We need a separate thread to fully discuss and flesh out the rules.
Main discussion atm is involving the rules on 2.3a (formerly 2.2a - the "win" and "discard" rule).
Mogg has proposed the following:
2.3. Decks are subject to some restrictions.
2.3a. An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force any cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could take no sequence of actions consistent with rule 1.11e that would not result in that card changing zones. Ignore this rule in the following cases:
i. All cards in an opponent's hand that would be forced to change zones would be cast by that opponent or would enter the battlefield under that opponent's control. For example, a 4CB deck could contain Wild Evocation and two copies of Black Lotus.
ii. All cards in an opponent’s hand that weren’t there as a result of a cost or effect that opponent controlled that would be forced to change zones during the resolution of a spell or ability would be in that opponent’s hand after that spell or ability resolved. For example, a 3CB deck could contain Timetwister and Black Lotus but an 8CB deck could not.
iii. Cards in an opponent's hand would be forced to change zones only if cards in that opponent’s hand that started outside the game would cause that opponent’s maximum hand size at the start of the game to be exceeded. For example, a 3CB LR deck could contain two copies of Ancestral Recall.
iv. The rule would be violated only in a game that existed as a result of an effect that resolved not before the specified turn or until each player had completed the specified number of turns that restarted the game or created a subgame. For example, a 2CB LR deck could contain Karn Liberated.
This is very clunky, whereas most other areas are elegantly worded, but that isn't the main issue.
Because this is written out so much, I foresee players finding loopholes, gray areas, etc.
For instance, a 1st turn Mindslaver would be considered legal under these rules, since forcing your opponent to cast Black Lotus is ignored via 2.3a-i. You can then cause him to sacrifice it, which is beyond the scope of 2.3a entirely.
Even if we add a rule to stop these specifics, Word of Command pops up. Now I force you to cast black lotus, or even make you sacrifice a black lotus (that you needed) to cast your Bolt at yourself. It's clearly breaking the spirit of the rules, and is outside of the proposed rules.
These are just random examples.
Perhaps not even the best ones.
_______________
We need a rules set that expands to let us play things that don't break the spirit of the discard rule, while not letting in any gray areas or loopholes.
My proposed rule won't quite work, but I feel it is a nicer starting point.
2.3a. An entrant may not submit a deck that can do any of the following, by its own actions, prior to an opponent starting his or her second turn of a game:
60
i. Win the game.
60
ii. Force any card in an opponents hand to end in any zone that is disadvantageous to that player.
2.3b. Subgames and restarted games are not within the scope of 2.3a, so long as the original game would advance beyond the start of an opponent's second turn.
"Disadvantageous" is too subjective, but I like the "ending the turn in a zone" part.
This lets Timetwister or Winds of Change in most rounds, which are within the spirit of the discard rule.
This does not allow the use of Wild Evocation, which I'm not positive we should allow.
Yours is certainly more elegant, but kind of ambiguous.
Maybe 2.3.a.ii could be worded "force any card in an opponent's startinghand to end in any zone other than their hand or the battlefield under its owners control"
That allows the double recall as well as the gambit that started this discussion, but not the discard that we're trying to clearly outlaw or wild evocation (because any instants or sorceries would end in the graveyard)
For instance, a 1st turn Mindslaver would be considered legal under these rules, since forcing your opponent to cast Black Lotus is ignored via 2.3a-i. You can then cause him to sacrifice it, which is beyond the scope of 2.3a entirely.
Even if we add a rule to stop these specifics, Word of Command pops up. Now I force you to cast black lotus, or even make you sacrifice a black lotus (that you needed) to cast your Bolt at yourself. It's clearly breaking the spirit of the rules, and is outside of the proposed rules.
That's incorrect. Consider Cave-In and similar cards, in any format except 1CB. In 1CB, consider cycling in regard to Mindslaver. That said, it's probably best to simply disallow Wild Evocation:
"i. All cards in an opponent's hand that would be forced to change zones would not be cast by that opponent and would enter the battlefield under that opponent's control. For example, a 4CB deck with two copies of Black Lotus could contain Stronghold Gambit but could not contain Wild Evocation."
Rule 2.3a is longer than other rules, but that's not inherently problematic. Of the many iterations we've tried, this version of the rule most exactly captures what we do and don't want to allow, and is unambiguous. If some cases have been missed, then entrants will show them in their submissions, and we can improve the rule.
One crazy "solution" would be to have the starting cards appear in something similar to the exiled zone, and allow the ability to swap the cards between the player's hand and that zone at any time during the first two turns. Its not very intuitive though.
Whamme is right. Gambit doesn't break the spirit of the discard rule, so the temptation is to rewrite the rules to nail that down.
But the rule we have takes away exactly what we want it to take away. if we have that, I'm ok with some cards being unfairly persecuted. Sorry stronghold gambit, but you break a rule on a technicality. its a good rule
Whamme is right. Gambit doesn't break the spirit of the discard rule, so the temptation is to rewrite the rules to nail that down.
But the rule we have takes away exactly what we want it to take away. if we have that, I'm ok with some cards being unfairly persecuted. Sorry stronghold gambit, but you break a rule on a technicality. its a good rule
None of the four proposed exceptions changes deck legality in a significant way. Given that, I would agree with both of you if all of the cases in which a deck wasn't legal were clear. That was my position when I thought Timetwister effects were the only unintended ban.
Banning cards for ambiguity - rather then fixing the ambiguity - is dangerous. If a new card with the same ambiguity is printed, and the moderator fails to ban it, then an incalculable round could occur.
Gambit isn't ambiguous, but unintuitive. Three experienced players - Draco9, Feyd_Ruin, and I - failed to notice the problem. From experience, I'd guess that the Ancestral Recall case is at least as unintuitive; before I changed the rules to eliminate the drawing of opening hands, Infinite Gatecrash should have been dominated by reanimator decks, because each player should have drawn seven copies of his or her chosen card at the start of the game.
It's unreasonable to expect players to anticipate every problem, so it's best to have explicit answers, and it's best if those answers align with the outcomes that players already expect.
Lastly, the body of the proposed rule is every bit as concise as the old rule was. A player can quickly conclude that the exceptions don't generally need to be taken into account.
With the double Ancestral Recall issue, you are only forcing the player to draw cards. Rule 514.1. of the Magic Comprehensive Rules causes the player discard down to their maximum hand size.
First, if the active player's hand contains more cards than his or her maximum hand size (normally seven), he or she discards enough cards to reduce his or her hand size to that number. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack.
Even if someone does run double Ancestral Recall during an ALR, more than likely they will just discard some of their lands.
-----
I noticed that some of the discard and forced cast cards require revealing. How about having players ignore the abilities of cards that require revealing?
Until each player has completed two turns, each player may ignore any part of an effect of a source that would cause a card in either player's hand to be revealed.
With the double Ancestral Recall issue, you are only forcing the player to draw cards. Rule 514.1. of the Magic Comprehensive Rules causes the player discard down to their maximum hand size.
Correctly defining the term 'force' is tricky. The most recent definition I've given reads "A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could take no sequence of actions consistent with rule 1.11e that would not result in that card changing zones." For reference, rule 1.11e reads "Games are played optimally; players attempt to win, to draw if unable to win, or to prolong the game if unable to draw."
