3CB Tournament #36

[wonkey_donkey]

The rules for this competition will be: Anything Goes!

Banned list:
Portal
Unglued
Black Lotus
Mesmeric Fiend
Blackmail
Chain of Smog
Hymn to Tourach
Cabal Therapy
Encroach
Mind Swords
Forget
Anvil of Bogarden
Strip Mine
Wasteland
Raze
The Rack
Wheel of Torture
Balance
Meddling Mage
Show and Tell
Isochron Scepter
Phrexian Dreadnaught
Lion's Eye Diamond
Evil Presence
Sea's Claim


NB this is subject to change within 48hrs of first posting.
NB 5th Dawn is now legal.

What is 3cb?

3-Card Blind (3CB) is a very unique game. The rules are as follows

Your deck is composed of 3 cards, all of which start in your hand.
You have no library (technically, the library exists, but starts at 0 cards) and no sideboard (Wishes fetch nothing).
Random effects always go in your opponent's favour.
You can see your opponent's hand, so you can always make the best possible play.
You don't lose as a result of not being able to draw a card.
You will play each opponent twice, once going first, once going second.
For each win, you score 3.
For each draw, you score 1.
For each lose, you get nothing.
Other than the aforementioned, EVERYTHING IS HANDLED EXACTLY LIKE A REAL GAME OF MAGIC!

To make an entry, PM your deck to me in the following format:

Subject: 3cb Tournament #35 Entry or 3cb Tournament#35 Revision
Deck Name
Card #1
Card #2
Card #3

Optional Deck discussion, random sucking up, etc.


I will calculate the first 25 entrants who I receive, or I'll close entries after 2 weeks. Get your entries in by 8th July and I'll calculate. As I said, the banned list may change within 48 hours of this post going up. After that, it stays as it is. This is not a reason to withold your decks, though - this is not a particuarly serious format! If something's broke, please fix it whilst we can!

The banned list is unlikely to change unless there are any 5D cards that need pre-emptive banning, as isochron scepter should have had. Anyone got any thoughts about this?

Tom

[theorigamist]

I've got a rules question.  Even though all the cards start in your hand and there is no library, there is a draw step, right?  Like, if a card finds its way into your library, you'll draw it on your next turn?

[wonkey_donkey]

You don't lose as a result of not being able to draw a card

You would draw a card, yes, but you won't lose with no library. That's why cards like words of wilding work.

Tom

[combo_dude]

Words of Wilding is something I have an issue with, actually. It says that you only put the creature into play as a replacement effect for a card-draw. As you aren't skipping a draw, as there are no cards there to draw, does it still work?

Oh, and in 5th Dawn, Skullcage needs to go in my opinion, if only to be consistent with Rack effects.

[wonkey_donkey]

Words of Wilding is something I have an issue with, actually. It says that you only put the creature into play as a replacement effect for a card-draw. As you aren't skipping a draw, as there are no cards there to draw, does it still work?

Oh, and in 5th Dawn, Skullcage needs to go in my opinion, if only to be consistent with Rack effects.

The fact that you don't have a card to draw doesn't matter - it doesn't check whether you have a card to draw until you actually trty and draw it, which you don't have to do if you've got a replacement effect overruling it.

I don't think I'm going to ban skullcage, as it's very hard to get out whilst also forcing your opponent to play a card. Were it 3 mana, it'd get the axe. If people disagree, then by all means I can ban it.

Tom

[theorigamist]

combo_dude, if there is a draw step, even with no library, you then there is a draw effect to skip.  3cb has changed the rules so that you don't lose if you can't draw, but it didn't remove the draw effect from being there.  Think of real Magic for a moment.  If you have no cards in your library, but you do have a Words of something out, you can stay alive by skipping your draw every turn, even though there isn't a card to draw.

[combo_dude]

combo_dude, if there is a draw step, even with no library, you then there is a draw effect to skip.  3cb has changed the rules so that you don't lose if you can't draw, but it didn't remove the draw effect from being there.  Think of real Magic for a moment.  If you have no cards in your library, but you do have a Words of something out, you can stay alive by skipping your draw every turn, even though there isn't a card to draw.

Point taken.

wonkey_donkey - Would it be possible to always accept two decks per person? I know this would mean a lot of work for you, but as I've said I'd gladly do half in that case, being a) the person responsible for the extra work, and b) your brother.    I think that the more decks we get in, the more diverse things will be and the more fun things will be (as this is perhaps the ultimate game of Magic as far as diversity of format is concerned) for everyone.

[wonkey_donkey]

wonkey_donkey - Would it be possible to always accept two decks per person? I know this would mean a lot of work for you, but as I've said I'd gladly do half in that case, being a) the person responsible for the extra work, and b) your brother.    I think that the more decks we get in, the more diverse things will be and the more fun things will be (as this is perhaps the ultimate game of Magic as far as diversity of format is concerned) for everyone.

