Actually, if that is true word-for-word, it's kind-of interesting, as I'm sure WWK has had stronger demand over the past 6 months, and yet WotC has not run another print run of the set.
If you include the works, the numbers more like seven or eight levels, but none of them go beyond "Level 5 / Professional"
Besides the ones mentioned earlier, there is a level just called "Level 0", which just means you are a judge at an event but not certified in any ways. There's also the "Rules Adviser" semi-level, which is an L0 that has passed a rules exam online.
There's also an emeritus level, which is essentially L4/L5 judges that have retired from actively judging events, but still chime in with policy discussions.
If you don't want to get too complicated, I think PayPal has a pretty straightforward system of handling both the "shopping cart" system as well as payments.
You could play as many of those as you wanted, but it would be because you aren't using the "play 1 land a turn" rule to bring them into play, instead using the Thalid ability (or whatever else you are using)
Think of it this way: By game rules, you are allowed to put a land into play from your hand. If you don't use that rule to put a card (that also happens to be a land) into play, you won't be using up that one land you are allotted. Once you use up that one land you are allotted, you can't put more lands into play from your hand unless another effect allows it. (such as Explore or Fastbond)
That doesn't make any sense to me...shouldn't my Limited/Constructed/Eternal/Singleton Pauper Two-Headed Giant rating be calculated based on the difference between my rating and my opponent's rating in that format only?
I only play Limited. I don't want my rating to wildly swing based on my opponent's Constructed rating.
It is, more or less. Just think of your Total rating as your rating for all formats, all matches. Those specific ratings are only changing when you play in a match against another player in that format, and then the ratings check each other. (Total checks on Total for point gain/loss, Limited checks on Limited, etc.)
CSV stands for "Comma-Separated Values" and is just a very simple text-based way of moving information in a tabular format from one place to another. Note that even though comma is in the name, other characters such as tabs or "|" are commonly also separating values. Excel can import and export this kind of file pretty well.
Can't help you on the second question, at least with a way that's faster than just typing them out; that's what I do when I scorekeep larger events, anyways.
Hey, just stopping in to ask one thing: has anyone else here heard of a ONA series called "Time of Eve"? I saw this all-of-a-sudden on a top-ranked search and looked it up over Christmas, and I've never seen an anime that was both this good and this accessible for people newer to the medium. I just can't believe I never heard of it before, even if it is relatively new.
I speak a pretty standard midwestern accent, coming from southern Wisconsin. (not Milwaukee) It's interesting coming from here, just because you can hear relatively mild accentual differences like a Milwaukee accent or a Minnesotan accent.
IM playing in a 364 man 9 round tournament and I'm wondering if it's possible to top 8 on a 7-2 record.
Thanks
Possible? It's always possible.
Here's the only guarantee: At any tournament, you most likely will reach top 8 with an X-1-0 record. The round counts are designed for that purpose.
Now, if you want opinion, 9 rounds is played whenever there are between 227-410 players. If the player count was closer to 227, the odds are much higher that a X-2 will make it in. (as at 227 there won't be more than 9 players at X-1 or better going into the last round, compared to 14ish at 410)
That being said, the greatest indication of whether to keep going should be where you are currently in terms of tiebreakers. If you're 10% behind the frontrunner at your point total, you need your opponents to make up a ton of ground AND beat out the players who are currently ahead of you (but will end up at the same point total as you) who are currently playing opponents who will probably give them better tiebreakers.
My recommendation: if you're in the middle of the pack in terms of tiebreakers for the X-2s, odds are pretty darn good that you aren't top 8ing.
Looking at my limited rating match history, I've drawn 43 games in just under 200 events, and I'd guess of those, 30-35 were last-round IDs, with another 2-3 being pre-last-round IDs and the rest being just drawn matches.
The 2-3 would be the ones that got the most people riled up. They were instances where I played someone that I knew, and both of us knew we had insane decks, feeling like we had the best decks, almost guaranteed. The ID was the risk we both took that we could win out the rest of our matches; if neither did, we couldn't get first, and if one of us lost one match, we were forced in the middle of the pack.
