A League of Our Own - Part 3 - Reflections on TCL2015

Where to from here?

In the previous two posts, I explored the 2013 and 2014 Townsville Commander Leagues.  This post is about the TCL2015 and lessons we as players, judges, and organisers took from it.

Tidy, tidy, tidy

The TCL2015 was the first (and to date only) year that we repeated the match format from the previous one.  Significant changes were in the rules structure, sponsorship, individual and team bonus awards, and a local points list.

One document to rule them all

The TCL2013 rules document was drafted by Chris and edited by Mark.  The TCL2014 document was written by Mark and edited by me.  In 2015, we switched over and the god-awfully-annoying rules Nazi in me got to create a monster.  In the end, Mark had to be firm about culling the bloat I had put into the thing.  That said, the final document was eighteen (18) pages.  I learned the acronym "TL; DR" when asking for comments on this.  However, the experienced players all (again, begrudgingly) accept that a document like this has to exist when running a tournament for prizes.

The document has a statement of intent, prize structures, and the format of the tournament.  It also has the Doubleton rules.  I think of the Doubleton rules as being akin to Rugby Union rules in the 1990s and AFL rules in the 2000s.  In order to make the game clearer and a better experience, the ruling bodies of these code changed the rules and interpretation instructions for referees.  These were often minor changes, but they occurred each year for a decade or so.  After that time, changes became infrequent.  I like to think of the Doubleton rules in this light: it was always going to take a few years to map them out.  I genuinely think (in 2017) that we are pretty close.

A message from our sponsor

The NQCGS (North Queensland Card Gaming Society) is a non-profit, incorporated society affiliated with James Cook University.  It receives a small amount of funding from JCU and runs MTG events for members.  In 2015, the NQCGS agreed to underwrite the prizes for the TCL2015, provided all participants were paid members.  One very important lesson we learned from this experience is to ensure prizes are purchased ahead of advertising any event: by the time the prizes were to be purchased, the AUD:USD had shifted dramatically  and the TCL, notwithstanding the additional membership generated, for the first time, made a loss.

We were disappointed with this, but on the flip side it did mean that both the TCL and the NQCGS had both grown to a point where events were sustainable.  For several years I have argued that events should always at least aim to break even: not all of them will, and the gap needs to be financed somehow.

It is also really important to note that the TCL is independent of the NQCGS: it is sponsored by, but not run by, the Club.  It seems like a pedantic point, as the same people were running both.  However, fundamentally the TCL flowed from Mark's labour.  It also seems pretty likely that there will still be a close relationship between the TCL and the Club for many years to come.

The bonus level

TCL2015 was the first to include additional individual and team awards.  These were separate from the main event prizes and had different criteria.  It is perhaps a nod to the non-competitive aspects of EDH implied in the mtgcommander.net committee framework.  It was positively received.

We did debate the prize structure and the number of "elective" awards to great length.  It was decided at the end to only put in a few awards and see what the feedback was.

Making a point

After 2014, we examined the Australian Highlander list and received feedback on it.  The results were mixed.  Most people felt it was a necessary evil.  Others hated the idea of having restrictions at all.  I will note that very few participants of TCL2013 (which had no restrictions at all) have voiced a desire to have another "open-slather" League for prizes.  We had guessed ahead of TCL2014 that having the organisers (or similar secret committee) choose cards to appear on a list would fail miserably.  From the outset we have wanted to do things differently - preferably better - than any comparable competition anywhere in the world.  In the end, we are not competing for the hearts and minds of players globally.  We are trying to build the best social and play experience we can, in the environment we are in.

With this in mind, the TCL2015 had a voting system where players from TCL2014 could pick cards that they wanted points added to.  This was merged with the Australian Highlander list to produce the first TCL-specific list.  It is community-driven and selected by popular vote.  In that sense, we all have some ownership - a stake in the health of the local MTG community.  It also reduces the stigma of playing cards that might be considered unwholesome or un-fun: if the community believes a particular card is gross, it will pick up lots of votes.

This is essentially the type of survey that multiplicity of secret rules committees (presumably) are performing on their playgroups.  The difference here is that the participants actually change the outcome.  It is democratic and it creates a natural ebb and flow in the prevalence of certain cards and strategies.  This refreshes the League each year.  It also gives teams the opportunity to "vent" against what they consider "d*ck cards".

That said: we were initially worried that players would vote for "pet hates" rather than genuinely gross and powerful things (e.g. Strip Mine and Sol Ring) and thus the Australian Highlander list was included to make a hybrid.  I cannot objectively say either way here whther this was a good idea.  Certainly, by the time the community voted on the 2016 list, there was a level of maturity and sensibility in the voting - the top 5 cards ended up being: Strip Mine, Sol Ring, Vampiric Tutor, Demonic Tutor, and Tooth and Nail.  That is simply amazing.

To misquote Winston Churchill: "a points system is the worst way to run a Commander League with prizes ... except for all the other ways that have been tried".