The reason I am reluctant to do this is not because of the extra work involved, but because it gives players who do consistently well an unfair advantage. Also, the point of the format is to metagame, rather than to find the most powerful decks - you can't metagame against 30something different decks, even if you get something like (say) 10 workshop decks. So I'm going to say no for the moment.

Tom

[CmdrSam]

NB 5th Dawn is now legal.

Presumably it was legal in #35? Someone ran Auriok Salvagers...

--Sam L-L

[wonkey_donkey]

NB 5th Dawn is now legal.

Presumably it was legal in #35? Someone ran Auriok Salvagers...

--Sam L-L

Ah, bugger - I forgot about the Salvagers being in 5D. I turned down some people's entries for it not being legal - sorry guys! Unfortunately, there is not much I can do to fix the problem, other than hoping that an apology is enough and is accepted. Sorry.

Tom

[combo_dude]

Ah, bugger - I forgot about the Salvagers being in 5D.

You mean you presumed people can read...

[CmdrSam]

Sorry.
Tom

No worries -- but since this is the first 'official' 5D tournament, I'll have to play 5D even if it makes my deck awful  

--Sam L-L

[b4r0n]

I guess I'll take a shot at this. Good luck to the rest of you!

[theorigamist]

Wonkey_donkey and I have been PMing back and forth regarding rules issues with Shahrazad, and I was hoping somebody here could help.  Shahrazad's ruling specifically says that a player whose deck in the subgame is less than 7 cards loses automatically.  In 3cb, we've said that the inability to draw a card does not force a game loss, however the ruling for Shahrazad doesn't talk about inability to draw.  It talks about the size of the deck independent of drawing your opening hand.  Specifically, it says:

At the start of the sub-game both players draw their initial hand (usually 7 cards). If one player has fewer cards than required, that player loses. If both have fewer than required, both players lose. [Oracle 1998/07/01]

This would occur before the subgame actually starts, which is why I think that Shahrazad's under-7-card rule is independent of card drawing.  The rules say that a player loses the game as a result of the inability to draw as a state-based effect.  But Shahrazad's under-7-card rule takes place before the game, and so it cannot be the same state-based effect as the inability to draw a card (because state-based effects check the status of the game every time a player receives priority, and no player has priority before the game starts).

I'm not really sure how clear that reasoning is, but it makes sense to me.  Put more simply, if the Shahrazad ruling cannot be a state-based effect and the inability to draw rule is a state-based effect, then the two must be separate rules.  So even in 3cb, where we've eliminated the inability to draw rule, Shahrazad still functions as the Oracle rulings say.

So in a game of 3cb, Shahrazad should function like this, according to the above logic:
Player A plays Shahrazad.  Go to subgame.  Both players have less than 7 cards, so both players automatically lose.  Go to main game.  Both players lose half their life.


The argument on the other side is this: The Shahrazad 7-card rule obviously is the result of the implications of being unable to draw cards, even before the game starts.  Since it is so closely related, it should be considered to fall under our changed rules for 3cb.  So, in a game of 3cb following this logic:
Player A plays Shahrazad.  Go to subgame.  This game is automatically a draw, providing neither player has a threat available to play (because their three cards have probably been played out in the main game; let's assume they have been played).  If the subgame never ends, then the main game never ends, and the players draw the main game.

So in the first case, Shahrazad is almost an automatic loss of 10 life for both players.  In the second case, Shahrazad is an automatic draw against almost any deck going either first or second.

Wonkey_donkey suggests banning Shahrazad after tournament #36, which I agree with unless we can solidify the rules for it.

My opinion, for what it's worth:  I think the first logic (both players lose the subgame) makes more sense when looking at the rules closely.  But, on the other hand, it's kind of a rules lawyer trick that WotC didn't foresee, nor did they need to.  There's no sanctioned 3cb, so it's not a rule that ever needed to be looked at that closely.  It makes the most sense to me to just make a separate rule specific to Shahrazad that says players don't lose the subgame for having less than 7 cards in their decks.  That completely negates the problem, and makes Shahrazad a trash card that doesn't even need to be banned.

[Jacob Orlove]

At the start of the sub-game both players draw their initial hand (usually 7 cards). If one player has fewer cards than required, that player loses. If both have fewer than required, both players lose. [Oracle 1998/07/01]

You're assuming that 3CB requires you to have a 7 card opening hand. Clearly, the correct number for starting hand size is 3. This changes the analysis considerably:

Either way, the caster of Shahrazad will never have 3 cards, because Shahrazad was cast. That player will lose. If the opponent has also played at least one card, he loses too. So, either Shahrazad's caster loses 10 life, or they both lose 10 life. No subgame can ever be drawn.

[theorigamist]

Okay, that's a solution that makes sense.

[CmdrSam]

Here is my reasoning: see if it makes sense to you.

