[Online] 2017 Peasant Masters : brainstorm Nov 6, 2017, 11:56 AM
Manudesbois Hi people,

Last year, we held a tournament that I liked very much, which gathered the top 8 players of the annual league. I think it was a success except a few points which I'd like to improve, so this topic is here to discuss this.

2016 brainstorm topic :
https://mtg-peasant.com/forum/topic/94/
2016 tournament topic :
https://mtg-peasant.com/forum/topic/118/

Here are the rules I would like to keep :
- Allow spectators, but do not allow them to see hands or to chat
- Free choice of deck, give hash as usual
- One full month to finish (in order not to disturb the other tourneys and to deal with unavailabilities)

Phase 1 : 2 pools of 4 players. the pools are meant to be balanced, and at the same time to give easier pairings to people with higher rankings in the league.
- 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th play together, and 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th.
- 1 hour per game + 5 additional turns, don’t slow play
- best of 3 (=>2 games won give you the win)
- The best two players qualify for phase 2
- Who starts is decided by the toss
- Tie breakers : 1) games won - games lost 2) games won (counting only games between tied players) - games lost (counting only games between tied players) 3) in case there is a perfect tie between players (ex: A1 2-0 A2, A2 2-0 A3, A3 2-0 A1, and all three win 2-0 vs A4), I would like the organizer to decide what to do. I think the quicker is the best, so 1 additional game with sideboard between tied players, until there is no tie.

Phase 2 : Semi-finals and finals (and optional 3rd place match)
- No draw, so unlimited time but don’t abuse
- the toss decides who chooses to play first or not (regardless of the "free game wins" explained below)

From what I remember of 2016's edition, I would like to add the following rules:
1/ If any one player desires not to play the 5 games in a row (because it can be quite long), they can say it at the end of the 3rd game or at the end of the 4th, and the rest of the games will be postponed

2/ Last year, semi-finals were played in "best of 3 (=>2 games won give you the win)", I would like it to be best of 5 now, to add some interest to semi-finals. G1 and G2 played without sideboard, and the following games with sideboard.

3/ Same rule as last year (which was decided maybe too late at the time) : Game 1 AND game 2 without sideboard. Game 3, 4, and 5 with sideboard.

4/ Last year, GalacticPresident and m3m3p4sm4l won the 3 matches of their respective pools but got no advantage with it. Zombie33 (I think) suggested that only them should qualify in this case, and not the 2nd of the pools (with only one win out of 3). We could not add this new rule in the middle of the tournament so we decided to go with the rules we had fixed and qualify the 2nd of each pool anyways.
This time I would like to change that rule, so that players finishing the pools with 3 wins benefit from it.
*Let's say player A1 wins pool A with 3 wins, and players B1 and B2 come out of pool B with only two wins. We would love to have A1 advantaged over A2 (player behind him in pool A).
*Qualifying only A1 in pool A, and B1 and B2 in pool B to form a "final triangle" is not right, because A1 does not get any benefit from it (on the contrary, it could be easier for him to have A2 qualified, in order to have a chance to meet him again in a final, in a matchup where he is favorite).
*Qualifying A1 directly to a final without a semi-final is not good either, because B1 and B2 would have to play together in a semi-final match they have already played.
*Qualifying A1 directly to a final without a semi-final is not good either, because having A1 advantaged over B1 and B2 is not right : we can't affirm that 3 wins in pool A is any better than 2 wins in pool B
=> I come to the following conclusion :
4.1/qualify A1, A2, B1, and B2. Semi-finals: A1 meets B2, B1 meets A2.
4.2/Final : If A1 had to face A2 again, A1 would start with a 1-0 score (free game win), then play game 2 without sideboard, and games 3, 4, 5 with sideboard.
4.3a/If A1 and B1 both have 3 wins in their pools, I don't want to skip the semi-finals, but having them both advantaged in the semi-finals seems great, so same rule : A1 would start with a 1-0 score the semi-final against B2, and B1 1-0 against A2.
4.3b/Now I would like this rule to be more general : not only 3 wins in the pool gives you the advantage, but just having more points than the second of the pool

5/ I want to manage this tournament, but if I take part in it (there's still hope ), I would love to have someone outside the tournament decide for tie-breakers "3)" of Phase 1

6/ This tournament is 100% for fun and to promote the format, there's nothing to gain from it except respect from others, so don't complain about the rulings we make as organizers if some are litigious, we are just trying our best to keep it fair (and just in case, if I had to play it, which I think is becomes very unlikely, trust me I won't advantage myself, but ask some other person to judge : person of point 5, or zombie33, or GalacticPresident or Toufmade first if they agree, even though they are also in the tournament)

7/ I will ask for all decklists at the end of the tournament. If there is any issue with any list, I count on changing the results of the tournament in consequence (example : hash code of the winner does not correspond to the given decklist, so there is no way to check the deck is legal). That's just to be more rigorous in order to prevent stupid mistakes to happen and ruin the tournament.