A League of Our Own - Part 2 - Reflections on TCL2014

When two world collide

There were two major innovations in the TCL2014 (Townsville Commander League 2014).  These were the Doubleton format and the Australian Highlander Points List.  I will discuss each below.

A world apart

One of the key problems of 2HG is that it hacks the rules of MTG.  That is, shared turns and shared life create artificial situations and make certain effects useless (Vengeful Pharaoh was the example in the previous piece) while rendering others absurd (see e.g. Time Warp).  It appears at first blush to be a simple fix to sidestep this: have each person play on their own.  The trouble there is that the rules allow teammates to have free and complete information exchange between them under the Multiplayer section in the Comprehensive Rules (CR).

We had explored the idea of having a League where each "team" is a collection of  individuals who are technically opponents.  This one of the features I argued in the previous post that is implicit in the design of the mtgcommander.net committee-based EDH model.  The side effects of this can be seen clearly in EDH side-events at GPs: 2 round, sixteen player FFA events with four pods where the winner of each play in a final for prizes.  Two friends in the same pod are strictly "opponents" within the rules, but can collaborate with information and effects.  Thus, a spell such as Fact or Fiction essentially becomes a draw-five whereas Imperial Mask and the Surge cards from Oath of the Gatewatch are sub-optimal.

So Mark Norton, quite on his own, came up with an amazingly elegant solution to to this.  Given that Richard Garfield was a long-standing Bridge player I have been stunned that this has not occurred at an earlier stage.  In a sentence: Magic played in the same style as Bridge, 500, Whist, and Euchre.  It is so simple conceptually that it blows my mind that this had not been explored in-depth by other authors.

Experienced MTG players when presented with this will almost immediately throw up a list of problems with such a scheme (unenforceability, ease of cheating, dexterity errors, hands-on adjudication).  However, like all posited game designs, the only way to tell is to see how it plays out.  Our initial test games of the mode (note this is a "mode" not a "format") can be summed-up simply:

Amazing.

Doubleton played out intuitively and smoothly.  There are some gremlins with timing, interpretation of the rules, and player communication which we addressed over the course of several years, but the first few play runs in a social environment went very well.  We were aware even back in 2014 that players would "push" boundaries and rule interpretations in a competitive environment.  In fact, I used a very North Queenland-esque analogy to describe the difference between competitive Doubleton and 2HG judging-wise: Doubleton is like Rugby Union and 2HG is akin to Rugby League.  For those that have not played both, in Union, the referee controls the flow of the game and is "at the coalface" at breakdowns to determine whether players are infringing (which requires interpretation and continuous judgement).  In League, the referee is simply less important.  When playing with a (large) group of friends, you can play a casual game of League without a referee (soccer is the same), whereas Union (and Australian Rules Fooball - AFL - which is little-played in North Queensland) always needs an adjudicator.

We tried to map out rules and guidelines for Doubleton as best we could.  It was fundamentally Mark's idea and I have tried to map the original concept to the Comprehensive Rules, Tournament Rules, and Infractions Penalty Guide as best I could.  As a different mode (not merely a format) the rules set actually overrides sections in all three documents.  Making this congruent and consistent while adhering as close as possible to the original idea is a non-trivial task.  I will discuss this at large in later posts, but for now it must be said that a lot of thought, design, testing, and reflection has gone into the Doubleton mode rules set.  The significance of the Doubleton rules was perhaps unfortunately overshadowed by the introduction of an addtional build requirement: the Australian Highlander Points System (AHPS).

There can be only two

Although I neglected to mention this in the previous post, TCL2013 actually had a build restriction in the rules.  There was a "Rules Committee" founded by Chris Piccone which adhered to the framework mapped out by Sheldon Menery et al.  It was a useful mechanism for discussing playgroup-specific rules (such as banning cards, having an "extra turn" cap, a combo-cap, or restricting tutoring effects),  However, the increase in players arguably led to the collapse of this.  In fact, to demonstrate the disparity of thought, this is a chart I made back in 2014:

To make the point even more apt, Cam piped up "I don't like drinking beer" as the first comment(!).

Ironically, the one card sitting on the Local Committee ban list was Sylvan Primordial (which the mtgcommander.net committee banned later anyway).  But the group page established by Chris and Mark did set into motion the first EDH League and the local community is heavily indebted to Chris in particular for undertaking this .

During TCL2013, it became apparent however that there were mismatches of experience, expectation, and collections.  Unfortunately, as EDH was designed as a pastime rather than a competitive format, budget is simply not a component of the format.  Also, it is designed for small playgroups to determine their own build restrictions.  Sheldon et al anticipated that groups would determine their own norms and kerb unwanted behaviour appropriately (which he somewhat erroneously refers to as a 'social contract').

