose since it's key spell now kills them. Likewise, Burn will pretty much always win. Aggro will quickly win against any control or combo deck, since these decks usually plan on letting the first few attackers connect before winning. This is furthered since the format's main Removal spell, counter spell, and combo engine are all turned off.

However, as the commentators mentioned, it is necessary for Top 8 matches to be timed and to have a sudden death system in place, since the venue could kick everyone out before the final match is played if the tournament goes too long.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a better idea for how to implement a Sudden Death system which favors all or most archetypes equally, rather than whoever plays the most 1 cost guys/burn spells. I realize, that the system probably has no chance in being changed, but I thought it could at least be an interesting discussion.

[Fossil4182]

They could rent out a room in a local hotel to host the top 8 in the event that they needed to move locations. Or they could start an hour earlier at 9:00 AM instead of 10:00 AM to give the tournament an extra buffer for time.

[lordofthepit]

I kind of like those rules. Punish those decks who cannot kill their opponent in 90 minutes.

[sdematt]

I would rather have last 5 turns or something. Sudden death REALLY hurts some decks, I agree.

There has to be a better way to do it, as any deck with Fetchlands is going to hurt, whereas Goblins and Merfolk will most likely always win sudden death.

-Matt

[thecrav]

SCG is really in a hard place here. There's really no good way they can handle this.

Obviously, they can't allow unlimited time as they only have so much time in the venue.

Turns will [usually] benefit whoever's got the highest life going into the turns as the game moves from "try to win" to "try to have the most life in 5...4...3...2...1...

Sudden death hurts a lot of decks - you have no force, no fetches, no pain lands, etc. Any deck playing red will likely be able to win with something as simple as bolt.

Some people have suggested having the Top 8 elsewhere or the next day. This is a logistical nightmare. If they're getting another day in the same venue, they're costs greatly increase. If they have multiple venues, it's a lot for them to keep track of (and worse for the players) .

I'm most in favor of turns simply because it's the standard. Turns are used in every other round, why not use them now?

All in all, this is something that you need to keep in mind when you plan for the tournament. If you plan on making top 8, you need to make a deck choice that will allow you to win per the rules of the tournament. If you choose to play countertop with no win condition and it takes you to sudden death - well my friend, that's your fault.

[IsThisACatInAHat?]

It's not an SCG rule, it's a DCI rule. In a way, they don't really have a choice. Yeah it sucks, but in matchups where it should actually punish a deck (against... Zoo? Burn?) if you haven't won by then, you probably don't really deserve it. You had 90 minutes.

[Rico Suave]

To be fair, this isn't really such a great rule for Zoo. I don't know what a lot of you guys do, but Zoo has more fetchlands than real lands, and fetchlands are an instant loss.

Though I still would rather be playing Zoo instead of, say, Ad Nauseam. =|

[Julian23]

Sideboarding for this kind of sudden-death-game would be really akward, I guess.

[jazzykat]

I like the rule. 90 minutes... tear my eyeballs out. I'm sorry if your decks strategy is so complicated you need a year to win...you think storm decks turn someone off to the format, try keeping someone sitting in their seat for 90 minutes not actually having lost and then told they lost because the other deck that didn't let them do anything the whole game has more life than them!

I generally never scoop when going to time, especially if it's the other guys fault, even if I'm losing. I think sudden death is AWESOME!

[(nameless one)]

I am undecided about this rule. I think my pet deck can take advantage of this rule (Quinn). Delay the game as long as you can then when the 90minutes is up, cycle Renewed Faith ftw

[jazzykat]

I am undecided about this rule. I think my pet deck can take advantage of this rule (Quinn). Delay the game as long as you can then when the 90minutes is up, cycle Renewed Faith ftw

If you bring Quinn to a large event and get to the top 8 with it, my hat is off to you.