I specified that actions need to be consistent with 1.11e, so that a 2CB LR deck with Coercion wouldn't be illegal because an opponent's deck could contain Eladamri's Vineyard. However, the rule fails; a 4CB Leyline-Karakas deck is illegal because an opponent's deck could be 2x Lotus / Land / Cursed Monstrosity. Another problem involves Mindslaver; while a player is controlled by an opponent, that player – not that player's opponent – takes all actions that result in a card being cast.
On reflection, the rule would work as I intended it to if the phrase "consistent with rule 1.11e" were dropped, and if "take no sequence of actions" were changed to "make no sequence of decisions". As a side-effect, rule 1.11 can be simplified (see spoiler).
Your interpretation of the term 'force' requires a different definition. Such a definition might read: "A card is forced to change zones if that card changes zones during the resolution of a spell or ability controlled by an opponent or if an effect generated by a source an opponent owns allows that opponent to cause that card to change zones, and if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones."
I prefer a simpler definition of 'force' and an additional exception, but either approach is viable.
All Blind Tournament Rules
0. Overview
The All Blind Tournament (ABT) is a Magic tournament that consists of four rounds of X Card Blind (XCB), run entirely within this forum. To compete, entrants submit decks containing X cards which are played against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play, without randomness or concealed information.
1. Game Rules
1.1. There are many versions of XCB. Each version has a name, of the form XCB 'Land Rule' 'Sanctioned Magic Format' 'Special Format' 'Bonus' 'Counter Rule' 'Life Rule'.
1.1a. X is a number.
1.1b. 'Land Rule' can be LR, ELR, ALR, or nothing. LR indicates that the basic land rule is in effect, ELR indicates that the expanded land rule is in effect, and ALR indicates that the alternative land rule is in effect (see Rule 1.7).
1.1c. 'Sanctioned Magic Format' can be the name of a sanctioned Magic constructed format or nothing. The name of a format indicates that only cards contained in sets legal in that format may be submitted. This is an exception to rule 2.3c.
1.1d. 'Special Format' can be the name of at least one special format or nothing. The name of a special format indicates that the special format in effect (see Rule 1.8).
1.1e. 'Bonus' can be (Bonus) or nothing. (Bonus) modifies the preceding special format, indicating that an entrant must not follow the rules of that format, but that entrant will earn a specified number of bonus points if he or she does (see Rule 2.4f).
1.1f. 'Counter Rule' can be C or nothing. C indicates that the counter rule is in effect (see Rule 1.9).
1.1g. 'Life Rule' can be LF or nothing. LF indicates that the life rule is in effect (see Rule 1.10).
1.2. Decks are not played, but are scored as though they were. The player of a deck is the entrant who submitted that deck.
1.3. Except for the changes described in these rules, games follow the rules for a normal game of Magic.
1.3a. Ignore any part of an instruction that isn't covered by these rules or the rules of Magic.
1.4. An entrant's deck contains exactly X cards (see Rule 1.1).
1.4a. A player's opening hand contains the cards in his or her deck.
1.4b. Players don't draw hands or mulligan.
1.4c. Players don't have sideboards.
1.5. Players' libraries begin the game empty.
1.5a. A player doesn't lose the game as a result of being unable to draw a card.
1.6. A cost or effect that would produce a random result produces the result that least benefits the player who paid the cost or the owner of the source of the effect instead.
1.7. Some versions of XCB use a land rule.
1.7a. This is the basic land rule (LR). Any player may play a basic land or basic snow land of the subtype of his or her choice from outside the game any time he or she could normally play a land.
1.7b. This is the expanded land rule (ELR). Any player may play a basic land or basic snow land of the subtype of his or her choice from outside the game any time he or she could normally play a land. Any player may play an additional land on each of his or her turns from his or her hand.
1.7c. This is the alternative land rule (ALR). If a player would draw a card from an empty library, that player puts a basic land or basic snow land card of the subtype of his or her choice from outside the game into his or her hand instead. The starting player doesn't skip the draw step of his or her first turn.
1.8. Some versions of XCB use a special format. A special format is an extra set of rules. These rules overwrite any other applicable rules. A non-comprehensive list of special formats is maintained here.
1.8a. Some special formats cause players to draw hands. The drawn cards become part of that player's opening hand.
1.8b. Continuous effects generated by special formats are applied in the order those formats are listed in the XCB version name, before any other effects that could be applied in a layer.
1.9. Some versions of XCB use the counter rule.
1.9a. This is the counter rule (C). Until each player has completed two turns, each player ignores any part of an effect of a source an opponent owns that would counter a spell that player controls.
1.10. Some versions of XCB use the life rule.
1.10a. This is the life rule (LF). If neither player would win otherwise, then the player who maintains the higher life total wins the game.
1.11. Each player plays one match against each other player.
1.11a. Each match has two games.
1.11b. Each player is the starting player for one game in each match.
1.11c. Games are played with perfect information; players know the identities of face-down cards and cards in hidden zones, and players know which decisions have been made by other players.
1.11d. Games are played optimally. The best outcome for a player is to win the game and the worst outcome is to lose the game.
1.11e. If a game would continue indefinitely, then the game is a draw.
2. Tournament Rules
2.1. Entrants compete in a competition.
2.1a. The shortest type of competition is a round. Typically, each round lasts one week.
2.1b. The ABT is a competition consisting of four rounds.
2.2. An entrant submits his or her deck to the ABT moderator.
2.2a. An entrant submits his or her deck by private message (pm).
2.2b. An entrant may submit multiple decks, but only the most recently submitted deck is counted.
2.2c. An illegal deck is not counted. At the moderator’s discretion, an illegal deck may be replaced by a similar deck – in which any cards causing that deck to be illegal have been removed or replaced.
2.2d. The moderator determines the result of each match. Entrants may challenge results, but not after the results of the first round of a new ABT have been posted, except at the moderator's discretion.
2.2e. An entrant may name his or her deck. If an entrant doesn't, then the moderator may name it.
2.3. Decks are subject to some restrictions.
2.3a. An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force any cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before an opponent's second turn. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones. Ignore this rule in the following cases:
i. All cards in an opponent's hand that would be forced to change zones would not be cast by that opponent and would enter the battlefield under that opponent's control. For example, a 4CB deck with two copies of Black Lotus could contain Stronghold Gambit but could not contain Wild Evocation.
ii. All cards in an opponent’s hand that weren’t there as a result of a cost or effect that opponent controlled that would be forced to change zones during the resolution of a spell or ability would be in that opponent’s hand after that spell or ability resolved. For example, a 3CB deck could contain Timetwister and Black Lotus but an 8CB deck could not.
iii. Cards in an opponent's hand would be forced to change zones only if cards in that opponent’s hand that started outside the game would cause that opponent’s maximum hand size at the start of the game to be exceeded. For example, a 3CB LR deck could contain two copies of Ancestral Recall.
iv. The rule would be violated only in a game that existed as a result of an effect that resolved not before the specified turn or until each player had completed the specified number of turns that restarted the game or created a subgame. For example, a 2CB LR deck could contain Karn Liberated.
2.3b. An entrant may not submit a deck that doesn't enable the player of that deck to win a match (see Rule 2.4d) against at least one deck satisfying all rules.