Both of these are problematic when running a competition, even one with a strong social aspect.  The existence of EDH websites made net-decking a trivial task, but the cost of undertaking this essentially meant that the TCL was fast becoming "Legacy-Light".  For example, pretty much every EDH deck would play Sol Ring.  Comments on internet EDH sources in regards to decks of any colour would list staples (e.g. Demonic and Vampiric Tutor) and the honest ones would list the expensive ones as well (e.g. Grim Tutor, Imperial Seal).  Any intermediate-level or higher MTG player knows that Revised dual lands make decks absolutely better than those with only Ravnica shock lands.  Cards such as Moat or Gaea's Cradle cannot be offset by "creative" deckbuilding choices on a poorer budget.

So we looked afield to see what other systems or alternatives exist.  We looked at the French EDH system, the Canadian Highlander rules, and Australian Highlander.

Je ne comprend pas

The French EDH (FEDH or "Dual Commander") system is pretty simple.  It is managed by a committee (there is a theme here...) who pick-and-choose cards to be banned or unbanned for the French

So, as at January 2017, these cards are legal in EDH but banned in FEDH
Ancient Tomb
Back to Basics
Dig Through Time
Entomb
Food Chain
Gaea’s Cradle
Grim Monolith
Hermit Druid
Humility
Imperial Seal
Loyal Retainers
Mana Crypt
Mana Drain
Mana Vault
Mind Twist
Mishra’s Workshop
Mystical Tutor
Natural Order
Necrotic Ooze
Oath of Druids
Protean Hulk
Sensei’s Divining Top
Sol Ring
Strip Mine
The Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale
Treasure Cruise
Vampiric Tutor

There are also several cards in the EDH banlist that are allowed in FEDH:

Balance

Biorhythm

Coalition Victory

Emrakul, the Aeons Torn

Limited Resources

Lion's Eye Diamond

Metalworker

Painter's Servant

Panoptic Mirror

Recurring Nightmare

Sway of the Stars

Upheaval

Worldgorger Dragon

(may contain some errors)

They also retained the "allowed main deck but not as a Commander" rule for these:

Derevi, Empyrial Tactician
Edric, Spymaster of Trest
Erayo, Soratami Ascendant
Marath, Will of the Wild
Oloro, Ageless Ascetic
Rofellos, Llanowar Emissary
Tasigur, the Golden Fang
Yisan, the Wanderer Bard
Zur the Enchanter

I explored the FEDH rules set and development when looking into structures for TCL2014.  It was interesting to note "[w]hen you play a game with more than two players, social interactions, diplomacy and negotiations usually prevent a player from taking a huge advantage at the start of the game" was the first sentence in the rules design section: a statement which is simply false (2HG for example has no diplomacy).  It does again demonstrate the implicit rules that Sheldon et al somewhat inadvertently placed in the EDH system which have somewhat alarmingly been picked-up by many people without careful examination.

I then examined tournament results for decks (French EDH has extensive decklists online) and was dismayed: top decks eschewed the banned Strip Mine but all played Wasteland (and many also Crucible of Worlds).  Blue decks, barred from Mana Drain, all had Force of Will, and many the three Time Walk effects (Time Warp, Temporal Manipulation, and Capture of Jingzhou).  Grim Tutor, Survival of the Fittest, all Revised Duals, Stoneforge Mystic, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Sword of Feast and Famine, Umezawa's Jitte et al.  It read like an unrestrained wish list.  A very expensive one at that.  Our thoughts are the time (which I for one still hold true) were that FEDH list shifts the power level sideways: Strip Mine becomes Wasteland, but the essential deckbuilding strategy for top-tier cards is the same.  That is, not playing them (by choice or by financial necessity) puts you at an absolute disadvantage.  All up, the ability to net-deck in entirety was (and still is) problematic.  However, this coupled with an increased in prizes for TCL2014 and the cost of "essential" cards in each colour had the potential to create unfun play experiences ("nice $3,000+ deck!") as well as massive barriers-to-entry.  The TCL is a regional Australia competition: cost and availability problems are arguably larger in this environment that capital cities.

Also, aligning a local league with another committee's ban-list had the potential to create mid-season disconformity.  That is, a card might be legal at the start of the tournament but get banned (or as with Winter Orb in 2016, seriously errata-ed) during it.  This was only a minor issue in a regional centre and could easily be mapped out in the rules.

The FEDH system also uses lower life totals and is designed for 1 v 1 matches.  After the additional rules hacks required for the TCL2013 with 2HG, and knowing that there would be many Doubleton-related quirks, it was undesirable to change the MTG rules further.

Interestingly, one other reason that the FEDH list was undesirable was that it is not a sub-set of regular Commander: something that was vindicated in October 2014 when Commander became a sanctioned FNM format.

What aboot this one?

The Canadian Highlander system changed somewhat since we looked into this in 2014.  This is managed by yet another semi-secret committee.  The CHS is based on the Australian system (see below) and, in its present form it is a 100-card (minimum) singleton without commanders.  Not-tournament cards (ante, dexterity, conspiracy, unhinged) are banned, and all other cards are allocated a points value from 0 (which is 99% of magic cards) to 7 (Black Lotus).  Decks can only have 10 points for every 100 cards (rounded down).

