Tribal Tournament Discussion

C

CanadianBrad

Guest
I think prior to a Duel-Style Tournament(which I'm definitely game for), the rules and restrictions that we've come up with should be play-tested in a duel and multiplayer setting. Reason being, we've all had input and we all think they look pretty good(at least no one is bitching loudly), but we all know that things that look good on paper sometimes don't hold up when it comes to the real deal. So I figure that we should play out a couple games(some duels and some multiplayer-type action) to see how everything works, and revisit the discussion. But I think that a duel competition(in the most casual, relaxed sense of the term) would be the end goal.

And Turgy, if you're putting together something multiplayer(3-6, or maybe 2HG), I'm in for that.
 
C

CanadianBrad

Guest
Oversoul said:
If we do decide to do a rotation schedule for tribe availability, what kind of timeline would people like to see? My first inclination is to let tribes rotate back in after they've been unavailable for three games, so tribes played in our next game, Game 15, would be disallowed for Games 16, 17, and 18. Then for Game 19, the tribes used in Game 15 would be rotated back into the pool of available tribes, and so on. But of course I haven't tested this and I have no idea if others would like it.
Click to expand...
I like this idea, but I would modify the restriction to "that player cannot replay the tribe for three games". Reason being, a lot of the tribes are pretty open to all kinds of interpretation, especially in a less-competitive format. So, if you play an Oogie-Boogie-Man Tribal deck this game, you have to play something different for the next 3 games(and then hence could theoretically rotate through 4 decks), and yet I, who have built an Oogie-Boogie-Man Tribal deck to play in my next match, aren't screwed for a deck because you've rotated out the tribe.
 
Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
CanadianBrad said:
So, if you play an Oogie-Boogie-Man Tribal deck this game, you have to play something different for the next 3 games(and then hence could theoretically rotate through 4 decks), and yet I, who have built an Oogie-Boogie-Man Tribal deck to play in my next match, aren't screwed for a deck because you've rotated out the tribe.
Click to expand...
That's actually one of my goals. I mean, if most of the rest of you guys are building decks several games in advance and don't want to be delayed from being able to use your deck for Game 16 because someone else used the same tribe for Game 15, then I guess we'd need to address that. In my case, I usually just looked for tribes that hadn't been played, did card searches by creature type and threw together decks based on a few ideas. Based on that, if we both built beast decks, but you also built and elf deck and chose to play that instead, hoping to play your beast deck in the following game, my reaction to your having to wait a while to actually play that deck would be, "So what?" But perhaps some people have tight schedules that only allow them to build decks at certain times and so they would be inclined to plan ahead and might get "screwed for a deck" because of the rotation system. If that's a concern for people, then I guess we'd want to accommodate that. There weren't any complaints along those lines under the old, even more restrictive system (tribes disallowed indefinitely once they were played), just some commentary that it'd be nice to open up tribes that had been played some time ago, what with new sets being released that would totally change the options for those tribes.

We instituted the "tribes that have already been played are unavailable" rule around the time of Game 5. And I think it had a positive effect. We got to see a lot of tribes that I, for one, never expected. Letting people immediately use tribes others have just played doesn't necessarily rule that out, but it would mean the potential for more repetition...
 
C

CanadianBrad

Guest
Seems like a rough go for some. We've already had a couple of people(Turgy, and I think another) who mentioned that they were interested in playing, but that deck-building for the games didn't really thrill them. And there's the interference of real life. I've prepared 3 or 4 decks, play one game, come back for game 8(as an example), only to discover that the decks I've come up with serve me no purpose, as they've already been played. If we're phasing out 6 at a time, that could be a killer stroke.

I understand the concept you're getting at, and I can agree to a point. But if the idea is to see some of the less common tribes in play, I'd suggest that we come up with a list of, say, four tribes for every confirmed player(let's say 6). So we draft a list of 24 tribes, and then go through the order of choosing from the list. As soon as a tribe is picked, it's eliminated from the list. We come up with something that gives those of us just getting back into the groove(myself, for example) a chance to select a progression, from popular, well-supported tribes(like Goblins) to more obscure, challenging to play tribes(like Kobolds, for example). Players have the opportunity to trade Tribes back and forth, but no single Tribe is replicated. That at least gives players under time restraints a chance to prepare a little better.

I, personally, would like to hear the others haunting this forum give their opinion. Would you rather be limited by a list of Tribes that you have chosen from a draft, or limited by other Tribes played in the past 3 games?
 
Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
CanadianBrad said:
Seems like a rough go for some. We've already had a couple of people(Turgy, and I think another) who mentioned that they were interested in playing, but that deck-building for the games didn't really thrill them. And there's the interference of real life. I've prepared 3 or 4 decks, play one game, come back for game 8(as an example), only to discover that the decks I've come up with serve me no purpose, as they've already been played. If we're phasing out 6 at a time, that could be a killer stroke.

I understand the concept you're getting at, and I can agree to a point. But if the idea is to see some of the less common tribes in play, I'd suggest that we come up with a list of, say, four tribes for every confirmed player(let's say 6). So we draft a list of 24 tribes, and then go through the order of choosing from the list. As soon as a tribe is picked, it's eliminated from the list. We come up with something that gives those of us just getting back into the groove(myself, for example) a chance to select a progression, from popular, well-supported tribes(like Goblins) to more obscure, challenging to play tribes(like Kobolds, for example). Players have the opportunity to trade Tribes back and forth, but no single Tribe is replicated. That at least gives players under time restraints a chance to prepare a little better.

I, personally, would like to hear the others haunting this forum give their opinion. Would you rather be limited by a list of Tribes that you have chosen from a draft, or limited by other Tribes played in the past 3 games?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that if you're not picking a particularly notorious tribe (goblins, elves, zombies, angels, soldiers, merfolk, faeries, and a few others), the chance that a deck you were planning on playing might get blocked out by someone else beating you to playing that tribe by one game is rather slim. If you prepare three or four decks ahead of time, at least one of them is going to be available anyway.

I don't think I'd like a tribe draft or anything like that for multiplayer games. But for a tournament, that could be a fun constraint...
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Haha... you guys are so funny... this time, I plan to have a deck but I was delayed but circumstances not under my control. Plus, since all tribes are open, most of my decks are ready, for the most part, just have to check if they're highlander.

Regarding tribes, I think CanadianBrad is overthinking this. IMO, I think just having people choose tribes for each game without "reserving" them in advance is fine. Why? Because normally (without the infinite combo which hopefully highlander will address) games take several months; just look at the past tribes threads. For those who have built decks in advance, having such a lead time to replace a "tribe" should be fine, for those who wait until the next game, that should be fine.

I was thinking this was just MP as opposed to a series of duels, but I guess I can play either way.
 
Mooseman

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
I am still in. And I think KJ will play, now that I sent him my Excel file for deck playing.
Lets do a MP game first with no tribe restrictions and see how it goes. The duel tourney seems like a cool idea.
 
turgy22

turgy22

Nothing Special
I like the idea of restricting tribes that have already been played. Before I got in on the last few tribal games, I looked at the list of "used" tribes and thought there was no way I could find another suitable tribe to play. Then, I spent about five minutes researching and came up with a list of 20+ tribes that interested me and hadn't been used yet. I liked that it forced me to think of alternatives instead of just rolling with my usual standby favorite tribes. Of course, then I spent a few days putting a deck together and the game sucked, but I don't blame that on the restrictiveness. I blame it on Oversoul.

Alternatively, if you have some decks you want to play with, just ask around and I'm sure you can find someone to duel with. These rules are explicitly linked to the multiplayer tribal games. No one's stopping you from starting up a different game for fun.
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
turgy22 said:
I like the idea of restricting tribes that have already been played
Click to expand...
I don't mind either way, but what's stopping you from playing one of those 20+ tribes anyway for the first game? Or are you talking about once the tribal games get rolling, to restrict those tribes already played? Which I thought we were doing anyway?

KJ, roll a d20 to see where you are turn-wise...
 
turgy22

turgy22

Nothing Special
Spiderman said:
I don't mind either way, but what's stopping you from playing one of those 20+ tribes anyway for the first game?
Click to expand...
That was only an example from my experience earlier. What would have stopped me from playing them was my own imagination and/or taking the effort to explore the various tribes that are out there. If so many tribes hadn't been used, I never even would have considered using a treefolk or Eldrazi deck.
 
Oversoul

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
turgy22 said:
That was only an example from my experience earlier. What would have stopped me from playing them was my own imagination and/or taking the effort to explore the various tribes that are out there. If so many tribes hadn't been used, I never even would have considered using a treefolk or Eldrazi deck.
Click to expand...
Yeah, same here.
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
turgy22: So... are you saying you'd like to keep the tribes that have already been played still restricted for the "first" game here?
 
Mooseman

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
How about just no one is allowed to play the same tribe twice. Not really hard to police yourself and it make people try different tribes.
BTW - I have a deck ready, it's not real good, not like a KJ deck, but it should be fun.
So my deck has only tribe creatures and all other cards (except basic lands) are one offs that are not on the banned list.
Did I do that right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top