4 Card Blind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asthereal

We can keep this as a basis, sort of. The current rules already sort of work like this, except that players never get to choose a number.

---

To be clear, the "player" picking a number is the fictional optimal pilot, not the deck's submitter. The picking a number is just how shortcutting loops works in Magic, as in the tournament rules WoP posted above. Loops can only ever go infinite when they're completely inescapable (like 3 Oblivion Rings with no other targets), otherwise you have to choose a number. Your reasoning about optimal plays overriding loops isn't perfect, because a player with Nomads en-Kor who's going to lose could optimally just activate his 0 cost ability forever. Thus the distinction is necessary (assuming we agree that's not a good outcome.)

This not being clear did affect the scoring for WoP taking infinite turns, and raises questions for two decks this week. I imagine it has probably been relevant before with Rishadan Port or a tapping creature being relied upon infinitely for a draw, or someone paying indefinitely for Tabernacle to keep a blocker up. I think there's agreement that players shouldn't be forced to end loops in those situations, but that's not the conclusion we came to with WoP's deck last time.

I'd ask that something on this be added to the rules on the first post, as this is a difference to the regular Magic rules.

I do not see why we could not go for draws when it is a loop involving turns from each player?
Otherwise it is hard to say who has to break the loop in many cases.
For instance if we take Max vs Tylert this round, it is a draw when Tylert is OTP, no one can kill the other. Should Tylert attack with nexus into drake, losing field and the game? Or should maxx attack with drake uselessly into field, to receive poison counters from nexus?


It is not a question of mimicking clasical turnaments rules, but have the best one for 4CB. I think the basic land of our choice as a replacement for an illegal choice is not that great (there were two rounds were submitting black lotus instead of a land would have been optimal).


Additional question, what would you think of a trinisphere emblem for the "go big or go home" round? Otherwise it would be a bit more like classical rounds, alternate costs all over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJim

I think we really need something about infinite loops across turns built into the rules. I'm going to suggest again the rule from the first game I played on reddit:

If a loop containing at least one optional action would be repeated indefinitely during a turn, then any player may propose a number of times for that loop to repeat instead. If a player does, then each other player may propose a different number and the loop is repeated for the greatest number of times proposed instead. No player is required to make a choice that would end a loop that crosses multiple turns.

This keeps any in turn infinite loops sensible, and allows for every reasonable 'best play' scenario I can think of. It does allow Time Vault + Voltaic Key to draw, but given that drawing scores pretty badly, I don't think that would be an issue. We could as FTW suggests make it apply only if both players take a turn instead, and I don't think it would change much.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie

EDIT: PJim basically has the rule from their ruleset, except they also later explicitly banned taking infinite turns. Probably would be simpler to just go with that (except we can probably leave infinite turns legal, because if you can win taking all the turns, you deserve to), because loop rules are dumb.

---

One could get a similar result (how similar depends on how they
defined “taking infinite turns”) by starting with what PJim said and

replacing “during a turn” with
“and there is a player such that it would never be the other’s turn during the loop”

and

replacing “No player is required … crosses multiple turns.” with
“No player is required to make a choice that would end a
loop that includes infinitely many of each players’ turns.”

.


This would allow an otherwise infinite-turn combo to tick up Helix Pinnacle
for a win, but would not allow any normal means of getting infinitely many turns
to cause a draw if the non-active player is not doing anything during those turns.
(Nexus of Fate + Omen Machine means it’s possible to have a mandatory
infinite-turn loop, and under the changes I mentioned, that would
still cause a draw if neither player does anything during those turns.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJim

, because a player with Nomads en-Kor who's going to lose could optimally just activate his 0 cost ability forever.

---

This situation in fact comes up for Tylert vs GoblinSmashmaster this round (due to the round rule):

Leyline of Sanctity stops Grapeshot from targeting Tylert.
Can GoblinSmashmaster get draws by recycling the Conjurer’s Baubles forever?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dte

Otherwise it is hard to say who has to break the loop in many cases.
For instance if we take Max vs Tylert this round, it is a draw when Tylert is OTP, no one can kill the other. Should Tylert attack with nexus into drake, losing field and the game? Or should maxx attack with drake uselessly into field, to receive poison counters from nexus?

---

My understanding is that
not attacking
is
not taking an action
, rather than
taking an optional action
.

(i.e., that there are no optional actions in the no-one attacks loop)


Additionally, even though attacking would end the loop, I
believe that is not "called for by objects involved in the loop":

Even if one says that Drake is involved
(as opposed to no objects being involved - it's just the players doing nothing)
because otherwise Tylert would win with Nexus,
I don't see any way that Drake calls for itself to attack.



For these reasons, I believe that even with the infinity rule,
neither player would be required to break the no-one attacks loop
and the game would be a draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie

You tried this already a few years ago, I said it was a bad idea (because either you make trying to draw across the board optimal because sweeping the field is much harder, or the awards are effectively irrelevant), let's not go through this again.

---

The idea is to award more points total than 6 for straight draws, and of course even more for straight wins.
In order for this to work we need straight wins to be best, but straight draws to be better than all wins except one.
Before, we were with like 10 players most of the time, and straight draws or straight wins was actually quite reasonable to achieve.
Now we have grown, it starts to become a cool addition again.