Ancestral Recall – 5
Balance – 1
Birthing Pod – 3
Black Lotus – 7
Demonic Tutor – 4
Dig Through Time – 1
Doomsday -2
Enlightened Tutor – 2
Fastbond – 1
Flash – 6
Gifts Ungiven – 1
Hermit Druid – 4
Imperial Seal – 2
Intuition – 1
Library of Alexandria – 1
Lim-Dul’s Vault – 1
Mana Crypt – 2
Mana Vault – 1
Mind Twist – 1
Mox Emerald – 3
Mox Jet – 3
Mox Pearl – 3
Mox Ruby – 3
Mox Sapphire – 3
Mystical Tutor – 2
Natural Order – 5
Oath of Druids – 1
Personal Tutor – 1
Protean Hulk – 3
Sol Ring – 4
Stoneforge Mystic – 1
Strip Mine – 2
Summoner’s Pact – 2
Survival of the Fittest – 2
Tainted Pact – 1
Time Vault – 7
Time Walk – 5
Tinker – 5
Tolarian Academy – 1
Transmute Artifact – 1
Treasure Cruise – 1
True-Name Nemesis – 1
Umezawa’s Jitte – 2
Vampiric Tutor – 3

There was not a lot of difference between this and the Australian list, and the deck size is the same as EDH, which was good.  I think that if the 2017 list and rules were in place back in 2014, this might have been looked at more.

Das ist gud ya ?

The German Highlander system is a simple 100 card list developed by, you guessed, a committee.  No commanders, and a simple ban list:

Ancestral Recall
Balance
Birthing Pod
Black Lotus
Chaos Orb
Entomb
Falling Star
Flash
Gifts Ungiven
Grindstone
Imperial Seal
Library of Alexandria
Mana Crypt
Mana Vault
Mind Twist
Mox Emerald
Mox Jet
Mox Pearl
Mox Ruby
Mox Sapphire
Natural Order
Sensei's Divining Top
Shahrazad
Skullclamp
Sol Ring
Stoneforge Mystic
Strip Mine
Survival of the Fittest
Time Vault
Time Walk
Tinker
Umezawa's Jitte
Vampiric Tutor

Interestingly, German Higlander allows the use of International Edition, Collector's Edition, and Championship deck cards (gold and orange borders).  That said, there is little to prefer this over the French system when running an EDH League.

Maaate!

I have been aware of Australian Highlander since I moved to the Land Girt by Sea in 2006, although I must confess that I have never played in an event.  It is essentially Vintage overlaid with a 7-point build restriction.  The current list is here:

Current List

4 points:
Ancestral Recall, Black Lotus

3 points:
Demonic Tutor, Imperial Seal, Sol Ring, Time Vault, Time Walk, Tinker, Vampiric Tutor, Yawgmoth’s Will.

2 points:
Channel, Library of Alexandria, Mana Crypt, Mind Twist, Mox Emerald, Mox Jet, Mox Pearl, Mox Ruby, Mox Sapphire, Mystical Tutor, Skullclamp, Strip Mine, Tolarian Academy.

1 point:
Balance, Birthing Pod, Crop Rotation, Dig Through Time, Dark Petition, Enlightened Tutor, Fastbond, Flash, Force of Will, Gifts Ungiven, Green Sun’s Zenith, Hermit Druid, Intuition, Jace, the Mind Sculptor, Karakas, Lim-Dul’s Vault, Mana Drain, Mana Vault, Mishra’s Workshop, Muddle the Mixture, Natural Order, Oath of Druids, Memory Jar, Merchant Scroll, Personal Tutor, Protean Hulk, Snapcaster Mage, Steelshaper’s Gift, Stoneforge Mystic, Survival of the Fittest, Tainted Pact, Time Spiral, Timetwister, Treasure Cruise, True-Name Nemesis, Umezawa’s Jitte, Yawgmoth’s Bargain, Wasteland, Wheel of Fortune, Worldly Tutor

No surprises that the list is curated by a committee, with (possibly mandated) updates each year.  AH has multiple tournaments in the capital cities, with the largest following being in Melbourne.  I was drawn to the depth and thoughtfulness of the list, the fact that net-decking is much more challenging, and it elegantly overlaid onto the regular EDH rules and banlist.  

By the time the rules for the TCL2014 were being put together in mid-to-late 2014, a schism had occured in the local community.  For a while, there were two Facebook groups, two rules groups, and tournaments run by each (with different rules of course).  I have noted this in previous posts but I feel the influx of experienced-in-MTG-players-bit-new-to-EDH in TCL2013 led to a boom in team numbers, but ultimately fractured the playing base into purely social vs social-competitive.  In future posts I will explain how we addressed this, but in relation to Aussie Highalnder, it must be said that this was helpful to try and "bridge the gap".  It is a long-standing format, it could be overlaid onto "real" EDH rules easily, it did not require any hacks, and it helped kurb the use of "no brainer" cards in the TCL2014.