"Players play a MAGIC subgame, using their libraries as their decks. Each player who doesn't win the subgame loses half his or her life, rounded up. After the subgame, players shuffle all subgame cards they own into their libraries. Players don't ante a card for the subgame, and libraries with less than the required number of cards are legal."

Nothing in there about losing if you have less cards than the number you have to draw in your opening hand. In the Comprehensive Rules:

"101.3. Once the starting player has been determined, each player sets his or her life total to 20 and draws a hand of seven cards."

"102.2. When a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.)"

These are the two rules that would make someone lose in a normal (parent) game. 3CB overrides 102.2, so that we each start by trying to draw 7 and only getting 3, but don't lose.

In a subgame, though:

"506.3a A player's deck in the subgame may have less than the minimum number of cards. If a player's deck contains less than seven cards, the player will lose the game as soon as it starts, even if he or she mulligans. (See rule 420, "State-Based Effects.")"

Read strictly, each player loses the subgame as soon as it starts. But it seems like the reason for this is that each player will be drawing more cards in their library, and that therefore 3CB should override it as well.

On the second issue, if we override this rule, but then both players have no chance of winning the subgame, you get in an infinite loop:

"102.6. If the game somehow enters a "loop," repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don't result in a draw."

You'd be in a loop where the only thing each player could do would be pass the turn, and therefore the subgame would be a draw. Both players would lose half their life in the parent game.

--Sam L-L

[CmdrSam]

Either way, the caster of Shahrazad will never have 3 cards, because Shahrazad was cast. That player will lose. If the opponent has also played at least one card, he loses too. So, either Shahrazad's caster loses 10 life, or they both lose 10 life. No subgame can ever be drawn.

Shahrazad takes your new decks from your parent game libraries, not your parent game hands. Unless something put cards from someone's hand back into their library, both players will have empty decks in the subgame.

--Sam L-L

[wonkey_donkey]

Here is my reasoning: see if it makes sense to you.

"Players play a MAGIC subgame, using their libraries as their decks. Each player who doesn't win the subgame loses half his or her life, rounded up. After the subgame, players shuffle all subgame cards they own into their libraries. Players don't ante a card for the subgame, and libraries with less than the required number of cards are legal."

Nothing in there about losing if you have less cards than the number you have to draw in your opening hand. In the Comprehensive Rules:

"101.3. Once the starting player has been determined, each player sets his or her life total to 20 and draws a hand of seven cards."

"102.2. When a player is required to draw more cards than are left in his or her library, he or she draws the remaining cards, and then loses the game the next time a player would receive priority. (This is a state-based effect. See rule 420.)"

These are the two rules that would make someone lose in a normal (parent) game. 3CB overrides 102.2, so that we each start by trying to draw 7 and only getting 3, but don't lose.

In a subgame, though:

"506.3a A player's deck in the subgame may have less than the minimum number of cards. If a player's deck contains less than seven cards, the player will lose the game as soon as it starts, even if he or she mulligans. (See rule 420, "State-Based Effects.")"

Read strictly, each player loses the subgame as soon as it starts. But it seems like the reason for this is that each player will be drawing more cards in their library, and that therefore 3CB should override it as well.

On the second issue, if we override this rule, but then both players have no chance of winning the subgame, you get in an infinite loop:

"102.6. If the game somehow enters a "loop," repeating a sequence of events with no way to stop, the game is a draw. Loops that contain an optional action don't result in a draw."

You'd be in a loop where the only thing each player could do would be pass the turn, and therefore the subgame would be a draw. Both players would lose half their life in the parent game.

--Sam L-L

I agree with your reasoning - it makes more sense than mine. I got as far as you did except that I assumed that the subgame would never end, and would hence draw the whole thing. However, when the subgame ends, of course, both players lose 10 life - this seems to be a ruling that works. Is there anyone who disagrees with this?

Tom

[theorigamist]

I have one nitpicky thing about that reasoning.  The rulings on Shahrazad specifically say all players who lose the subgame lose half of their life in the main game.  If the subgame is a draw, then it would end according to the infinite loop rule, and then neither player would lose life.  In essence, that means Shahrazad does nothing.

[CmdrSam]

I have one nitpicky thing about that reasoning.  The rulings on Shahrazad specifically say all players who lose the subgame lose half of their life in the main game.  If the subgame is a draw, then it would end according to the infinite loop rule, and then neither player would lose life.  In essence, that means Shahrazad does nothing.

The Oracle text says "Each player who doesn't win the subgame loses half his or her life, rounded up." (Emphasis mine.)

--Sam L-L

[LotusHead]

Is this line of argument worth delaying 3CB results?  Who would dare play Sharazad in 3CB?  Isn't that something that our beloved 3CB shouldn't have to deal with it?  On to 3CB37!

Someday, I WILL top8 in 3CB!!!

[wonkey_donkey]

They aren't being delayed - they get posted on Thursday.

Tom