But, as a judge, IDs are the result of just natural consequences. There is a natural result in Magic where two players can agree to any result, as long as there is no bribery involved. If someone wants to concede to their friend so they can have a better chance of winning, there is nothing to stop them.
You can also look at the logistics of running an event, and that IDs speed up a tournament. Without them, you have a much higher chance of the matches in question going to time, ensuring the next round won't begin until they are finished. (instead of possibly getting the next round up a little early, and people getting to drive home a little earlier)
You take a fall in a boxing match you compromise the end result
You in any way fix or tamper with the result in soccer or cricket matches and many other sports it's a pretty major offense and usually ends up in the courts. They punished guy at the highest level he might not earn millions like other sports stars but there is moneys and a standard to be set a thing called professionalism. Neither stalling or IDing is in the nature of fair play and you have to monitor both to determine who does it. And technically since there is a prize at the end or just a condition of entry on wizards part you can be forced to play to a result or a set of minor rules determining the result. Saying you can't be forced to play to a result that's ridiculous . I much look forward to the day when they truly start enforcing THEIR rules guidelines and other such things cheating happens in all forms of competition sport or no and a failure to follow procedure would result in DQing or banning .or else if you don't like it don't play it's that simple.
Boxing matches are the equivalent of a 1-round, 1-game event between two players. Magic tournaments are several game, several round.
Here is the real question I want you to answer, if you're so against IDs: many of the solutions that are provided involve a judge having to decide whether your match was a valid result. How do you tell the difference between a bad player, and one who intentionally throws a game because he wants to give his friend the win? How much more staff (and therefore, probably, less prize support) would be required for an event to officiate that? Would you accept playing against a bad player and the judge saying "he should have won that match, so instead I'm making him the winner"?
There should be a penalty for using them, as it is now, when you can ID to get into top 8, there's ZERO reason NOT to ID, it's all upside.
I think ID's should be counted as draws in that specific tournament, but counted as a loss when figuring your rating. Then you have a decision to make, do I want to ID and get a top 8 but let my rating take a hit, ro do I want to play it out (and risk a loss) to protect my rating?
My feeling of this is that it's not horrible, but it's unenforceable while also eliminating the purpose for IDs in the first place. The idea of an ID is that players can choose to play at an efficient pace but choose to not make optimal plays. By doing this, you can essentially create an intentional draw to either making the match 1-1-1 or drawing each game mutually at the point where the game would end.
By docking players for taking IDs, they'll just go the long route and end up at the same result. Since IDs are in place so that that entire long result can be shortcuted, you're just really taking away the purpose for IDs in the first place.
I'm not interested in what there current rules are. They should review them all after what happened to saito Two people intentionally drawing defeats the purpose of one on one no matter which way you try to cut it. The current rules they have and how they force them is a joke so don't push that I'm not buying it no matter how many rule clauses you show me. Theyve had plenty of time to fix this in the past instead they've rehashed popular old themes and made mythics to make bazilions of dollars. And I'll reiterate my point if enough people complain about something and it affects the bottom line and hasbro sees it THEY will change it NOT wizards. Funny how this all boils down to money which surprisingly has somewhat consumed this product in last couple of years .
Saito was disqualified for taking advantage of the amount of time left in the round in order to force the game in his favor, rather than how the game was playing out. IDs and the ability to mutually agree to a result have nothing to do with that situation. In short, Saito was shorting his opponent of the ability to play a match where the players did not want to mutually agree to any result.
Don't even look at the rules clauses then. Don't listen to the judges. Say how this can be fixed. MTGO-style with chess clocks? Prohibitively expensive to small game stores, and impossible to implement in an offline game with so many shortcuts. Eliminate the ID altogether? Players will just do what they did before: force draws by playing sub-optimally for 50 minutes, lengthening the tournament time.
Otherwise, this is all confirmation bias and saying things are wrong without mentioning what should be right. If you want that style logic, simple: player counts in tournaments have nearly universally been increasing substantially over the period where intentional draws have been in effect, as well as profits. Therefore, the effect of intentional draws being in tournaments have not deterred the player base from coming, and profits are not determinate on the single little part of a tournament match.