On reflection, the AH list fulfilled each of these problems and was a good choice at the time.  We were adamant that any such list should not be derived by a small group of people - or at least not done locally.  It also arguably solidified the legitimacy of the TCL in general by partially aligning with a long-standing format.

Final thoughts

The TCL2014 final was double-Maelstrom Wanderer against Olivia+Teferi and was a tense best-out-of-seven decided 4 games to 3.  Some things that came from this match that arguably could be applied to the entire season.

Firstly, the points list was accepted begrudgingly.  The experienced players accepted the need for it to exist, although disagreed on its content.  Several noted, quite rightly, that the AHPS is designed for 20-life, 1v1, non-Commander play.  While the general power level curve is probably okay, the uber-Generals (such as those on the French ban list) can be played indiscriminately.

While it was neat to have a unique build environment, one comment that came back was the need to change or evolve it.  We did not want to pick-and-choose cards and/or rules arbitrarily (as all other committees, including those in Townsville), but wanted to create an interesting build enviroment and a fun, exciting play format.  These were all taken into account when mapping out TCL2015.

A League of Our Own - Part 1 - Reflections on TCL2013

A community-derived system for an EDH League

The Townsville Commander League (TCL) has finished for 2016. Mark Norton has written a comprehensive post on the highs and lows of that competition. The level of thoughtfulness in this event is staggering - aspects of the design, rules, and implementation have been discussed with a high level of granularity. Last year was the first to feature a working group for four people and a quick revisiting of the TCL2016 Facebook group demonstrates the sheer volume of time and effort put into this. There are hundreds of comments across dozens of smaller areas. One thing that is oft-maligned and I feel requires a greater level of explanation is the TCL Points list.

For those that are not aware, the TCL list contains approximately 80 cards. Each is allocated 1 to 4 points. To play a deck in the TCL, your deck cannot contain more than seven (7) points. Cards are voted on by the community, not by a person or committee.

This post aims to address the common and not-so-common arguments for retaining or abolishing this list in the 2017 TCL. Before that, I need to address some historical aspects (several of which Mark covered in this post) in a bit more depth.  Mark's post is far more digestible and upbeat than I can manage here (there is also an historic TCL gallery).

The emphasis of this post is to examine each of the previous TCL incarnations from a design and a rules perspective.  This post is about the TCL2013.  Others are about TCL2014 and TCL2015.

TCL2013 – A Two-headed Giant EDH League

The inaugural TCL was based on a very simple premise: Commander 2HG.  This sounds pretty straightforward - combining EDH with a multiplayer rules set.

The difficulties started to bubble up as the TCL2013 went on.  These can be roughly separated into two areas rules problems and expectation problems,

You can't rule them all

The 2HG format was announced and sanctioned with the release of Saviors of Kamigawa (June 2005) but the real push by WotC to tournament organisers was for the Ravnica: City of Guilds pre-release in October 2005.  I was fortunate to play in the Auckland pre-release and Team Walker (No Relation) went unbeaten than day.  My enthusiasm for playing this mode has not wavered since then, although the opportunities to do so have been limited to fewer than one sanctioned event per year.

One thing that I found back in 2005 that limits the mainstream appeal of the 2HG rules set are the "hacks" required to make the thing work.  Some of the less intuitive changes have been

One example that arose in TCL2013 was Vengeful Pharaoh.  In 2HG, you attack and block as a team.  Also, you have a shared life total.  Thus, it might be reasonable to expect the text "Whenever combat damage is dealt to you ..." from the Pharaoh to apply when you are attacked.  However, 2HG does not work that way: the attacking team choose the defending player to deal damage to.

Why is this?  It is designed to prevent other, arguably worse side-effects from occurring.  For example, if you damaged both players, Sword of Feast and Famine would trigger twice and other unforeseen effects would create an even less robust system than before.

This example gets even worse when playing under Competitive REL: the default mode is to damage the player on the right-hand side of their team.  Fortunately, 2HG (and multiplayer in general) was removed from the Tournament Rules in 2015.

The effect of this rules-wise is that each fundamental change made in the 2HG rules set "hacks" the game in some way.  Most players are not aware of these hacks, and the additional rules knowledge made for awfully asymmetric decks and matches in TCL2013.  Teams not playing Time Walk effects had arguably a gross disadvantage over those that did not (effects granting additional turns affect BOTH players in 2HG).

Another problem that TCL2013 faced has been mitigated somewhat by WotC accepting Commander as a sanctioned format: back in 2013, both the rules document and the WotC website directed players to mtgcommander.net for deck construction rules.  However, at the time, Erayo, Soratami Ascendant was listed as "banned in all sanctioned constructed formats (Standard, Extended, Vintage, Legacy)" on the WotC website.  One team (yes, we all know who it was) read this as not applying to the TCL2013 (as Commander was not capable of being sanctioned) and played Erayo.  The League Director was then put in an awkward situation of having to make a "live" call on overtly banning this and determining how to resolve matches played by that team to that point.