[Rune]

Have the judges (or someone else) decide the winner based on board position, life totals, cards in hand, etc. This is not perfect, but much better than that other crap. I remember watching Knappstill vs Goblins in some SCG top8 where the Landstill player had StP on Isochron Scepter and it was pretty clear to everyone that the Goblins player was locked out of the game, but he was given the win because he had a higher life total when the time ran out. IIRC, the Goblins pilot even played much slower than the Landstill player, so everything about it was just total BS.

[dahcmai]

The DCI set that up a long time ago and it made sense back then considering there were no fetches, or even too many lands at all that did damage short of painlands. Ad Nauseum life payment type effects were rare and definitely not relied upon as heavily even in Necro's case. They probably should reexamine it again after all this time, but if you really think about it, there's no good fix for it.

It does kind of stink how it's set up especially in black's case since that color has a lot of pain payment type cards. Red gets a huge advantage due to it's ease of doing direct damage. Unfortunately, it's probably never going to change.

[GGoober]

To be fair, this isn't really such a great rule for Zoo. I don't know what a lot of you guys do, but Zoo has more fetchlands than real lands, and fetchlands are an instant loss.

Though I still would rather be playing Zoo instead of, say, Ad Nauseam. =|


I was thinking the same thing:

Zoo opening:
3 Fetchland, 3 Burn, Nacatl

Mull:
2 Fetchland, 2 Burn, 2 dudes

Mull:
1 Land, 1 Fetchland, 3 Goyf

Rage!

[Nihil Credo]

A small improvement would be having the rule only consider life loss from combat or from spells/abilities controlled by an opponent.

It still favours aggressive decks*, but the tweak would get rid of the nonsense with fetches, Thoughtseize, Renewed Faith, etc.

Or if one prefers a simple rule, have players start at 5 life.

* Which one could argue is fine, since aggressive decks would be similarly advantaged if you just gave them 10 extra minutes or something.

[FoolofaTook]

They should go to turns and have the high life score at the end of the 5 turns win.

The long drawn out matches that would go to overtime are most likely a control mirror with similar abilities to inflict damage and be either high or low on life at the start of the overtime. Yes, it would be prone to abuse with people stalling at the end of a long match if they had a superior life total, however the DCI already has rules in place to punish stalling players. And again either deck would likely be in position to have the superior life total at that point.

Having fetches be unplayable in a Legacy OT is unacceptable.

[Koby]

This reminds me of a National Grinder's tournament that went to G3 Sudden Death.

The match came down to: mulligan for Seal of Fire and win turn 1.

[Crysthorn]

A small improvement would be having the rule only consider life loss from combat or from spells/abilities controlled by an opponent.

It still favours aggressive decks*, but the tweak would get rid of the nonsense with fetches, Thoughtseize, Renewed Faith, etc.
From all ideas presented here so far, this one looks like the best.

[Meekrab]

Using chess clocks instead of the horribly stupid rule of 90 minutes that the players have to share would solve this instantly.

[Crysthorn]

Using chess clocks instead of the horribly stupid rule of 90 minutes that the players have to share would solve this instantly.
Actually this is the worst thing you could do to a Magic tournament (and a logistical nightmare by the way).

[dontbiteitholmes]

They should go to turns and have the high life score at the end of the 5 turns win.

The long drawn out matches that would go to overtime are most likely a control mirror with similar abilities to inflict damage and be either high or low on life at the start of the overtime. Yes, it would be prone to abuse with people stalling at the end of a long match if they had a superior life total, however the DCI already has rules in place to punish stalling players. And again either deck would likely be in position to have the superior life total at that point.

Having fetches be unplayable in a Legacy OT is unacceptable.

^This.
Not only is shuffling up for a new game 3 to play to sudden death complete bullshit if either deck runs burn or fetchlands, but it could have quite the opposite effect instead of bringing the match to a quick end.

Imagine if you will control vs. control going to sudden death. Noone will break fetchlands, the match could continue on for a very long time, might as well just do 5 turns then life. Atleast that gives control decks w/ Force of Will and fetches some chance in the overtime situation.

