Mtg-Peasant

[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, donâ??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 donâ??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

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

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, donâ??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 donâ??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

Forums

Brainstorm

last page

GalacticPresident	Dec 28, 2017, 4:45 PM Sad news that Toufmade is currently not with us! :/
zombie33	Dec 28, 2017, 6:02 PM It's just a news, just speculation. Toufmade didn't say anything.
Manudesbois	Nov 17, 2018, 4:48 PM Hey guys do you think we should play Peasant Masters this year? Who would be in?
zeroxceet	Nov 17, 2018, 5:31 PM i will be in of course if i am qualified.
Vlalutscher	Nov 22, 2018, 6:46 AM Me too, but it feels a bit strange after a year like 2017. But I would love to play a masters.
zebigcoconut	Nov 22, 2018, 9:48 AM I agree for Masters!
Manudesbois	Nov 22, 2018, 10:08 AM Does anyone not in the top want to organize that? Zombie can prepare us a blank spreadsheet. Otherwise I'll do it myself
Manudesbois	Dec 14, 2018, 2:00 PM Hi! Given that basically anyone can still make it to the top8, I'll wait for the very end of the year to start taking care of it Good luck!
Manudesbois	Jan 2, 2019, 6:45 PM Hey guys, the top8 is already set now (only few games remaining that will not change who is in the top and who's not). I did not get an answer from everyone though (I think Lorebroker is the one missing the call), so I'll open 1 slot for replacement to the 9th of the league. Players concerned, please start arranging your decklists in order to be ready as soon as possible. The objective is to start playing the 18th, so I need the hash codes ready a few days before. I'll make a more official announcement

1 2 3 4