2.3c. A deck may contain any number of copies of any card legal in Vintage (Type 1). Except as modified by a special format, all cards used in a game must be legal in Vintage.
2.3d. A deck may contain any number of copies of any card that will become legal in Vintage upon release of a set that's been revealed fully and officially since the start of the round.
2.3e. A deck may not contain any banned cards. If the rules of a special format instruct an entrant to choose a card, then that entrant can't choose a banned card.
2.3f. A deck may not contain any cards on the ABT Banned List.
2.4. Points determine round standings.
2.4a. Entrants are ranked – first to last – in order of decreasing number of points.
2.4b. For each match, an entrant earns 3 points per game win and 1 point per drawn game.
2.4c. The combined result of both games in a match is called a match result. Possible match results are: 6 – two wins, 4 – a win and a draw, 3 or 2 or S – a win and a loss, 2 – two draws, 1 – a draw and a loss, and 0 – two losses.
2.4d. Some match results are also denoted by names: two wins – match win, a win and a loss – split match, two draws – draw, and two losses – match loss. An entrant wins the match if he or she wins both games, splits the match if he or she wins a game and loses a game, draws a match if he or she draws both games, and loses the match if he or she loses both games.
2.4e. An entrant earns only 2 points for a split match. This is an exception to rule 2.4b.
2.4f. An entrant may earn a number of bonus points defined by a special format. An entrant earns these points in addition to any other points.
2.4g. A table of match results is posted at the end of each round. Its rows represent entrants and its columns represent those entrants' opponents. An entrant's total number of points is listed at the end of his or her row.
2.5. The entrant with the most tournament points over the course of the ABT is the tournament winner.
2.5a. Each round, an entrant receives tournament points equal to his or her average match result for that round multiplied by 100, rounded to the nearest integer or some number of decimal places chosen at the moderator's discretion. For example, an entrant scoring 6-6-6-6-X-0-0-0 in a round with 8 entrants receives 340 tournament points ((6 + 6 + 6 + 6) / (8 - 1) x 100).
2.5b. If two or more entrants would win the ABT, then each of those entrants competes in additional rounds specified by the moderator, until only one entrant has the most tournament points. Each additional round contains only the entrants who have the most tournament points. The moderator may specify a limit to the number of additional rounds.
3. Prize Rules
3.1. A prize shall be given to the tournament winner.
3.1a. The winner of the tournament shall be given the prize described within the tournament, or a suitable replacement upon the tournament's end.
3.1b. If the winner of the tournament has won two or more tournaments, then the highest ranked entrant who hasn't won two or more tournaments shall be given the prize instead.
3.1c. If the winner was a moderator for two or more rounds of the tournament, then the highest ranked entrant who wasn't the moderator for two or more rounds of that tournament shall be given the prize instead. This is to ensure fair play.
3.1d. An entrant may decline the prize. If he or she does, then that entrant may designate another entrant to receive the prize.
3.1e. Entrants under the age of 18 are ineligible for prizes, due to federal laws regarding the sharing of personal information of minors.
3.1f. In the event that a prize can't be given to an entrant, the moderator will do his best to find another suitable way to reward that entrant.
3.1g. No prize is 100% guaranteed, but is assumed upon a good faith basis. Let's face it, with international customs, weird laws, etc, we can't guarantee anything. We'll do our best.
3.2. As a prized tournament, special scoring rules and practices are in place.
3.2a. Entrants are responsible for their own scoring. Assistance will be given, especially to new entrants, but it is ultimately up to each entrant to ensure his or her scoring is completed and accurate.
3.2b. Incomplete scores are considered losses, even to both players in a match if necessary. This is to make sure a winner is determined at the end of a tournament.
3.2c. The moderator always has the final word regarding scores and rules. Entrants may question any scoring the moderator does, until the moderator says that a match's scoring is final.
3.2d. The moderator may, at his or her discretion, determine a match is too difficult to calculate and give it a tie score, or his or her best guess. Again, this is final.
3.2e. Once a winner has been announced as final, that entrant shall receive the prize, even if errors in scoring or points are shown later.
Correctly defining the term 'force' is tricky. The most recent definition I've given reads "A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could take no sequence of actions consistent with rule 1.11e that would not result in that card changing zones." For reference, rule 1.11e reads "Games are played optimally; players attempt to win, to draw if unable to win, or to prolong the game if unable to draw."
Doesn't that technically make all decks illegal? Consider a deck which wants to discard T1 (emrakul/shelldock, for example). Since that deck playing optimally causes a card to change zones, by your definition all other decks are forcing it to do so.
All of the rules except for 2.3b are easy to understand.
I just don't really like the over complication of what should be a simple rule.
"You can't win or ["discard"] before the beginning of your op's 2nd turn."
Either, we go to a 2-document system, where we lay everything out in layman's terms for new players, ease of understanding, etc, and have a full rule book in the other OR we need to continue to simplify everything.
I prefer the latter, so that no one gets confused. While we are used to playing XCB, new players are confused by the very idea of it. I've had to really explain it many times, and I think that should be the only real hurdle of understanding for new players.
I don't actually mind the "this isn't considered discard" section. It's the technical aspect of it that could confuse people.
Actually.. New idea...
Perhaps do an in-depth rulings section in the repository?
This could cut out some of 2.3a, while still have an area that answers the questions.
While we are used to playing XCB, new players are confused by the very idea of it. I've had to really explain it many times, and I think that should be the only real hurdle of understanding for new players.
An idea about making a Youtube video popped up in my head when you mentioned this. People learn regular Magic through the cards themselves. Maybe the same can be done with Card Blind. Narrated by Sean Connery.
Doesn't that technically make all decks illegal? Consider a deck which wants to discard T1 (emrakul/shelldock, for example). Since that deck playing optimally causes a card to change zones, by your definition all other decks are forcing it to do so.
First, note that I've removed the reference to playing optimally.
Second, 'force' is used only in the phrase "a deck that could ... force any cards in an opponent's hand", so implicitly an action is only forced if an opponent's deck is involved.
Either, we go to a 2-document system, where we lay everything out in layman's terms for new players, ease of understanding, etc, and have a full rule book in the other OR we need to continue to simplify everything.
I prefer the latter, so that no one gets confused. While we are used to playing XCB, new players are confused by the very idea of it. I've had to really explain it many times, and I think that should be the only real hurdle of understanding for new players.
I don't actually mind the "this isn't considered discard" section. It's the technical aspect of it that could confuse people.
Actually.. New idea...
Perhaps do an in-depth rulings section in the repository?
This could cut out some of 2.3a, while still have an area that answers the questions.
The in-depth rules should exist in a comprehensive form somewhere. An in-depth rulings section would be useful as a supplement to the rules, but a player should be able to determine the result of an interaction that isn't covered in an example, if he or she so desires.
The comprehensive rules need not be included in every XCB thread, so long as there is a reference to them and players can find them easily. An overview of the intent of the rules would suffice. Such an overview could also eliminate a significant portion of the other rules currently contained in the comprehensive ABT rules. The "Overview" section of the comprehensive rules (section 0) could be excised completely and expanded into a separate document.
Essentially, I like the two-document system. Regular Magic uses a Basic Rulebook in addition to the Comprehensive Rules.