[kkoie]

I think the current sudden death rule is fine as it is, and treats all archtypes equally. Sure Ad naus gets hosed, but lets be honest... how often will anyone piloting Ad Nauseum Tendrils need more than 90 minutes to win?!

[dontbiteitholmes]

Umm, how does it treat all archetypes equally? Aggro is probably a 10-1 favorite over control.

[4eak]

Preferably, I want my tournament results to mean something. I expect to maximize justice. Sudden death does not. I'd rather see people get a draw than claim one person won the match for a dumb and totally irrelevant reason. Prize structures would be different. Databases would look different. This would actually be fair though.



peace,
4eak

[Rico Suave]

To be fair, this sudden death rule came up between two very creature heavy beatdown decks. One was Goblins, the other was 20+ creature B/W aggro. It wasn't a case of neither deck being able to win in 90 minutes. It was a case that both players were just slow.

[Julian23]

How did it turn out?

[Purgatory]

No fetchlands.

No FoW.

No items.

Fox only.

Final destination!



...Seriously, I'd prefer it if someone just rolled a die at that point. This rule is old and stupid.

[Julian23]

It's actually worse than rolling a die because certain decks will have an unjustified advantage. Still, there's no playskill involved, just taking mulligans and praying.

[Purgatory]

It's actually worse than rolling a die because certain decks will have an unjustified advantage. Still, there's no playskill involved, just taking mulligans and praying.

Exactly, the dieroll would be more fair.

[ReAnimator]

How many unintentional draws did these guys pick up in the swiss? like not finishing a match in 50 minutes happens a fair deal but 90?! that seems absurd, both these guys should have gotten multiple warnings for slow play.

[Magicsk8ngenius]

I think that they should play a quick hand of Yantzee! for the win.


Seriously though there should be no reason at all to go past 90 minutes. Even landstill mirror can finish in this tiime frame.

[Rico Suave]

Rolling a die to determine the winner of a match is not fair. I would also recommend that you do not do this at a tournament, because it's very illegal.


How did it turn out?

The Goblin player was on the play for G3, and kept at 6 cards which was assumed to be Land, Lackey, Go.

So the B/W aggro player mulliganed looking for either a Mother of Runes or one of his SB Burrenton Forge Tenders, plus a non-fetch land to cast one of them, and this would allow him to block the Lackey and perhaps try to get into the game. He did not find such a combination all the way down to 2 cards, at which point he remarked he still had outs with a mulligan to 1, but when that did not reveal the goods he extended his hand to the opponent.

[Kimi]

Something to remember when you're say this is 'unfair' for decks like ANT, or ones with lots of Fetch Lands. When you sign up for the tournament, you know that this will be the sudden death rule. You've selected the cards in your deck, know that should a round come to sudden death you're very much at a disadvantage. The rule isn't made up randomly by the head judge, it's been there since the start.



Another thing, it's a really really REALLY bad idea to have an outside party (the judge staff) assess the board state to award the win. You open the judge staff to way too many potential problems, it is impossible to do. Not only will you be getting attacked by the 'loser' and being put under a massive amount of unneeded pressure, but you might just flat out get it wrong. It is impossible to expect the judge staff to be able to assess the board state in any fair manner as they cannot be expected to be experts in all the played decks in the format, let alone rogue decks and brews that show up. You basically taking aways the whole point of the tournament, to determine a winner based on skill; as soon as you make a judge pick who wins, it's no longer a tournament. The idea is completely unworkable, just like the idea of using chess clocks.

The sudden death rules exist so there's a fixed way of determining what happens during a tie, they're part of the game and need to exist All parties know about it before they start and have agreed to play by them. I agree that they could be tweaked a bit, and I'd advice those who do to contact the DCI and tell them what you think. The 'life loss by a source that an opponent controls' is a logical refinement based on the problems people see in it.

[Purgatory]

Rolling a die to determine the winner of a match is not fair.

Well, neither are these weird sudden death rules.

In both cases, it's up to luck, really, and at least with a dieroll/coin flip, the chance is 50/50.