What do you guys think of this? Please quote the numbers of the rules so we can understand equally what you answer

last page
GalacticPresident Nov 6, 2017, 12:46 PM Hi Manu, it's great that you will (probably - gonna be tough ) take care of the organization once again!

In my point of view, there are 2 options. Either we do it like last year with the pools or we do a normal Magic top8, like in sanctioned events, with only elimination matches. I am fine with both, if I had to decide, I would choose an elimination-only top8 to keep it simple. All of the matches could then be best of 5 (Rule 2/ and 3/).
You put a lot of thought into your system and I appreciate that greatly, I just think it is too complicated.

In order to prevent players having an advantage if they observe previous rounds, all participants could reveal what archetype they play when the matchups are fixed and before the matches start. I think that's a good solution that will also build up excitement. Spectators should not see hands and should not be able to chat, only because the chat window is needed for gameplay and commentary could hinder that.
Regarding Rule 1/, I absolutely think that a started match must be finished short of an emergency. If someone decides they are too tired to play game 5 after the score is 2-2, the opponent and all spectators will be pissed. I think all players are capable of choosing a timeslot where they can manage 5 games.

zombie33 Nov 6, 2017, 1:17 PM I really dislike giving free win to a player as manu suggest. For me they are three possibility :

- 8 Men with direct elimination (i didn't like it)
- same system as last year (not perfect but fine)
- swiss round with top 4 at the end. As a reminder after a swiss round the score are usually : 96663330 (i like this one)

Manudesbois Nov 6, 2017, 2:02 PM Swiss round seems OK but I don't have a software to manage it. I think it can be done easily manually if there are only 3 rounds, so yeah I'm for it if my system doesn't meet the satisfaction of players

Single elimination : I like it too. It doesn't give a chance for some players to play different match-ups if they lose to the first, but at least if they play best of 5, it's not like they can lose "due to bad luck".


In order to prevent players having an advantage if they observe previous rounds, all participants could reveal what archetype they play when the matchups are fixed and before the matches start. I think that's a good solution that will also build up excitement.


I agree, although it is hard to name a deck (if there is a Kiln Burn, should I name it Burn or Red Assault, and is it fair to reveal that the deck is playing kiln fiend by saying "Red assault"?). I'm thinking of collecting the decklists beforehand myself, and then attributing myself an archetype. If it's something in between, I'll choose just one in order not to give too much information regarding the specific slots.

Spectators should not see hands and should not be able to chat, only because the chat window is needed for gameplay and commentary could hinder that.


Yes, on the other hand, it's good that spectators are allowed to intervene in case there is a "game state failure", or in case they need a rule check with somebody else, but I think your point is more important.

GalacticPresident Nov 6, 2017, 3:54 PM What mode we choose depends on how big we want this tourney to be:
Quick (7 matches): Single elimination
Medium (15 matches): Like last year
Large (31 matches): zombie's proposal, swiss 8 players with top4

I prefer single elim, last years mode was fine and I dislike swiss because it will take very long and everybody will lose interest if it gets delayed too far.

I'm thinking of collecting the decklists beforehand myself, and then attributing myself an archetype. If it's something in between, I'll choose just one in order not to give too much information regarding the specific slots.

How is that better than each player naming their decks themselves? It's just about the deckstyle. It's not about if the red aggro deck plays kiln fiend or not or if Wellspring plays Grid or Thopter or both. If you watch all matches you will have better info about the other decks because you could see specific one-offs or whatever but it's still better to have it. Like that, you have better information if you should mulligan or not for example.

Yes, on the other hand, it's good that spectators are allowed to intervene in case there is a "game state failure", or in case they need a rule check with somebody else, but I think your point is more important.


In case of errors there are still private messages to address it.

zombie33 Nov 6, 2017, 4:39 PM For swiss tournament, i can easily do a google doc for it.

zeroxceet Nov 6, 2017, 6:20 PM as far i'm concerned i would prefer play like last year : 2 pools of 4 players, then semi and final . ( and 3rd place match ) . archétype can be announced just after pairing are done ( and hash codes given of course ).

best of 3 in pool, best of 5 in 1/2 and final . No advantages ( in tennis masters, there's no advantage neither ) . Only one advantage could be discussed : A1 would start his 1/2 final as B1 .

Bri Nov 7, 2017, 2:29 AM yeah, I am also against "free wins" and even though swiss system brings a lot of matches, this would be my first choice

Manudesbois Nov 7, 2017, 10:17 PM So to sum it up, for now we have:

Pools+semis+final= Galactic OK, zombie OK, Bri OK?, zerox Yes

Swiss+semis+final= Galactic No, zombie Yes, Bri Yes, zerox OK?

Quarters+semis+final= Galactic Yes, zombie No, Bri OK?, zerox OK?

I would vote against swiss system, because we cannot play the games in parallel with that, and it can be too long. Quarter-finals seems OK, but I would prefer pools to have more variety and to be able to play several games in parallel.

GalacticPresident Nov 7, 2017, 10:33 PM Why can't matches be played parallelly with the swiss system?

orphelle Nov 8, 2017, 10:23 AM How does league work ?
how you earn point?