Essentially, I like the two-document system. Regular Magic uses a Basic Rulebook in addition to the Comprehensive Rules.
The more I think on it, the more I feel this is what we're going to have to move to.
A singular master rulebook for all XCBs.
Then, each individual XCB could simply list the basic rules, as well as any options that it uses.
Options include possible land rule, which 2.3b it uses (2nd turn? 1st turn? etc)
We've kind of already moved to this system, with the recent rules rewrite.
This could allow us what would otherwise be "ambiguous" wording in the easy to read rules (though its intent is clear), while having actual in-depth rules that don't leave gray areas or loopholes, etc.
X Card Blind (XBT) is a weekly Magic tournament, run entirely within this forum. To compete, entrants submit decks containing X cards which are played against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play, without randomness or concealed information.
Deck Construction Rules
1. A deck must contain exactly X cards.
2. A deck may contain any number of copies of any Vintage-legal card, but can't contain any cards on the XCB Banned List.
3. A player's deck must not enable that player to win the game before each player has completed a specified number of turns.
4. A player's deck must not enable that player to force an opponent to lose more than a specified number of cards in his or her hand before each player has completed a specified number of turns.
5. A player's deck must enable that player to win the game.
Deck Submission Rules
6. An entrant submits his or her deck to the XCB moderator by private message (pm).
Playing the Decks
7. Entrants don't actually play their decks, because game results can be determined theoretically.
8. Each player starts the game with the cards in his or her deck in his or her hand.
9. A player doesn't lose the game as a result of being unable to draw a card.
10. A random effect resolves in favor of the opponent of the owner of that effect.
11. Players know all information that would normally be concealed from them.
12. Each player plays one two-game match against each other player, and each player is the starting player once per match.
Points
13. The entrant with the most points is the winner. For each match, an entrant earns 3 points per game win and 1 point per drawn game. However, an entrant earns only 2 points for a split match (each player wins a game).
Extra Rules
14. Some optional rules may be used; see Optional Rules.
15. The Basic Rules don't cover every issue. For in-depth rules, see Comprehensive Rules.
Optional Rules
Land Rule
Any player may play a basic land of his or her choice from outside the game any time he or she could normally play a land.
Expanded Land Rule
Any player may play a basic land of his or her choice from outside the game any time he or she could normally play a land. Any player may play an additional land on each of his or her turns from his or her hand.
Alternative Land Rule
If a player would draw a card from an empty library, that player puts a basic land card of his or her choice from outside the game into his or her hand instead. The starting player doesn't skip the draw step of his or her first turn.
Sanctioned Magic Format
A deck may contain only cards contained in sets legal in the specified format.
Counter Rule
Until each player has completed two turns, each player ignores any part of an effect of a source an opponent owns that would counter a spell that player controls.
Life Rule
If neither player would win otherwise, then the player who maintains the higher life total wins the game. Determine whether a deck enables the player of that deck to win the game as though this rule didn't exist.
Special Format
Other rules are specified.
Comprehensive Rules
Game Rules
1.1. There are many versions of XCB. Each version has a name, of the form 'ABT' XCB 'Land Rule' 'Sanctioned Magic Format' 'Special Format' '(Bonus)' 'Counter Rule' 'Life Rule'.
1.1a. 'ABT' can be ABT or nothing. ABT indicates that a round (see Rule 2.1a) is part of an All-Blind Tournament (see Rule 2.6a).
1.1b. X is a number.
1.1c. 'Land Rule' can be LR, ELR, ALR, or nothing. LR indicates that the basic land rule is in effect, ELR indicates that the expanded land rule is in effect, and ALR indicates that the alternative land rule is in effect (see Rule 1.7).
1.1d. 'Sanctioned Magic Format' can be the name of a sanctioned Magic constructed format or nothing. The name of a format indicates that only cards contained in sets legal in that format may be submitted. This is an exception to rule 2.3c.
1.1e. 'Special Format' can be the name of at least one special format or nothing. The name of a special format indicates that the special format in effect (see Rule 1.8).
1.1f. 'Bonus' can be (Bonus) or nothing. (Bonus) modifies the preceding special format, indicating that an entrant must not follow the rules of that format, but that entrant will earn a specified number of bonus points if he or she does (see Rule 2.4f).
1.1g. 'Counter Rule' can be C or nothing. C indicates that the counter rule is in effect (see Rule 1.9).
1.1h. 'Life Rule' can be LF, AL, or nothing. LF indicates that the life rule is in effect and AL indicates that the alternative life rule is in effect (see Rule 1.10).
1.2. Decks are not played, but are scored as though they were. The player of a deck is the entrant who submitted that deck.
1.3. Except for the changes described in these rules, games follow the rules for a normal game of Magic.
1.3a. Ignore any part of an instruction that isn't covered by these rules or the rules of Magic.
1.4. An entrant's deck contains exactly X cards (see Rule 1.1).
1.4a. A player's opening hand contains the cards in his or her deck.
1.4b. Players don't draw hands or mulligan.
1.4c. Players don't have sideboards.
1.5. Players' libraries begin the game empty.
1.5a. A player doesn't lose the game as a result of being unable to draw a card.
1.6. A cost or effect that would produce a random result produces the result that least benefits the player who paid the cost or the owner of the source of the effect instead.
1.7. Some versions of XCB use a land rule.
1.7a. This is the basic land rule (LR). Any player may play a basic land or basic snow land of the subtype of his or her choice from outside the game any time he or she could normally play a land.
1.7b. This is the expanded land rule (ELR). Any player may play a basic land or basic snow land of the subtype of his or her choice from outside the game any time he or she could normally play a land. Any player may play an additional land on each of his or her turns from his or her hand.
1.7c. This is the alternative land rule (ALR). If a player would draw a card from an empty library, that player puts a basic land or basic snow land card of the subtype of his or her choice from outside the game into his or her hand instead. The starting player doesn't skip the draw step of his or her first turn.
1.8. Some versions of XCB use a special format. A special format is an extra set of rules. These rules overwrite any other applicable rules. A non-comprehensive list of special formats is maintained here.
1.8a. Some special formats cause an emblem to be put into the command zone. Abilities of those emblems can't be countered by spells or abilities, except as modified by a special format.
1.8b. Some special formats cause players to draw hands. The drawn cards become part of that player's opening hand.
1.8c. Some special formats generate continuous effects. Continuous effects generated by special formats are applied in the order those formats are listed in the XCB version name, before any other effects that could be applied in a layer.
1.8d. Some special formats require an entrant to make some number of decisions in addition to or instead of submitting a deck. An entrant's submission is that entrant's deck and any decisions that entrant makes. An entrant's submission must not violate rule 2.3 if all instances of the word 'deck' in that rule are replaced with 'submission'.
1.8e. Some special formats refer to decks that obtain or could obtain results. Saying that a deck obtains or could obtain a result means that the player of that deck obtains or could obtain that result in a game or match against another player (see Rule 1.11). If a deck obtains or could obtain a result against another deck, then the player of that deck obtains or could obtain that result against the player of the other deck.
1.9. Some versions of XCB use the counter rule.
1.9a. This is the counter rule (C). Until each player has completed two turns, each player ignores any part of an effect of a source an opponent owns that would counter a spell that player controls.
