NCB Multiplayer #1 - Results

[Jacob Orlove]

The decks are in (all six of them), and I have to say, I'm surprised. In turn order:

Wrath of ?!?!?!?! - Franz Ferdinand
Bid: 3/13 = 73
Leyline of the Void
Black Lotus
Ivory Giant
Balance

C'mon, I had to try. - Polynomial P
Bid: 1/12 = 32
Black lotus
Lions Eye diamond
Pact of Negation
Timetwister
Regrowth
Tendrils of Agony

Leyline Deck Wins - Illissius
Bid: 5/0 = 5
Leyline of Lifeforce
Leyline of Singularity
Leyline of the Void
Serra's Sanctum
Glowrider
Karakas
Mangara of Corondor

Leylines! - ReAnimator
Bid: 0/2 = 2
Leyline of the Void
Leyline of Singularity
Karakas
AEther Vial
Mangara of Corondor
Man O'war
Force of will.

Very slow/ very boring - technogeek5000
Bid: 0/1 = 1
Drayd arbor
Force of will
Force of will
Force of will
Misdirection
Misdirection
Misdirection

Stax - Jacob Orlove
Bid: 0/0 = 0
Mishra's Workshop
Trinisphere
Strip Mine
Null Brooch
Mishra's Factory
Crucible of Worlds
The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale

I decided to let people play Leylines in turn order, because that makes the most sense. Unfortunately, there's no way for Illisius to get all three of his Leylines on the table, since Franz Ferdinand obviously wants to play his to ensure a devastating Balance. That leaves Illisius with the green leyline and either (but not both) of the blue and black leylines. I'll get into his specific choices later, since it doesn't have much effect on anyone else, except ReAnimator.

So, with the black Leyline definitely in play, Franz plays Lotus. ReAnimator can either Force this, presumably pitching blue leyline, or wait, let Polynomial P Pact of Negation the Balance, and let Franz get his suspend Giant in a few turns. We'll see if the Giant ends up being relevant, but for now, we'll assume the latter.

That passes the turn to Polynomial P, who has been hosed by black leyline. But it's okay, because he just died to his own Pact. I hadn't realized this before, but Pact is actually really bad in this format unless you're absolutely sure you're going first, because anyone who goes before you will almost certainly have a spell you'll be forced to counter. I do love this combo, but this was not the week to try it out.

Next up is Illisius, who is in trouble. His Sanctum only taps for WW, but the worst part is that ReAnimator is also running Karakas. If Illisius plays Karakas first, ReAnimator never gets to have mana, which means he'll probably just play his Karakas and have them both die, leaving Illisius unable to get to three mana. On the other hand, if Illisius opens with Sanctum, ReAnimator drops Karakas, and Illisius still can't get to three mana. Legends are risky plays in this format! Anyway, since Illisius has no plays that lead to casting his creatures, the best he can do is drop Karakas now, to lock ReAnimator out of the game.

ReAnimator can play Karakas if he wants, but it doesn't much matter. Since Karakas only actually returns Legendary Creatures, and Leyline of SIngularity excludes lands, only the Ivory Giant would be affected--and, as we'll see, that doesn't matter.

So now technogeek5000 is up. He plays Dryad Arbor, and passes, or doesn't play it at all. It doesn't really matter, since it gets negated by The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale (which, being a land, is uncounterable).

Now I'm up. At this point, the relevant uncast spells are my three artifacts, plus possibly Ivory Giant. Four Force of Wills remain in hand, so we'll assume that everything gets countered (including my unfortunately useless Crucible). That leaves me with Factory, Strip Mine, and Tabernacle, which thanks to LEGEND MADNESS appears to be enough to take this one home. Bizarre.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Damn, looks like I still would've gone first even with the SSG/Pyroblast addition...but I suppose it doesn't matter either way.

[Illissius]

Leyline Deck does not Win. I was actually worried about other people running Leylines and Karakas, but didn't expect two of them to :/. Frowns.

You're amazingly fast. You posted what, half an hour after the deadline?

[Jacob Orlove]

Well, the post took almost half an hour to write. I could have written it up earlier, but I was still hoping for more last-minute entries. In any case, these are actually not that tough to figure out--it's just the one game, and this time, almost all the decks were rendered irrelevant pretty fast.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Looking back through this...why isn't technogeek given the option to counter? Both Reanimator and Polynomial P can pass priority, forcing technogeek to counter the Balance or else everyone dies.