This is analogous, of course, to judges (real-world ones, not MTG ones!) needing to create law where Parliament has missed something in legislating.  Ideally, this would not happen (although it always will - we do not live in an ideal world), and it is desirable to reflect on rule failings like this and try to improve drafting quality next time.

Also, running events like this is not an easy thing to do.  It is made much harder when decisions such as this arise.  It highlights the need for clear and comprehensive rules as well as good systems of governance.

Problems with norms in TCL2013

EDH is unusual as a sanctioned MTG format in that is was designed by non-WotC groups and adopted ex post facto (after the fact).  The original source for rules has a lovely (albeit cryptic) "philosophy" section which reads: "Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.  It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game."

This is actually quite nice.  It makes me feel better just reading it.  That is, of course until the lawyer-programmer-philosophymajor-mtgjudge parts of my brain start interpreting and, more alarming, extrapolating this.

I'll start first with player psychological profiles.  You see, gaming is a big thing these days, with revenues exceeding that of movies from about 2002 onwards.  Money flowing from this has gone back into game R&D - including on academic research into gaming patterns and behaviour.  Hasbro themselves expressed this in more recent versions of Dungeons and Dragons where they explain the multiplicity of reasons that people play games,  WotC have expanded the basic profiles they laid down in the 1990s (Timmy/Spike/Johnny) into 20+ (including combinations and cross-overs).  Thoughtful profiling leads to games targeting the needs of particular players.

Returning to the "social contract" expressed by the mtgcommander.net rules committee (MTGCC): this is a take on the philosophical instrument of the same name.  Unfortunately, there is something of a category error that pervades the literature on this.  I'll start with Sheldon Menery's eloquent explanation of this.  Sheldon outlines social contract theory in the general sense with the works of Hobbes and Rousseau.  He notes that "... civilized people through their own power establish civil societies gaining further rights in exchange for subjecting themselves to the group’s authority."  Now, it may seem like I am splitting hairs here, but there is a subtle ambiguity in this sentence.  You see, Hobbes et al express their theories as submission to the sovereign, that is, the recognised authority over that group, not the authority of the group itself.

The next sentence leads the reader, and many subsequent commentators, to follow the latter: "The contract a group chooses or develops isn’t the only way for that group to behave - clearly it could choose many different ways - but it’s the one they’ve come to like the best."  What Sheldon means is that groups have "norms": in social theory these are expected patterns of action, behaviour and/or belief.  Again, it looks like I am being pedantic, but these two paragraphs have been quoted extensively by pundits over the last six or seven years:

"In EDH we already have the foundations of a contract with deck construction rules and a banned list. That said not all of the ‘rules’ need to be formalized. There’s no law that says you can’t butt up in line at the movie theater or that you’re required to be courteous when addressing people but we generally agree in polite society to take our turn and to say please and thank you."

and:

"[EDH is] a shared vision of rights and responsibilities between like-minded individuals on what is an enjoyable way to spend their leisure time ... Social contracts are rarely about right and wrong despite what some might try to make you believe but about the points which are important to the society a path to walk towards the end that we desire namely the benefit of all. In fact there’s no legitimacy to elements of the contract that don’t forward the end goals. 'Don’t play counterspells' isn’t a valid contractual obligation. 'Don’t play counterspells just to annoy people' probably is."

Now, Sheldon is stretching the analogy here: as someone who has taught contract law and social contract theory to undergraduates, I can say unequivocally that trying to equate the two is counter-productive and ultimately pointless.  What is happening here is that Sheldon, probably deliberately, is trying to simplify his framework by use of analogy.  However, the fact remains that the framework has a series of implicit and explicit norms and rules.

For example, the section "Elements of the EDH Social Contract", notwithstanding Sheldon's disclaimer, is predicated on groups of players both rejecting formal rules and playing multiplayer.   Interestingly,  Sheldon does not explicitly state this as being free-for-all multiplayer but the examples and his subsequent writing makes this clear.

So, ironically, when Sheldon concludes with "[t]he social contract I suggest here is the social contract I had in mind from the earliest days of the format’s development. By nature the “rules” of a social contract are less hard and fast than laws or formalized rules sets but they also grant a broader scope of freedoms - and more importantly a framework for maximizing everyone’s enjoyment." he is inadvertently alluding to the formal, Hobbesian notion of social contracts.  That is, he is making explicit certain modes of behaviour and conduct (FFA multiplayer and ad hoc "don't be a jerk" norms) and precluding certain other types (such as deferring group conduct to the TR and IPG).  Even the phrase "jerk" is problematic: this is grounded in American English.  In regional Australia where we reside, the phrases "c*nt", "f*ckt*rd", and "d*ckh**d" are used in the vernacular with such frequency that most participants at our local FNMs and Prereleases would be disqualified before round 1 even started.  It should be self-evident that there are strong cultural differences between Americans and Australians, and to try and side-step this by arguing that "EDH culture is context-independent" proves my point that EDH norms (and MTG more broadly) are fundamentally American.