1.10. Some versions of XCB use a life rule.
1.10a. This is the life rule (LF). If neither player would win otherwise, then the player who maintains the higher life total wins the game. Determine whether a deck enables the player of that deck to win a match as though this rule didn't exist (see Rule 2.3b).
1.10b. This is the alternative life rule (AL). If neither player would win otherwise, then the player who maintains the higher life total wins the game.
1.11. Each player plays one match against each other player.
1.11a. Each match has two games.
1.11b. Each player is the starting player for one game in each match.
1.11c. Games are played with perfect information; players know the identities of face-down cards and cards in hidden zones, and players know which decisions have been made by other players.
1.11d. Games are played optimally. The best outcome for a player is to win the game and the worst outcome is to lose the game.
1.11e. If a game would continue indefinitely, then the game is a draw.
Tournament Rules
2.1. Entrants compete in a competition.
2.1a. The shortest type of competition is a round. Typically, each round lasts one week.
2.1b. A competition that consists of multiple rounds is a tournament.
2.2. An entrant submits his or her deck to the XCB moderator.
2.2a. An entrant submits his or her deck by private message (pm).
2.2b. An entrant may submit multiple decks, but only the most recently submitted deck is counted.
2.2c. An illegal deck is not counted. At the moderator's discretion, an illegal deck may be replaced by a similar deck – in which any cards causing that deck to be illegal have been removed or replaced. The removal of an illegal deck doesn't affect deck distribution (see Rule 2.5).
2.2d. The moderator determines the result of each match. Entrants may challenge results, but not after the results of the first round of a new tournament have been posted (see Rule 2.6), except at the moderator's discretion.
2.2e. An entrant may name his or her deck. If an entrant doesn't, then the moderator may name it.
2.3. Decks are subject to some restrictions.
2.3a. An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force more than a specified number of cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before a specified turn or until each player has completed a specified number of turns. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones. By default, an entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to cause either result to occur before an opponent's second turn. Ignore this rule in the following cases:
i. All cards in an opponent's hand in excess of the specified number of cards that would be forced to change zones would not be cast by that opponent and would enter the battlefield under that opponent's control. For example, a 4CB deck with two copies of Black Lotus could contain Stronghold Gambit but could not contain Wild Evocation.
ii. All cards in an opponent's hand in excess of the specified number of cards that weren't there as a result of a cost or effect that opponent controlled that would be forced to change zones during the resolution of a spell or ability would be in that opponent's hand after that spell or ability resolved. For example, a 3CB deck could contain Timetwister and Black Lotus but an 8CB deck could not.
iii. All cards in excess of the specified number of cards in an opponent's hand would be forced to change zones only if cards in that opponent's hand that started outside the game would cause that opponent's maximum hand size at the start of the game to be exceeded. For example, a 3CB LR deck could contain two copies of Ancestral Recall.
iv. The rule would be violated only in a game that existed as a result of an effect that resolved not before the specified turn or until each player had completed the specified number of turns that restarted the game or created a subgame. For example, a 2CB LR deck could contain Karn Liberated.
2.3b. An entrant may not submit a deck that wouldn't enable the player of that deck to win a match (see Rule 2.4d) against the player of at least one deck satisfying all rules.
2.3c. A deck may contain any number of copies of any card legal in Vintage (Type 1). Except as modified by a special format, all cards used in a game must be legal in Vintage.
2.3d. A deck may contain any number of copies of any card that will become legal in Vintage upon release of a set that's been revealed fully and officially since the start of the round.
2.3e. A deck may not contain any cards on the XCB Banned List (see Rule 1.1b), unless that deck it is part of an All-Blind Tournament.
2.3f. A deck that is part of an All-Blind Tournament may not contain any cards on the ABT Banned List.
2.4. Points determine round standings.
2.4a. Entrants are ranked – first to last – in order of decreasing number of points.
2.4b. For each match, an entrant earns 3 points per game win and 1 point per drawn game.
2.4c. The combined result of both games in a match is called a match result. Possible match results are: 6 – two wins, 4 – a win and a draw, 3 or 2 or S – a win and a loss, 2 – two draws, 1 – a draw and a loss, and 0 – two losses.
2.4d. Some match results are also denoted by names: two wins – match win, a win and a loss – split match, two draws – draw, and two losses – match loss. An entrant wins the match if he or she wins both games, splits the match if he or she wins a game and loses a game, draws a match if he or she draws both games, and loses the match if he or she loses both games.
2.4e. An entrant earns only 2 points for a split match. This is an exception to rule 2.4b.
2.4f. An entrant may earn a number of bonus points defined by a special format. An entrant earns these points in addition to any other points.
2.4g. A table of match results is posted at the end of each round. Its rows represent entrants and its columns represent those entrants' opponents. An entrant's total number of points is listed at the end of his or her row.
2.5. In rounds of twenty or more entrants, the moderator may choose to divide entrants randomly into smaller heats.
2.5a. There are n heats, where n is the number of entrants in the round divided by ten, rounded down. Entrants are divided into these heats as evenly as possible. For example, twenty-five entrants are divided into heats of twelve and thirteen entrants.
2.5b. An entrant competes against other entrants in his or her heat.
2.5c. The top four ranked entrants from each heat are grouped into a final heat. An entrant's rank and tournament points (See Rule 2.6d) are determined by his or her match results in this heat.
2.5d. Tiebreakers for advancement to the final heat are as follows: number of match wins, number of game wins, points scored against higher-scoring decks. If a tie is unresolved, then the tied decks advance.
2.6. There are two types of tournaments.
2.6a. The All-Blind Tournament (ABT) is a four-round tournament.
2.6b. The Player of the Month tournament (POTM) is a month-long tournament. A month contains all rounds for which deck submissions are due during that month.
2.6c. The entrant with the most tournament points (see Rule 2.6d) over the course of a tournament is the tournament winner. The winner of the Player of the Month tournament is the Player of the Month.
2.6d. Each round, an entrant receives tournament points equal to his or her average match result for that round multiplied by 100, rounded to the nearest integer or some number of decimal places chosen at the moderator's discretion. For example, an entrant scoring 6-6-6-6-X-0-0-0 in a round with 8 entrants receives 340 tournament points ((6 + 6 + 6 + 6) / (8 - 1) x 100).
2.6e. If two or more entrants would win an ABT, then each of those entrants competes in additional rounds specified by the moderator, until only one entrant has the most tournament points. Each additional round contains only the entrants who have the most tournament points. The moderator may specify a limit to the number of additional rounds.
2.6f. Each round, 50 tournament points may be awarded to the entrant who submitted the most creative deck, as determined by the moderator or by poll.
2.6g. Each round, for one week after the submitted decks have been posted, 50 tournament points may be awarded to the first entrant to post a deck that wins the match against each submitted deck.
2.6h. The moderator may issue a challenge. An entrant who completes a challenge earns a number of tournament points specified by the moderator.
The Basic Rules should, of course, be tailored to each XCB.
For ABT, in example, I would cut out the optionals and just add in a section on land rules.
All other "options" would then fall under the round-specific format section in my OP.
Edit:
I will start using these new rules from the start of next round.
Since some legalities changed, it needs to not switch mid round.
It seems like you guys have already found an acceptable solution, so this is more of an afterthought, but I think I've found a simple solution to the discard problem:
"If a spell or ability controlled by an opponent would cause a card in your hand to change zones before the end of your second turn, you may choose to keep that card in your hand instead."