Hey, I'll always be looking for spicing things up, and I want to add straight draws as a strategy (which is risky, because if you don't make it, you score very poorly).
It's just a way to keep things interesting for longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie

The bigger question is whether or not the MTR is relevant, or simply the Comp Rules, because the Comp Rules are far less strict:

Under this interpretation, Time Vault taking all the turns without a win condition is still not legal, but the question is whether tapping a permanent controlled by an opponent during an opponent's turn involves both players (because that would lead to a draw). It could also be that optimal play concepts overrule loop rules. (This is probably why MTGS had a set of CB Comprehensive Rules back when they had CB, except they called it Perfect Hand Magic.)

EDIT: PJim basically has the rule from their ruleset, except they also later explicitly banned taking infinite turns. Probably would be simpler to just go with that (except we can probably leave infinite turns legal, because if you can win taking all the turns, you deserve to), because loop rules are dumb.

---

I, for one, am very much okay with a Time Walk loop without a wincon ending in a draw.
The thing is: 4CB runs into heaps of situations where you just get stuck.
Tapping stuff eternally, Chronomatons ticking up but never attacking. I could go on.
It just happens, and my vote goes to just letting it happen and be part of 4CB the way it has been for the past few years.

I agree that 4CB inherently will have scenarios where we repeat the same actions every turn to force a draw - if we go away from that it seems like we're going away from the sprint of this puzzle game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asthereal

The idea is to award more points total than 6 for straight draws, and of course even more for straight wins.
In order for this to work we need straight wins to be best, but straight draws to be better than all wins except one.
Before, we were with like 10 players most of the time, and straight draws or straight wins was actually quite reasonable to achieve.
Now we have grown, it starts to become a cool addition again.

Hey, I'll always be looking for spicing things up, and I want to add straight draws as a strategy (which is risky, because if you don't make it, you score very poorly).
It's just a way to keep things interesting for longer.

---

We have other better ways to make things interesting. In fact, we're already doing so.

(Also, straight draws being worth more than 6 season points leads to collusion in the form of everyone optimizing for draws, which is dumb and not really in the spirit of fun.)

Looking ahead to next week's round rule, do all 3 colored mana symbols need to be in a card's cost or can they be anywhere on the card?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie

(Also, straight draws being worth more than 6 season points leads to collusion in the form of everyone optimizing for draws, which is dumb and not really in the spirit of fun.)

---

You haven't tried it.

Trying to optimize for draws and failing means you'll score less than 2 SP for the round.
So you have to be more or less sure you'll make it, otherwise you have a bad round. It's a big risk.
Going for max wins will still be best as you'll get more SP that way anyway, but getting max wins is of course rather a long shot.

I don't expect many people to ever try for all draws, but when it happens, it's actually a lot more awesome than you might realize.
Also, I feel like people are overly scared of draws. Remember we don't actually play the games. We don't really have to sit through 900 turn staredowns. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RoosterCocoa

Looking ahead to next week's round rule, do all 3 colored mana symbols need to be in a card's cost or can they be anywhere on the card?

---

The plan was casting cost, yes.
I see I haven't worded that clearly at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie

We have other better ways to make things interesting. In fact, we're already doing so.

(Also, straight draws being worth more than 6 season points leads to collusion in the form of everyone optimizing for draws, which is dumb and not really in the spirit of fun.)

---

Which, in turn becomes the Prisoner's Dilemma, because individually breaking the collusion is optimal. I'm not convinced it would be nearly as big a problem (in fact, my biggest concern is that it ultimately wouldn't matter at all because playing to win is always better).

I think if we go something like 7 SP for all draws, it might be worth trying.
That could spice things up, and worse case scenario it does nothing, so quite harmless to do.

I have a question for next round

8. Cornucopia: Non-land cards in each deck must in total contain at least 3 different colored mana symbols. Hybrid mana symbols count for 1.

Do we agree that is the sum of different mana symbols contained in manavalue of each non Land cards that must be greater or equal to 3?

Because the way it is written, it means each nonland card should have at least 3 différent mana symbol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serguei

I have a question for next round

8. Cornucopia: Non-land cards in each deck must in total contain at least 3 different colored mana symbols. Hybrid mana symbols count for 1.

Do we agree that is the sum of different mana symbols contained in manavalue of each non Land cards that must be greater or equal to 3?

Because the way it is written, it means each nonland card should have at least 3 différent mana symbol.

---

I haven't worded it properly. It's about casting cost, and it's about playing many colors.
So playing an Abzan Charm would be enough to meet the rule.

I'll change it now, in order to stop the confusion.

EDIT: 8. Cornucopia: Non-land cards in each deck must in total contain at least 3 different colored mana symbols in their mana costs. Hybrid mana symbols count for 1.