The EDH ban list aligns with this: it is designed by Sheldon's extended playgroup and managed by a committee.   Notwithstanding the imperative that "each playgroup can and should have their own house rules", certain modes were implicit.  However, to run with the "social contract" analogy some more: the adoption of the format by WotC (as a sanctioned FNM format only) in 2014 essentially changed the "sovereign" from mtgcommander.net to Gatherer and the CR (and also arguably the TR and the IPG, although CompREL EDH to my knowledge cannot be sanctioned).  The mulligan rule changes in 2015 followed the same pattern: Sheldon announced the change, but FNM followed the Rules of Magic the Gathering (i.e. the CompRules).

The point I am making here is that EDH is presented as a "clean slate" and that each "playgroup" should create its own variations from the rules.  This ignores several implicit features which, in creating a "framework for maximizing everyone’s enjoyment" (a concept fraught with problems that Sheldon is no doubt aware), cannot achieve this.

Reflections

My thoughts on this have of course been developed with the benefit of 3+ years of hindsight.  It was pretty obvious on reflection that some players would follow Sheldon's imperatives, whereas others would compete as if they were playing a 2HG tournament (with significantly more beer).  It goes without saying that teams playing to win, did so.

From memory, the entry fee was $30 per team and there were 11 teams.  Several teams had never played EDH before, and some teams had not played 2HG.  Some at the time suggested that the existence of a prize (which was simply the sum of entry fees) automatically precluded this from following mtgcommander.net rules, protocols and/or guidelines.  Again, I think that this slightly misses the point made above: following the framework was very unlikely to "maximi[se] everyone’s enjoyment" anyway.  I think that the eclectic mix of participants in the first organised League has forever been etched into the fabric of the community and left an indelible mark on its constitution.

Some teams looked at the novelty of the build environment as the primary source of enjoyment, others got great value from the unusual board states and challenging play decisions.  The aspect of play involving (for want of a better word) self-gratification (possibly "self-expression" is more apt), such as playing hordes of large creatures or winning with Tooth and Nail or Insurrection was still present.

Creating a League for such an eclectic mix of players and play-styles can ironically be done by drawing on social contract theory, but not as expressed by the mtgcommander.net committee.  Social contracts in the Hobbesian sense involve the ceding of personal sovereignty to an authority in return for protection.  Now, one important consideration here (which is more true in Hobbes' time than today) is that citizens are not free to pick-and-choose which nation they cede personal sovereignty to.  In this sense, running a League draws more from actual contract law - free-willed, rational persons making an informed decision to be legally bound in order to make both parties better off.  In this sense, the utilitarian outcome envisaged by Sheldon is performed through mutual consent to be bound by rules.

That leads to the inexorable conclusion: to achieve the best long-term result (presumably some iteration of maximising aggregate enjoyment of participants), there must be be prospective and explicit rules, not retrospective and implicit norms.  Tournament Officials should not penalise players from playing obnoxious cards and/or strategies ex post facto (after the fact).  There is an argument (for a later post) that guidelines for interpersonal aspects should be enshrined in documents as well, although that is not my point here.  This need to carefully map out the rules was the basis for a radical shift in designing the TCL2014.

Dragon's Maze Update In a fit of procrastination, I am updating the Cube instead of everything else I should be doing. Anyhow, this is going in: Contemporary Ral Zerak Deathrite Shaman Voice of Resurgence Blood Scrivener Jace, Architect of Thought Windfall Early Harvest Mana Flare Heartbeat of Spring Darkblast Baleful Strix Shardless Agent Greater Goblin Guide Ash Zealot Strategic Planning Blightspeaker Goblin Chieftain Goblin King

Rule update

My one year ban on cards has finished AND my cube finally arrived from New Zealand. It has been a while... finally get to do an update.


Cube Draft Rules
Version 1.3 C7 release 2

Here are the following rules that apply:

1 Land packs
Each player starts with 50 basic lands plus a handful of randomly allocated non-basics (currently 6 per person). This is a set limit. You can’t add basics to your pool later (unless you win them).

2 Deck and sideboard size (the “40/20 rule”)
After your cards are drafted, make your 40 card deck up, and select 20 cards (only) to put in your sideboard. Thus, each player can take a maximum of sixty cards including land. Note that the ante rules (see below) mean you might lose some cards, so be careful not to strand yourself out of lands.

3 Pairings
Each person plays each other person in best-of-three. Generally there is not enough time for this, so continue until parties have to leave. The winner of the draft is determined by the coin value scoring (see below) so there is not as harsh a penalty for players leaving or arriving early.

4 Two-card ante
After shuffling, but before drawing your initial seven cards, remove the top two from the library (one face-up, one face-down) and put these in your ante. At the end of each game (not round), the winner gets all cards in all antes (although note the scoring below). If the game is a tie (e.g. Earthquake kills both players), then the original antes remain, and the players ante another two cards (i.e. the stakes are doubled).