Just add a choice. Now, you can't unintentionally submit an illegal deck because of the discard rule. If you submit Thoughseize... fine, submit it, but it won't work until the third turn.
Just my two cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
It seems like you guys have already found an acceptable solution, so this is more of an afterthought, but I think I've found a simple solution to the discard problem:
"If a spell or ability controlled by an opponent would cause a card in your hand to change zones before the end of your second turn, you may choose to keep that card in your hand instead."
Just add a choice. Now, you can't unintentionally submit an illegal deck because of the discard rule. If you submit Thoughseize... fine, submit it, but it won't work until the third turn.
Just my two cents.
Mentioned and rejected; it makes discard more powerful, because you can *submit* a deck that makes them discard their entire hand on the first turn, which is actually just as good on the third turn as it was on the first.
It doesn't force people to contort their decks to not be able to cast their discard spells too early, so you can just go "meh, Lotus + Wheel of Fortune" + rest of deck (possibly including some bounce)
Mentioned and rejected; it makes discard more powerful, because you can *submit* a deck that makes them discard their entire hand on the first turn, which is actually just as good on the third turn as it was on the first.
It doesn't force people to contort their decks to not be able to cast their discard spells too early, so you can just go "meh, Lotus + Wheel of Fortune" + rest of deck (possibly including some bounce)
Does it make decks more powerful beyond making more cards legal? I mean, what's the difference between that and land rule + wheel of fortune? We can currently submit decks that discard hands on turn 3.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
It seems like you guys have already found an acceptable solution, so this is more of an afterthought, but I think I've found a simple solution to the discard problem:
"If a spell or ability controlled by an opponent would cause a card in your hand to change zones before the end of your second turn, you may choose to keep that card in your hand instead."
Just add a choice. Now, you can't unintentionally submit an illegal deck because of the discard rule. If you submit Thoughseize... fine, submit it, but it won't work until the third turn.
Just my two cents.
The other functional change besides making discard require fewer cards/less mana is that discard would be a turn faster on the draw. That would turn current 3-3 matchups into 6-0.
Not the end of the world, but a slower format allows more innovation.
The "discard" rule could be written so as to be active until both(all) players have completed 2 full turns, which seems to be the intent. That would make Benbuzz's wording less of a functional change and also avoid loophole cards like Anvil of Bogardan.
Honestly, I'm more interested in the rule that says all decks must be able to win a match, especially in backbuild. Some backbuild decks can win against a goldfish and not much else. It might be hard to tell a deck that beats nothing but a goldfish(illegal because a goldfish is not itself a legal submission) from a deck that beats maybe 1-10 decks out of all possible legal decks.
Perhaps It could be rewritten to exclude itself when checking deck legality.
"all submitted decks must be able to win a match against at least one deck that follows all rules except this one", or perhaps players could be required to submit a chain of decks which the deck beats which loops back to the original submission, or one could take it on faith that such a chain exists and just accept all decks which can beat a goldfish and/or the test deck. I suppose the moderator could just always make the test deck a legal deck.
Does it make decks more powerful beyond making more cards legal? I mean, what's the difference between that and land rule + wheel of fortune? We can currently submit decks that discard hands on turn 3.
First of all, not every week is a land rule week. In non-land-rule weeks, the contortions required to not discard their hand too soon are non-trivial; Black Lotus is the most powerful mana generator, but if you want to run discard you can't run it - you have to go with lands.
(I'm specifically thinking Black Lotus + Suppress + 3 card win would be obnoxious - and has an edge compared to it's land based incarnations WRT Crack the Earth, Smokestack, perhaps even some Vindicate decks...)
I need to point out that discard in a format with black lotus is generally horrible. We had no discard this week, if I remember correctly.
I guess the question is "what's worse, a more complicated discard rule, or a (IMO small) increase in power level?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
Random thought. Anything that can cause an opponent to cast a spell can cause that opponent to cast One With Nothing or Sonic Seizure, correct? Is that relevant?
Also, I just remembered this... I wanted to use a combo with Dormant Gomazoa and chain of smog one week, but I could not, because I could use it to discard cards from my opponent's hand! I really think the "optional" rule is the best. It reduces moderator oversight and error, opens up more decks, and still protects player's hands.
Reyemile, yes, I think that's relevant.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Some facts of magic:
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
Honestly, I'm more interested in the rule that says all decks must be able to win a match, especially in backbuild. Some backbuild decks can win against a goldfish and not much else. It might be hard to tell a deck that beats nothing but a goldfish(illegal because a goldfish is not itself a legal submission) from a deck that beats maybe 1-10 decks out of all possible legal decks.
The entry for backbuild in the repository reads:
"Rules: Players exchange decks before the start of each match. A deck must win the match against a specified deck or decks. Ignore the rule that reads 'An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force more than a specified number of cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before a specified turn or until each player has completed a specified number of turns.'"
CR 1.8 reads, in part, "A special format is an extra set of rules. These rules overwrite any other applicable rules."
So, an entrant's deck need only beat the specified deck, and the specified deck need not satisfy CR 2.3b.
Random thought. Anything that can cause an opponent to cast a spell can cause that opponent to cast One With Nothing or Sonic Seizure, correct? Is that relevant?
It would be relevant for the rule in the opening post, but that issue has been fixed. Note that by the current set of suggested rules a deck that could force an opponent to cast any card in that player's hand is illegal in virtue of the fact that the cast card changes zones.
Relevant rule:
2.3a. An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force more than a specified number of cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before a specified turn or until each player has completed a specified number of turns. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones. By default, an entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to cause either result to occur before an opponent's second turn. Ignore this rule in the following cases:
i. All cards in an opponent's hand in excess of the specified number of cards that would be forced to change zones would not be cast by that opponent and would enter the battlefield under that opponent's control. For example, a 4CB deck with two copies of Black Lotus could contain Stronghold Gambit but could not contain Wild Evocation.
Main discussion atm is involving the rules on 2.3a (formerly 2.2a - the "win" and "discard" rule).
Mogg has proposed the following:
This is very clunky, whereas most other areas are elegantly worded, but that isn't the main issue.
Because this is written out so much, I foresee players finding loopholes, gray areas, etc.
For instance, a 1st turn Mindslaver would be considered legal under these rules, since forcing your opponent to cast Black Lotus is ignored via 2.3a-i. You can then cause him to sacrifice it, which is beyond the scope of 2.3a entirely.
Even if we add a rule to stop these specifics, Word of Command pops up. Now I force you to cast black lotus, or even make you sacrifice a black lotus (that you needed) to cast your Bolt at yourself. It's clearly breaking the spirit of the rules, and is outside of the proposed rules.
These are just random examples.
Perhaps not even the best ones.
_______________
We need a rules set that expands to let us play things that don't break the spirit of the discard rule, while not letting in any gray areas or loopholes.
My proposed rule won't quite work, but I feel it is a nicer starting point.
"Disadvantageous" is too subjective, but I like the "ending the turn in a zone" part.
This lets Timetwister or Winds of Change in most rounds, which are within the spirit of the discard rule.
This does not allow the use of Wild Evocation, which I'm not positive we should allow.