One thing I would recommend is to stop by some local stores in the area about helping a club like this. Around here, it's very common for there to be boxes where drafters put commons they don't need after drafting, and the boxes are first-come, first-served. You may be able to find a very large collection of free cards that can be destroyed through this.
Besides, if you're teaching game concepts right now, you don't need to worry about having good decks or even good cards. You could even incorporate that into the club; after they've played for a little while and gotten the concepts, ask them about what makes one card better than another. Then, you could just dump a large pile of commons out and have them build their own decks with that in mind, knowing that there are both good and bad cards in that pile.
Sorry to necro the thread, but I wasn't sure if it would be alright to open a new thread with similar questions.
So I've gotten the hang of running the FNM at my LGS now, so that's all fine and dandy thanks to the help given here. The question I have now is that while I'm using the program, how would I seperate players into different pods specifically for draft?
Is there a proper way to make sure I cannot possibly screw this up without costing the time of 16 other angry players breathing down my neck?
After you begin the tournament in the player entry area, in the Rounds tab, (where you normally pair players) there are actually three buttons in that tab: Pairings, Pods, and Seating. (or something like that) If you shift over to Pods _before_ you pair the first round, you can setup draft pods through there. Note that by doing this, players that are in the same pod will be playing players only within their pod. (and you want it this way; you don't want players in a pod with very strong opens playing against another pod with very weak opens)
When I got my PS3, it was right when this was being phased out of the PS3s, but I grabbed a non-BC one when Walmart offered $300 PS3s on 2008 black friday, which also was one of the first runs of the dualshock being added back into the controllers.
Honestly, though, I don't really miss it all that much. I have my PS2 still around if I want to randomly play something, but that's tended to only be Shadow of the Colossus or Okami. Recently, I replaced my second monitor (which had a composite video connection) and the new one can't hook up to my PS2 anymore, and that lack of having a compatible screen really hasn't hurt me at all.
Once I get a job and more income, I'll eventually buy an actual TV for gaming and be able to hook up the PS2 again, but I don't know if I'll really play it that much. Heck, my parents play PS2 more than I do, and that's just because they have Guitar Hero for it.
Besides the ones mentioned earlier, there is a level just called "Level 0", which just means you are a judge at an event but not certified in any ways. There's also the "Rules Adviser" semi-level, which is an L0 that has passed a rules exam online.
There's also an emeritus level, which is essentially L4/L5 judges that have retired from actively judging events, but still chime in with policy discussions.
Think of it this way: By game rules, you are allowed to put a land into play from your hand. If you don't use that rule to put a card (that also happens to be a land) into play, you won't be using up that one land you are allotted. Once you use up that one land you are allotted, you can't put more lands into play from your hand unless another effect allows it. (such as Explore or Fastbond)
It is, more or less. Just think of your Total rating as your rating for all formats, all matches. Those specific ratings are only changing when you play in a match against another player in that format, and then the ratings check each other. (Total checks on Total for point gain/loss, Limited checks on Limited, etc.)
Can't help you on the second question, at least with a way that's faster than just typing them out; that's what I do when I scorekeep larger events, anyways.
Trailer (soft-sub)
Possible? It's always possible.
Here's the only guarantee: At any tournament, you most likely will reach top 8 with an X-1-0 record. The round counts are designed for that purpose.
Now, if you want opinion, 9 rounds is played whenever there are between 227-410 players. If the player count was closer to 227, the odds are much higher that a X-2 will make it in. (as at 227 there won't be more than 9 players at X-1 or better going into the last round, compared to 14ish at 410)
That being said, the greatest indication of whether to keep going should be where you are currently in terms of tiebreakers. If you're 10% behind the frontrunner at your point total, you need your opponents to make up a ton of ground AND beat out the players who are currently ahead of you (but will end up at the same point total as you) who are currently playing opponents who will probably give them better tiebreakers.
My recommendation: if you're in the middle of the pack in terms of tiebreakers for the X-2s, odds are pretty darn good that you aren't top 8ing.