5 Scorekeeping
When you win a game, add the coin value of the cards you win to your score. If you lose a game, subtract the coin value of the cards you lost from your score. The winner is the person with the highest total at the end of the night.

6 Arriving late
If a player arrives during the drafting of packs or afterwards, use the following rules for incorporating them into the game:

If there are 7 players or fewer, and one additional player arrives during the draft:
- That new player receives a land pack (50 basics, 6 non-basics)
If there are more than 8 players but fewer than 11 players, and one additional player arrives during the draft:
- Each current player gives one basic land of each type to that player, and one of the 6 non-basics in their land pack (of the giving player’s choice: serves them right for being late!)
The following changes then occur to the draft:
- The players currently drafting finish the current pack, then the new player sits at a randomly selected seat, and the drat continues.
- For each pack that the new play “missed out” on, she or he receives 15 random cards from the discards after each other player has selected their 60 (see rule 2). The discards do not include basic lands.

7 Arriving early
You’re a champion. Have a beer.

8 More than 8 players
If the game starts with 9 players, each of the first 8 give one basic land of each type and one non-basic (of the giving player’s choice) to the 9th player.

If the game starts with 10 players, each of the first 8 give one basic land of each type to each of the two other players. The non-basics are collected and assigned randomly to each player.

If the game starts with 11 or more, the non-basics are collected and assigned randomly to each player. The basic lands are collected from each player. After the main draft has concluded, players Rochester draft basic lands from the pool of lands. When drafting, each player chooses five lands at a time, with the order going as:

A  B  C  C  B  A  A  B  C  C  B  A A  (etc)

9 Calling time on each round
When there is only one game remaining, a majority of non-players can call “time”. If this happens, the current game has 3 minutes to complete. If it does not, the active player is “turn 0”.

10 Leaving early
Each player’s score is recorded, and will factor into standings at the end of the evening. If a player genuinely needs to leave mid-game, the current ante is returned. This is at the discretion of the majority of players not in the current game.


Strategy and Tips
- Basic lands matter! Make sure you have sufficient additional lands in your 20-card sideboard to cater for the loss of some through ante.
- Cutting cards is very difficult as the power level in vintage cubes is very high.
- Tutors, mass removal, and fast mana are some of the most desirable early picks.
- For those who have read/played other cube lists, note the following
o There are fewer counterspells (< 20 in a 650 card cube).
o There are more small creatures (particularly with the casting costs WW, 1G, UU, and 1R).
o There is a slight skew in the quantity of mono-coloured cards (from most to fewest: Green, Black, Red, White, Blue).
o Blue has relatively more cards with UU and UUU in their casting cost.
o There is very little mass removal.
o There is very little mass land destruction (no Armageddon, Ravages of War, Wildfire, Upheaval).
o There is a lot of redundancy in archetypes, although the ‘backup’ spells in those archetypes might be less powerful. For example
 Oath of Druids, Polymorph, Tinker are supplemented with Mass Polymorph, Pattern of Rebirth, Tooth and Nail.
 Goblin Recruiter, Goblin Ringleader, Goblin Warchief are supplemented with Bloodmark Mentor, Mad Auntie, Frogtosser Banneret.
 Knight Exemplar, Knight of Meadowgrain, Mirran Crusader are supplemented with Benalish Knight, Kinsbaile Cavalier, Avian Changeling.
 Lightning Bolt, Goblin Guide, Fireblast are supplemented with Volcanic Hammer, Kargan Dragonlord, Glacial Ray.
- With the ante rules, single-card strategies are risky. However, the weaker archetypal spells tend to be near-last picks.
- Mid-range finishers (e.g. 5-6 mana ‘limited bombs’, planeswalkers) should be picked as if you were playing in an environment closer in power to constructed than limited.

List of Morphs
Akroma, Angel of Fury
Blistering Firecat
Dwarven Blastminer
Fathom Seer
Fortune Thief
Grinning Demon
Krosan Cloudscraper
Vesuvan Shapeshifter
Whip-Spine Drake
Whipcorder
Thelonite Hermit
Zoetic Cavern
Exalted Angel

0-cost effects
Archive Trap
Chord of Calling
Edge of Autumn
Fireblast

Touchups

Here are a few proxies based on artwork from ye olde days that needed a little bit of a touch-up:

Stats update

Cube is sitting at 510 non-land cards (and about 70 non-basic lands). I have tidied up my MSE file and produced some statistics. I have been amazed at how neat the stats tool in this program operates.

I know if I was given the task of coding that, I would have taken a long- long time. Kudos to the MSE authors.





Also, I have begun adding tools for storm decks. One of the problems I have seen so far (and it's quite damning) is that there simply aren't that many storm cards. To make this archetype viable, you will need tutors (and some luck).

Here's the additions:
Brain Freeze
Empty the Warrens
Grape Shot
Haze of Rage (the only one I have used in constructed MTG).

I'll put in Manamorphisise (sp) some time later.