(One might play WoC for Lotus/Lotus/Mountain/Winds of Change/Entreat the Angels)
_____________
This needs some discussion.
So put your thinking cap on and jump on in here.
No longer staff here.
Maybe 2.3.a.ii could be worded "force any card in an opponent's starting hand to end in any zone other than their hand or the battlefield under its owners control"
That allows the double recall as well as the gambit that started this discussion, but not the discard that we're trying to clearly outlaw or wild evocation (because any instants or sorceries would end in the graveyard)
That's incorrect. Consider Cave-In and similar cards, in any format except 1CB. In 1CB, consider cycling in regard to Mindslaver. That said, it's probably best to simply disallow Wild Evocation:
"i. All cards in an opponent's hand that would be forced to change zones would not be cast by that opponent and would enter the battlefield under that opponent's control. For example, a 4CB deck with two copies of Black Lotus could contain Stronghold Gambit but could not contain Wild Evocation."
Rule 2.3a is longer than other rules, but that's not inherently problematic. Of the many iterations we've tried, this version of the rule most exactly captures what we do and don't want to allow, and is unambiguous. If some cases have been missed, then entrants will show them in their submissions, and we can improve the rule.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
I mean sure, we can try to iterate this, but I'm not seeing much of an upside and I AM seeing a lot of brainsweat and grounds for disagreement.
But the rule we have takes away exactly what we want it to take away. if we have that, I'm ok with some cards being unfairly persecuted. Sorry stronghold gambit, but you break a rule on a technicality. its a good rule
None of the four proposed exceptions changes deck legality in a significant way. Given that, I would agree with both of you if all of the cases in which a deck wasn't legal were clear. That was my position when I thought Timetwister effects were the only unintended ban.
Banning cards for ambiguity - rather then fixing the ambiguity - is dangerous. If a new card with the same ambiguity is printed, and the moderator fails to ban it, then an incalculable round could occur.
Gambit isn't ambiguous, but unintuitive. Three experienced players - Draco9, Feyd_Ruin, and I - failed to notice the problem. From experience, I'd guess that the Ancestral Recall case is at least as unintuitive; before I changed the rules to eliminate the drawing of opening hands, Infinite Gatecrash should have been dominated by reanimator decks, because each player should have drawn seven copies of his or her chosen card at the start of the game.
It's unreasonable to expect players to anticipate every problem, so it's best to have explicit answers, and it's best if those answers align with the outcomes that players already expect.
Lastly, the body of the proposed rule is every bit as concise as the old rule was. A player can quickly conclude that the exceptions don't generally need to be taken into account.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Even if someone does run double Ancestral Recall during an ALR, more than likely they will just discard some of their lands.
-----
I noticed that some of the discard and forced cast cards require revealing. How about having players ignore the abilities of cards that require revealing?
Correctly defining the term 'force' is tricky. The most recent definition I've given reads "A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could take no sequence of actions consistent with rule 1.11e that would not result in that card changing zones." For reference, rule 1.11e reads "Games are played optimally; players attempt to win, to draw if unable to win, or to prolong the game if unable to draw."
I specified that actions need to be consistent with 1.11e, so that a 2CB LR deck with Coercion wouldn't be illegal because an opponent's deck could contain Eladamri's Vineyard. However, the rule fails; a 4CB Leyline-Karakas deck is illegal because an opponent's deck could be 2x Lotus / Land / Cursed Monstrosity. Another problem involves Mindslaver; while a player is controlled by an opponent, that player – not that player's opponent – takes all actions that result in a card being cast.
On reflection, the rule would work as I intended it to if the phrase "consistent with rule 1.11e" were dropped, and if "take no sequence of actions" were changed to "make no sequence of decisions". As a side-effect, rule 1.11 can be simplified (see spoiler).
Your interpretation of the term 'force' requires a different definition. Such a definition might read: "A card is forced to change zones if that card changes zones during the resolution of a spell or ability controlled by an opponent or if an effect generated by a source an opponent owns allows that opponent to cause that card to change zones, and if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones."
I prefer a simpler definition of 'force' and an additional exception, but either approach is viable.
All Blind Tournament Rules
0. Overview
The All Blind Tournament (ABT) is a Magic tournament that consists of four rounds of X Card Blind (XCB), run entirely within this forum. To compete, entrants submit decks containing X cards which are played against each other. Scoring assumes optimal play, without randomness or concealed information.
1. Game Rules
1.1. There are many versions of XCB. Each version has a name, of the form XCB 'Land Rule' 'Sanctioned Magic Format' 'Special Format' 'Bonus' 'Counter Rule' 'Life Rule'.
1.2. Decks are not played, but are scored as though they were. The player of a deck is the entrant who submitted that deck.
1.3. Except for the changes described in these rules, games follow the rules for a normal game of Magic.
1.4. An entrant's deck contains exactly X cards (see Rule 1.1).
1.5. Players' libraries begin the game empty.
1.6. A cost or effect that would produce a random result produces the result that least benefits the player who paid the cost or the owner of the source of the effect instead.
1.7. Some versions of XCB use a land rule.
1.8. Some versions of XCB use a special format. A special format is an extra set of rules. These rules overwrite any other applicable rules. A non-comprehensive list of special formats is maintained here.
1.9. Some versions of XCB use the counter rule.
1.10. Some versions of XCB use the life rule.
1.11. Each player plays one match against each other player.
2. Tournament Rules
2.1. Entrants compete in a competition.
2.2. An entrant submits his or her deck to the ABT moderator.
2.3. Decks are subject to some restrictions.
2.4. Points determine round standings.
2.5. The entrant with the most tournament points over the course of the ABT is the tournament winner.
3. Prize Rules
3.1. A prize shall be given to the tournament winner.
3.2. As a prized tournament, special scoring rules and practices are in place.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
Doesn't that technically make all decks illegal? Consider a deck which wants to discard T1 (emrakul/shelldock, for example). Since that deck playing optimally causes a card to change zones, by your definition all other decks are forcing it to do so.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I just don't really like the over complication of what should be a simple rule.
"You can't win or ["discard"] before the beginning of your op's 2nd turn."
Either, we go to a 2-document system, where we lay everything out in layman's terms for new players, ease of understanding, etc, and have a full rule book in the other OR we need to continue to simplify everything.
I prefer the latter, so that no one gets confused. While we are used to playing XCB, new players are confused by the very idea of it. I've had to really explain it many times, and I think that should be the only real hurdle of understanding for new players.
I don't actually mind the "this isn't considered discard" section. It's the technical aspect of it that could confuse people.
Actually.. New idea...
Perhaps do an in-depth rulings section in the repository?
This could cut out some of 2.3a, while still have an area that answers the questions.
No longer staff here.
An idea about making a Youtube video popped up in my head when you mentioned this. People learn regular Magic through the cards themselves. Maybe the same can be done with Card Blind. Narrated by Sean Connery.
First, note that I've removed the reference to playing optimally.
Second, 'force' is used only in the phrase "a deck that could ... force any cards in an opponent's hand", so implicitly an action is only forced if an opponent's deck is involved.
The in-depth rules should exist in a comprehensive form somewhere. An in-depth rulings section would be useful as a supplement to the rules, but a player should be able to determine the result of an interaction that isn't covered in an example, if he or she so desires.