[scrumdogg]

Actually this is the worst thing you could do to a Magic tournament (and a logistical nightmare by the way).

Actually, were this implemented solely for Top 8's, it would be simple for the TOs. The 'logistics' of it, beyond supplying 8 clocks, are on the players, who since this very definitely affects them & their tournament outcome should be motivated to do this correctly. And if you can't prevail in 45 minutes of tournament play (for yourself, feel free to think on your opponent's time...) then I have no sympathy if you time out and lose...learn to play better, think faster, and suck less...

[Anusien]

I can't imagine a matchup I can't finish in 90 minutes. And no one should care how these rules affect beatdown decks like Zoo or Goblins, because the thought of a deck like that not being able to finish 3 games in that amount of time is rather ludicrous.

Seriously, just call a judge for Slow Play. Yes, even in the top8.

[4eak]

If you've never played a 2 hour match of magic, you're missing out. The sort where decking your opponent is a real strategy, etc. Sure, those decks won't likely see play in official tournaments for various reasons, but they've been some of the most rewarding games of magic I've ever played.



peace,
4eak

[thecrav]

Using chess clocks instead of the horribly stupid rule of 90 minutes that the players have to share would solve this instantly.

This would work horribly given the interaction that happens in a face-to-face game.

P1: I being my upkeep. I don't do anything*click*
P2: Me either*click*
P1: First mainphase. I play an island. Tap and play Aether Vial*click*
P2: I play Force of Will removing Standstill*click*
P3: I'll bounce my island and play Daze*click*
P4: Okay, your daze resolves*click*
P5: I pass turn*click*

Now imagine this but each side has several cards in play, each with their own triggers that might need to get handled.

In MTGO it works because there are process in place for calculating who is currently spending their time.

[Rune]

Another thing, it's a really really REALLY bad idea to have an outside party (the judge staff) assess the board state to award the win. You open the judge staff to way too many potential problems, it is impossible to do. Not only will you be getting attacked by the 'loser' and being put under a massive amount of unneeded pressure, but you might just flat out get it wrong. It is impossible to expect the judge staff to be able to assess the board state in any fair manner as they cannot be expected to be experts in all the played decks in the format, let alone rogue decks and brews that show up. You basically taking aways the whole point of the tournament, to determine a winner based on skill; as soon as you make a judge pick who wins, it's no longer a tournament. The idea is completely unworkable, just like the idea of using chess clocks.

I didn't say it has to be the judges. They could have a bunch of impartial, knowledgable people, like the SCG commentators (who are mostly old pro players now), decide the outcome. Most of the time it's very easy to determine who would win if they carried on playing, since the time mostly runs out late in game 3. Why would the judges be pressured or attacked? If the loser can't deal with the decision, then he should have read the rules beforehand or not have signed up in the first place. Having the judges decide the winner is not perfect in any sport/game, but I don't see why it wouldn't be 1000x better than this "first blood" nonsense.

[Purgatory]

I didn't say it has to be the judges. They could have a bunch of impartial, knowledgable people, like the SCG commentators (who are mostly old pro players now), decide the outcome. Most of the time it's very easy to determine who would win if they carried on playing, since the time mostly runs out late in game 3. Why would the judges be pressured or attacked? If the loser can't deal with the decision, then he should have read the rules beforehand or not have signed up in the first place. Having the judges decide the winner is not perfect in any sport/game, but I don't see why it wouldn't be 1000x better than this "first blood" nonsense.

Clearly, if a system like that is going to be implemented it needs to be in the DCI floor rules. Thus, the person or people making such a call has to be the judge because they are already actually at the tournament. Either that, or a new post needs to be added to the judge staff - a "tie breaker" or something.

I can't really imagine the DCI stating in their floor rules that "in the case of a T8 game going to a tie, the winner will be decided by an imparcial comitee of whatever random old pros are available at the scene."

[Crysthorn]

If you've never played a 2 hour match of magic, you're missing out. The sort where decking your opponent is a real strategy, etc. Sure, those decks won't likely see play in official tournaments for various reasons
They actually saw a very serious play, like a Worlds' Top 8 (http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx?x=mtgevent/worlds06/qf4) (Nassif won the quarterfinal match 3-2 after almost 3 hours).