Asthereal's scores for round 7:

1. Asthereal (TO): Island, Rishadan Dockhand, Force of Negation, Daze <-me
2. Reeplcheep: vault of whispers, mox opal, thopter foundry, Sword of the Meek WW
3. jhhdk: Seat of the Synod, Thopter Foundry, Mox Opal, Sword of the Meek WW
4. Tylert: Ancient den, Energy field, Inkmoth nexus, Leyline of sanctity DD
5. PJim: Foil, Island, Nether Spirit, Dryad Arbor LL
6. RoosterCocoa: Vault of Whispers, Welding Jar, Sword of the Meek, Thopter Foundry WW
7. alphastryk: Sand Silos, Misthollow Griffin, Force of Negation, Mu Yanling, Sky Dancer DD
8. Phasmoid: Ancient Den, Tidehollow Sculler, Vault of Whispers, Rotting Regisaur DL
9. dte: Tarnished citadel, Death's shadow, subtlety, Force of negation DD
10. Wrath of Pie: Darksteel Citadel, Darksteel Citadel, Hangarback Walker, Steel Overseer LL
11. H: Island, Steel Sabotage, Force Spike, Spectral Sailor WL
12. maxx!: Seat of the Synod, Genesis Chamber, Shrieking Drake, Burst of Speed WW
13. silkster: Ancient Den, Chronomaton, Swords to Plowshares, Duress LL
14. mattamort: Ancient Den, Force of Negation, Stormscape Apprentice, Tidehollow Sculler DL
15. Serguei: Vault of Whispers;Tidehollow Sculler;Force Of Negation;Essence Flux WL
16. GoblinSmashmaster: Mox Opal, Conjurer's Bauble, Conjurer's Bauble, Grapeshot WW
17. FTW: Force of Negation, Subtlety, Darksteel Citadel, Collector Ouphe WL

Total: 47 points

Results are almost in. Two questions remain:
- Disagreement between mattamort and dte, where dte had DD and matta LL. I think matta is right because he can only cast one creature at a time, which gets Subtlety'ed (as spell) and then can't be cast anymore.
- No results posted yet by Phasmoid and silk, so we don't have their head-to-head yet. I think Phasmoid wins it 6-0 because he can use Sculler to force out StP and then the Regisaur races Chrono.

I'll be adding the idea for the loop rule to the first post as well, just so everyone is clear. I'll add examples for clarity (Nomads en-Kor is a good one).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asthereal

I haven't worded it properly. It's about casting cost, and it's about playing many colors.
So playing an Abzan Charm would be enough to meet the rule.

I'll change it now, in order to stop the confusion.

EDIT: 8. Cornucopia: Non-land cards in each deck must in total contain at least 3 different colored mana symbols in their mana costs. Hybrid mana symbols count for 1.

---

So each card should be at least tricolor ? Or have a mana value like Returned Pastcaller?


Do you confirm that triome, ponder, lightning bolt, savannah lion is not à receivable deck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serguei

So each card should be at least tricolor ? Or have a mana value like Returned Pastcaller?


Do you confirm that triome, ponder, lightning bolt, savannah lion is not à receivable deck?

---

Three different colors among all the mana costs, so that should be legal.

I guess playing only lands is Not allowed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie

Three different colors among all the mana costs, so that should be legal.

---

Yeah, I was confused about this too.
I thought the above Savannah Lions deck would be illegal.
I thought it mean that EACH nonland card must have at least 3 mana symbols on it (e.g. Abzan Charm legal, Benalish Hero banned. For something like Knight of the Reliquary, I wasn't sure if generic counts as a different one. Or snow.)
I thought that all-lands would be legal as it contains no illegal nonland cards, and the rule was a requirement for nonland cards.

It sounds like several of us interpreted the round rule differently. Asthereal, could you clarify with some examples of what is legal and what is not legal?

I am a bit surprised, for me it sounded quite clear, and that the triome deck was legal, as well as any 3cb plus progenitus, or kazoo land, land, azban charm, chronomaton.

Otherwise, it is redundant with "go big or go home", and it is formulated very diferently. It is not "each card should", but "cards in total". Generic or snow are not colors.

It also does not sounds interesting if each card in a deck should be tricolor.
As a proposition, for each round that plays on cards restrictions, I think we could have an example deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pie

Three different colors among all the mana costs, so that should be legal.

---

Correct. Three differently colored mono-color cards are fine as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattamort

I guess playing only lands is Not allowed?

---

Indeed that isn't allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FTW

It sounds like several of us interpreted the round rule differently. Asthereal, could you clarify with some examples of what is legal and what is not legal?

---

Legal: Abzan Charm, Plains, Swamp, Forest
Legal: City of Brass, Pouncing Jaguar, Lightning Bolt, Fatal Push
Also legal, even though I don't like it: Taiga, Pouncing Jaguar, Tattermunge Maniac, Lightning Bolt (a hybrid mana symbol is counted as different)

Illegal: Crumbling Necropolis, Maze of Ith, Blinkmoth Nexus, The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale

So the cards in your deck must in total contain three different colored mana symbols in their casting costs.
How you want to distribute this is up to you, as long as the different color mana symbols are there.
And hybrid counts as separate from its respective colors, since red-green isn't red or green. It's both.
I hope this is clear?

Lastly, I haven't made my deck yet and have to do one last check on the scores anyway, which might influence bannings. So I'll probably open submissions for the round tomorrow.