The comprehensive rules need not be included in every XCB thread, so long as there is a reference to them and players can find them easily. An overview of the intent of the rules would suffice. Such an overview could also eliminate a significant portion of the other rules currently contained in the comprehensive ABT rules. The "Overview" section of the comprehensive rules (section 0) could be excised completely and expanded into a separate document.
Essentially, I like the two-document system. Regular Magic uses a Basic Rulebook in addition to the Comprehensive Rules.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
The more I think on it, the more I feel this is what we're going to have to move to.
A singular master rulebook for all XCBs.
Then, each individual XCB could simply list the basic rules, as well as any options that it uses.
Options include possible land rule, which 2.3b it uses (2nd turn? 1st turn? etc)
We've kind of already moved to this system, with the recent rules rewrite.
This could allow us what would otherwise be "ambiguous" wording in the easy to read rules (though its intent is clear), while having actual in-depth rules that don't leave gray areas or loopholes, etc.
No longer staff here.
Overview
Deck Construction Rules
Deck Submission Rules
Playing the Decks
Points
Extra Rules
Optional Rules
Land Rule
Expanded Land Rule
Alternative Land Rule
Sanctioned Magic Format
Counter Rule
Life Rule
Special Format
Game Rules
1.1. There are many versions of XCB. Each version has a name, of the form 'ABT' XCB 'Land Rule' 'Sanctioned Magic Format' 'Special Format' '(Bonus)' 'Counter Rule' 'Life Rule'.
1.2. Decks are not played, but are scored as though they were. The player of a deck is the entrant who submitted that deck.
1.3. Except for the changes described in these rules, games follow the rules for a normal game of Magic.
1.4. An entrant's deck contains exactly X cards (see Rule 1.1).
1.5. Players' libraries begin the game empty.
1.6. A cost or effect that would produce a random result produces the result that least benefits the player who paid the cost or the owner of the source of the effect instead.
1.7. Some versions of XCB use a land rule.
1.8. Some versions of XCB use a special format. A special format is an extra set of rules. These rules overwrite any other applicable rules. A non-comprehensive list of special formats is maintained here.
1.9. Some versions of XCB use the counter rule.
1.10. Some versions of XCB use a life rule.
1.11. Each player plays one match against each other player.
Tournament Rules
2.1. Entrants compete in a competition.
2.2. An entrant submits his or her deck to the XCB moderator.
2.3. Decks are subject to some restrictions.
2.4. Points determine round standings.
2.5. In rounds of twenty or more entrants, the moderator may choose to divide entrants randomly into smaller heats.
2.6. There are two types of tournaments.
ABT Banned List
Acceleration
Disruption
Lands
Win Conditions
Acceleration
Disruption
Lands
Win Conditions
Acceleration
Disruption
Lands
Win Conditions
Acceleration
Disruption
Lands
Win Conditions
Acceleration
Combo Pieces
Disruption
Win Conditions
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy
The Basic Rules should, of course, be tailored to each XCB.
For ABT, in example, I would cut out the optionals and just add in a section on land rules.
All other "options" would then fall under the round-specific format section in my OP.
Edit:
I will start using these new rules from the start of next round.
Since some legalities changed, it needs to not switch mid round.
No longer staff here.
"If a spell or ability controlled by an opponent would cause a card in your hand to change zones before the end of your second turn, you may choose to keep that card in your hand instead."
Just add a choice. Now, you can't unintentionally submit an illegal deck because of the discard rule. If you submit Thoughseize... fine, submit it, but it won't work until the third turn.
Just my two cents.
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
Mentioned and rejected; it makes discard more powerful, because you can *submit* a deck that makes them discard their entire hand on the first turn, which is actually just as good on the third turn as it was on the first.
It doesn't force people to contort their decks to not be able to cast their discard spells too early, so you can just go "meh, Lotus + Wheel of Fortune" + rest of deck (possibly including some bounce)
Does it make decks more powerful beyond making more cards legal? I mean, what's the difference between that and land rule + wheel of fortune? We can currently submit decks that discard hands on turn 3.
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
The other functional change besides making discard require fewer cards/less mana is that discard would be a turn faster on the draw. That would turn current 3-3 matchups into 6-0.
Not the end of the world, but a slower format allows more innovation.
The "discard" rule could be written so as to be active until both(all) players have completed 2 full turns, which seems to be the intent. That would make Benbuzz's wording less of a functional change and also avoid loophole cards like Anvil of Bogardan.
Honestly, I'm more interested in the rule that says all decks must be able to win a match, especially in backbuild. Some backbuild decks can win against a goldfish and not much else. It might be hard to tell a deck that beats nothing but a goldfish(illegal because a goldfish is not itself a legal submission) from a deck that beats maybe 1-10 decks out of all possible legal decks.
Perhaps It could be rewritten to exclude itself when checking deck legality.
"all submitted decks must be able to win a match against at least one deck that follows all rules except this one", or perhaps players could be required to submit a chain of decks which the deck beats which loops back to the original submission, or one could take it on faith that such a chain exists and just accept all decks which can beat a goldfish and/or the test deck. I suppose the moderator could just always make the test deck a legal deck.
First of all, not every week is a land rule week. In non-land-rule weeks, the contortions required to not discard their hand too soon are non-trivial; Black Lotus is the most powerful mana generator, but if you want to run discard you can't run it - you have to go with lands.
(I'm specifically thinking Black Lotus + Suppress + 3 card win would be obnoxious - and has an edge compared to it's land based incarnations WRT Crack the Earth, Smokestack, perhaps even some Vindicate decks...)
I guess the question is "what's worse, a more complicated discard rule, or a (IMO small) increase in power level?"
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
Reyemile, yes, I think that's relevant.
-Terror is an emotion which, when experienced, results in death.
-The pox was a disease notorious for having killed one-third, rounded up, of Europe’s population. Smallpox, on the other hand, killed only a single person.
-A person riding a horse cannot be stopped by foot soldiers, large animals, walls, archers, or even catapults.
More facts of magic
The entry for backbuild in the repository reads:
"Rules: Players exchange decks before the start of each match. A deck must win the match against a specified deck or decks. Ignore the rule that reads 'An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force more than a specified number of cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before a specified turn or until each player has completed a specified number of turns.'"
CR 1.8 reads, in part, "A special format is an extra set of rules. These rules overwrite any other applicable rules."
So, an entrant's deck need only beat the specified deck, and the specified deck need not satisfy CR 2.3b.
It would be relevant for the rule in the opening post, but that issue has been fixed. Note that by the current set of suggested rules a deck that could force an opponent to cast any card in that player's hand is illegal in virtue of the fact that the cast card changes zones.
Relevant rule:
2.3a. An entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to win the game or force more than a specified number of cards in an opponent's hand to change zones before a specified turn or until each player has completed a specified number of turns. A card is forced to change zones if the owner of that card could make no sequence of decisions that would not result in that card changing zones. By default, an entrant may not submit a deck that could enable the player of that deck to cause either result to occur before an opponent's second turn. Ignore this rule in the following cases:
...
The increase in power level is probably worse.
BWTeysa, Orzhov Scion
GWRhys the Redeemed
GUKruphix, God of Horizons
GRXenagos, God of Revels
GThrun, the Last Troll
GStompy