[Julian23]

In the Swiss portion of PT Berlin, Sebastian Thaler also had an insanely long Elves!-Mirror-Match involving four-digit life totals and three-digit Insect tokens o_0.

[dahcmai]

This would work horribly given the interaction that happens in a face-to-face game.

P1: I being my upkeep. I don't do anything*click*
P2: Me either*click*
P1: First mainphase. I play an island. Tap and play Aether Vial*click*
P2: I play Force of Will removing Standstill*click*
P3: I'll bounce my island and play Daze*click*
P4: Okay, your daze resolves*click*
P5: I pass turn*click*

Now imagine this but each side has several cards in play, each with their own triggers that might need to get handled.

In MTGO it works because there are process in place for calculating who is currently spending their time.


I had wondered for a long time why no one bothered with Chess clocks. I used to play Chess so it seemed like an elegant solution, but having it spelled out shows how horrid it would be. Kind of a bummer in a way though.
I am one of those extremely fast players so I wouldn't mind being timed. I end up with a lot of draws due to slow players who aren't used to my play style. All my decks tend to lock up the game and then kill you. 43 Lands, Landstill, etc..

[FieryBalrog]

I would rather the official rules be flipping a coin than this junk, because at least flipping a coin is completely deck-neutral (unless you have Krark's Thumb of course).

[Rico Suave]

I would rather the official rules be flipping a coin than this junk, because at least flipping a coin is completely deck-neutral (unless you have Krark's Thumb of course).

I would rather people not talk about the official rules when they have no idea what they're talking about, but life is not always what we want.

In case you're unaware, flipping a coin to determine who wins prize money is called gambling and it is very illegal to do this in a Magic tournament.

Please, just stop with this coin flipping nonsense. Wizards has worked very hard to separate Magic from gambling, and it is only because of their hard work that we are able to play this game outside of places like casinos.

[Julian23]

But what SCG does is clearly flipping a coin.

[Purgatory]

I would rather people not talk about the official rules when they have no idea what they're talking about, but life is not always what we want.

In case you're unaware, flipping a coin to determine who wins prize money is called gambling and it is very illegal to do this in a Magic tournament.

Please, just stop with this coin flipping nonsense. Wizards has worked very hard to separate Magic from gambling, and it is only because of their hard work that we are able to play this game outside of places like casinos.

Well, Magic still contains a random element, which is clearly - and especially in sudden death - a decider of who's going to win. Since there are cash prizes in these tournament, to some extent it already is gambling.

The DCI needs to have a sit and revamp these rules, they are ridiculous.

[BWM]

So, I'm sure many of you watched the SCG Kansas City 10K that went on this weekend. In the event, one of the matches in the top 8 went to time after 90 minutes, and as per the tournament rules, the match went to sudden death. For those who did not see the match and aren't familiar with SCG sudden death rules, the players start a new game and the first change in life wins the game. So things like cracking fetchlands, casting FoW, or casting Thoughtseize will cause you to lose. Likewise, casting StP on your own dude, will cause you to win.

Now, these rules highly favor certain decks over others. A combo deck like Reanimator or Ad Nauseum will almost certainly always lose since it's key spell now kills them. Likewise, Burn will pretty much always win. Aggro will quickly win against any control or combo deck, since these decks usually plan on letting the first few attackers connect before winning. This is furthered since the format's main Removal spell, counter spell, and combo engine are all turned off.

However, as the commentators mentioned, it is necessary for Top 8 matches to be timed and to have a sudden death system in place, since the venue could kick everyone out before the final match is played if the tournament goes too long.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a better idea for how to implement a Sudden Death system which favors all or most archetypes equally, rather than whoever plays the most 1 cost guys/burn spells. I realize, that the system probably has no chance in being changed, but I thought it could at least be an interesting discussion.