The 2-3 would be the ones that got the most people riled up. They were instances where I played someone that I knew, and both of us knew we had insane decks, feeling like we had the best decks, almost guaranteed. The ID was the risk we both took that we could win out the rest of our matches; if neither did, we couldn't get first, and if one of us lost one match, we were forced in the middle of the pack.
But, as a judge, IDs are the result of just natural consequences. There is a natural result in Magic where two players can agree to any result, as long as there is no bribery involved. If someone wants to concede to their friend so they can have a better chance of winning, there is nothing to stop them.
You can also look at the logistics of running an event, and that IDs speed up a tournament. Without them, you have a much higher chance of the matches in question going to time, ensuring the next round won't begin until they are finished. (instead of possibly getting the next round up a little early, and people getting to drive home a little earlier)
Boxing matches are the equivalent of a 1-round, 1-game event between two players. Magic tournaments are several game, several round.
Here is the real question I want you to answer, if you're so against IDs: many of the solutions that are provided involve a judge having to decide whether your match was a valid result. How do you tell the difference between a bad player, and one who intentionally throws a game because he wants to give his friend the win? How much more staff (and therefore, probably, less prize support) would be required for an event to officiate that? Would you accept playing against a bad player and the judge saying "he should have won that match, so instead I'm making him the winner"?
My feeling of this is that it's not horrible, but it's unenforceable while also eliminating the purpose for IDs in the first place. The idea of an ID is that players can choose to play at an efficient pace but choose to not make optimal plays. By doing this, you can essentially create an intentional draw to either making the match 1-1-1 or drawing each game mutually at the point where the game would end.
By docking players for taking IDs, they'll just go the long route and end up at the same result. Since IDs are in place so that that entire long result can be shortcuted, you're just really taking away the purpose for IDs in the first place.
Saito was disqualified for taking advantage of the amount of time left in the round in order to force the game in his favor, rather than how the game was playing out. IDs and the ability to mutually agree to a result have nothing to do with that situation. In short, Saito was shorting his opponent of the ability to play a match where the players did not want to mutually agree to any result.
Don't even look at the rules clauses then. Don't listen to the judges. Say how this can be fixed. MTGO-style with chess clocks? Prohibitively expensive to small game stores, and impossible to implement in an offline game with so many shortcuts. Eliminate the ID altogether? Players will just do what they did before: force draws by playing sub-optimally for 50 minutes, lengthening the tournament time.
Otherwise, this is all confirmation bias and saying things are wrong without mentioning what should be right. If you want that style logic, simple: player counts in tournaments have nearly universally been increasing substantially over the period where intentional draws have been in effect, as well as profits. Therefore, the effect of intentional draws being in tournaments have not deterred the player base from coming, and profits are not determinate on the single little part of a tournament match.
Besides, if you're teaching game concepts right now, you don't need to worry about having good decks or even good cards. You could even incorporate that into the club; after they've played for a little while and gotten the concepts, ask them about what makes one card better than another. Then, you could just dump a large pile of commons out and have them build their own decks with that in mind, knowing that there are both good and bad cards in that pile.
After you begin the tournament in the player entry area, in the Rounds tab, (where you normally pair players) there are actually three buttons in that tab: Pairings, Pods, and Seating. (or something like that) If you shift over to Pods _before_ you pair the first round, you can setup draft pods through there. Note that by doing this, players that are in the same pod will be playing players only within their pod. (and you want it this way; you don't want players in a pod with very strong opens playing against another pod with very weak opens)
Honestly, though, I don't really miss it all that much. I have my PS2 still around if I want to randomly play something, but that's tended to only be Shadow of the Colossus or Okami. Recently, I replaced my second monitor (which had a composite video connection) and the new one can't hook up to my PS2 anymore, and that lack of having a compatible screen really hasn't hurt me at all.
Once I get a job and more income, I'll eventually buy an actual TV for gaming and be able to hook up the PS2 again, but I don't know if I'll really play it that much. Heck, my parents play PS2 more than I do, and that's just because they have Guitar Hero for it.
If so, just put a "1" in the DCI number field for every player.
v3 has this in it so that scorekeepers could theoretically look up a DCI number when they aren't as busy getting names in the computer.