[Jacob Orlove]

Well, in normal multiplayer, you don't know for sure that someone after you has the counterspell, so you'll often counter something even when you might be able to force someone else to later. However, with all hands face up, I didn't want to always force the last person to get priority to be the one to counter each new spell. The rule is open to revision if people don't like it, but here's what I had it as for this tournament:

2) If any player takes an action that would win the game, and a player could stop it, that player is required to do so. However, instead of priority passing around the table, it always starts with the first player, and continues from there. You are allowed to stop actions that do not win the game (eg, countering a spell that would kill only you), but you *must* stop someone from winning if you can. This prevents players from holding onto their countermagic, and forcing someone later in the turn order to act first.

[Polynomial P]

That passes the turn to Polynomial P, who has been hosed by black leyline. But it's okay, because he just died to his own Pact. I hadn't realized this before, but Pact is actually really bad in this format unless you're absolutely sure you're going first, because anyone who goes before you will almost certainly have a spell you'll be forced to counter. I do love this combo, but this was not the week to try it out.

I had to figure out whether or not I wanted pact of negation. If I didnt put pact in there, I would have thought I might actually go first, which I didnt want to do. I could have put in FOW and Blue card, but didnt want to do that either since there would not be any guarantee that I would even get a turn if my bid wasnt over 20. Still, it didnt matter thanks to the leylines. I didnt realize that leyline of the Black did all opponents which really eliminates the use of graveyards in this format since someone is bound to be a party pooper and play leyline of the void.

I still had to try that combo.

[Godder]

In the case of Pacts, I'm not sure that Polynomial P would actually want to use it, since using it loses the game for him, with no benefits. While it's important to counter stuff that would win otherwise, it's also important to note that he plays optimally, and this is a case, I think, where those two rules contradict each other. Given that, P would not play Pact, because he has no incentive to do so.

[Jacob Orlove]

Oh, he clearly doesn't want to use it, but if we allow optimal play to override the other rules, then those rules become meaningless. The whole point is that they force you to do stuff that isn't necessarily optimal, otherwise there's no point in having them. Optimal play is the default, but the other rules provide explicit exceptions, so they take precedence.

I could write up an exception for Pact of Negation, but I don't really want to, since there could be plenty of other situations that could involve a player giving up a chance to win in order to stop someone else. Just look at all the people running Mangara of Corondor--if ReAnimator had put blue leyline down and then had to Force, his only win condition was Mangara, which he very well might have been forced to sacrifice due to that rule. Letting the rule apply to all cases just seems best.

And while the "you must stop someone if you can" rule is different from normal multiplayer, in this format, I think it's a reasonable compromise. Otherwise, we'd have arguments about "well, it'd be 'optimal' to do X, but then player B counters with Y, so A does Z instead, but then player C might..." and we'd get into all these recursive loops where everyone's best play depends on everyone else's best play. It's much better to add some reasonable forced plays, because that simplifies the decision tree enough that I can deal with it, and we can have a clear winner.

[Franz Ferdinand]

Well, in normal multiplayer, you don't know for sure that someone after you has the counterspell, so you'll often counter something even when you might be able to force someone else to later. However, with all hands face up, I didn't want to always force the last person to get priority to be the one to counter each new spell. The rule is open to revision if people don't like it, but here's what I had it as for this tournament:

2) If any player takes an action that would win the game, and a player could stop it, that player is required to do so. However, instead of priority passing around the table, it always starts with the first player, and continues from there. You are allowed to stop actions that do not win the game (eg, countering a spell that would kill only you), but you *must* stop someone from winning if you can. This prevents players from holding onto their countermagic, and forcing someone later in the turn order to act first.

I think that it should be the opposite, and that the last player is forced to counter as a penalty for a low bid.

[Jacob Orlove]

I just assumed that going last would be sufficient punishment already, but we could certainly try it that way, or just pass priority normally. Thoughts?

[Godder]

Normally, I'd agree, but I do think that when the option is for everyone loses (including you), or just you lose, you'd be better to pass. Maybe we just say Pacts are bad because of that, but the rule doesn't work so well if someone is forced to lose the game by playing to it.

[Jacob Orlove]

No, my goal was to prioritize events as follows (from best to worst):
you win
you (and only you) lose
someone else wins
the game is a draw

Allowing any other set of priorities leads to forced draws and/or kingmaking, both of which destroy the point of this format.

I would much, much rather force player A to lose than allow him to pick a winner.

[Polynomial P]

Will there be another one of these? I am sure that it is time consuming to run, but I really enjoyed the last one and the write-up that Jacob did.

[Jacob Orlove]

Yeah, now that I'm back from Israel, I can run another one. I'm still getting settled in, though, so it'll be a few days before I start it up.

[Polynomial P]

Sweet. Thanks!