This system makes sense, since if there's not a winner after 90 minutes, it's probably not the aggro player's fault...



I was a tournament the other day where I saw a ZoovsGoblins (with Bolt)-match to into Sudden Death...

Zoo-player mulliganed to 4 (Forest; Fetch; Goyf; Chain Lightning) and won, because the goblin-player (on the play) couldn't get a reasonable hand at all...

[Rico Suave]

But what SCG does is clearly flipping a coin.

No, it's not. Sudden Death is very clearly one person's life total changing first, and most definitely not flipping a coin.


Well, Magic still contains a random element, which is clearly - and especially in sudden death - a decider of who's going to win. Since there are cash prizes in these tournament, to some extent it already is gambling.

The DCI needs to have a sit and revamp these rules, they are ridiculous.

This is a load of cow poop. The NFL overtime rules have a random element in flipping a coin too, but it does NOT decide the winner. You still need to go out and win the game even if you might have a perceived advantage due to a random element.

Now, it's perfectly legit to say that you disagree with the rules in place. To try and argue for a change is fine. Even the NFL changed their playoff overtime rules this year to help reduce the random element due to complaints.

But to say that the current rules are like gambling is, frankly, stupid.

[FieryBalrog]

I would rather people not talk about the official rules when they have no idea what they're talking about, but life is not always what we want.

In case you're unaware, flipping a coin to determine who wins prize money is called gambling and it is very illegal to do this in a Magic tournament.

So play RoShamBo, which is "skill" based. Or call it a draw and have the player with the better record advance. Or whatever.




Please, just stop with this coin flipping nonsense. Wizards has worked very hard to separate Magic from gambling, and it is only because of their hard work that we are able to play this game outside of places like casinos.

Magic tournaments have no more in common with gambling than any other game tournament (call of duty, starcraft, whatever) and I'd like to see the exact severe dangers that Wizards had to thwart in order to get Magic playable.

[mchainmail]

So play RoShamBo, which is "skill" based. Or call it a draw and have the player with the better record advance. Or whatever.



Magic tournaments have no more in common with gambling than any other game tournament (call of duty, starcraft, whatever) and I'd like to see the exact severe dangers that Wizards had to thwart in order to get Magic playable.

Every GP in Germany says Hi.

[Purgatory]

Magic tournaments have no more in common with gambling than any other game tournament (call of duty, starcraft, whatever) and I'd like to see the exact severe dangers that Wizards had to thwart in order to get Magic playable.

Well, they removed Ante for that very reason. Other than that, I haven't read or heard about anything else they've done directly.


This is a load of cow poop. The NFL overtime rules have a random element in flipping a coin too, but it does NOT decide the winner. You still need to go out and win the game even if you might have a perceived advantage due to a random element.

Now, it's perfectly legit to say that you disagree with the rules in place. To try and argue for a change is fine. Even the NFL changed their playoff overtime rules this year to help reduce the random element due to complaints.

But to say that the current rules are like gambling is, frankly, stupid.

I call false analogy. Does the NFL overtime ends as soon as someone happens to fall? Or fumbles the ball? Or miss a pass? Granted, I'm European, and thus not a fan of american football, but I don't think so.

The rules, as they are now, force players to mulligan heavily to even keep a hand that will even be able to get lands into play, let alone win the game. Drawing seven cards, or six cards, or five etc. from a deck is a very random element, and if it is for money it is - in my opinion - gambling.

I think the random element of flipping a coin to see who goes first is more akin to flipping a coin to see who goes first in magic. What if the two NFL teams had to pick their starting lineup randomly from their team rooster? Do you think that would increase the randomness regarding who would win?

"Water boy, get in here!"

[thecrav]

Magic tournaments have no more in common with gambling than any other game tournament (call of duty, starcraft, whatever) and I'd like to see the exact severe dangers that Wizards had to thwart in order to get Magic playable.
If Magic isn't gambling, then neither is poker.

[Nightmare]

This thread is severely off topic and full of useless and misleading information.

Hey look! I did something other than read!