Multi deck possibilité for 12+ players tournaments

Greetings fellow Methuselahs !

I would like to ask your opinion and if BCP agrees about changing a rule on sanctioned tournaments. 

Can we authorize the Multi decks system for any number of players as soon as it is announced before the event ?

To remind you
3.1.5 Multi-Deck System
Players are prohibited from making modifications to their decks between rounds unless the tournament uses the following multi-deck rules. The multi-deck system can be used at any tournament with fewer than 12 players (i.e., fewer than three tables). Organizers choosing to use this system must announce its use in advance of the tournament date. Players may choose to bring any number of tournament-legal decks to the tournament and/or extra cards to exchange with cards in their decks (also known as a sideboard in some games). Between rounds, players may freely switch decks (or cards in their decks). A tournament begun with the multi-deck system cannot admit more players between rounds if doing so would create a round with 12 or more players.

Thanks for your time and answers. 

Hey Vlad ☺︎

TLDR; rather no but no hard feelings ☺︎ 

The way I see it, the multi-deck system was devised so that when you're not that many and you play the same players round after round, you all get to change decks so that it's not too boring.

So first question we need to answer is what would be the point of allowing multi-decks for larger tournaments? This is what I make of it, but maybe you could expand on that first, @Vlad: why the change?

• It allows for deck adjustments when you bring an experimental deck. Lately, many communities have been playing online leagues with a "1 round a week" structure. With that time between rounds, being unable to modify your deck is frustrating.
• We do have mostly online tournaments nowadays and that makes enforcing a no change policy harder (In theory online tools could help with that but, in reality, nobody checks really)
• It allows for deeper strategies (playing EC/NAC 2 days / 2 decks structure requires a plan), more strategy is good, it makes for better competition. It can only lead to more deck archetypes being relevant.
• It equalises chances between old players with a big network and newcomers. Mark's article on meta game makes it clear that older Methusalahs have an edge: they do rely on their network to predict what decks people will bring and crush them since they can't change deck. (Well, since we're in the Camarilla here, I guess Princes would probably argue that older Methusalahs having an edge is the way of the Ivory Tower ☺︎ More on that in the conclusion).

Allowing deck changes in larger tournaments raise multiple issues though:

1. The first obvious idea is to bring different decks for 4p and 5p tables. As an extension, bringing different decks depending on your initial seat to get more optimal setups.
2. The second idea is to use a different deck in the Finals as opposed to the deck you play in rounds. EC and NAC with their 2 days structure and last year World's championship make it clear that allowing any kind of deck change in large tournaments leads to a shift in the meta depending on the stage.
3. If you change decks then the whole point of a tournament becomes moot: the winner is not necessarily the best deck anymore
4. In real life large tournaments, players with larger collections will benefit most.
5. This makes the seating choice in the finals moot.
6. This rewards scouting as opposed to playing. If you gather good intel and know your opponents decks, you can adapt yours to include strong counters.
7. This ruins the "World of Darkness" ambiance of a V:tES tournament. When you play your Stanislava deck for three rounds, you become the "Stanislava" Methusalah.

I think pros and cons are debatable on each of those points, this is my 2 cents:

1. Tournament strategy being more technical is not a bad thing, it's proof of the game's strategic depth.
2. A bit of structure in the timing (EC/NAC) and or range (side limit MtG style) of changes you can operate demonstrably leads to interesting strategies. But my feeling is that allowing unlimited changes anytime will not. I'm not opposed to multi-decks, but some kind of limit will probably yield better results (throwing ideas but, for example, 2 decks and 20 cards side)
3. A tournament should aim at selecting the best player, not the best deck. Allowing deck changes will not hinder that, rather the opposite.
4. BCP is making heroic efforts to reprint all cards at very decent prices. Compared to any other CCG, card price and "pay to win" factor is far lower in V:tES. So in my opinion 3. is moot.
5. The seating dance is an important part of a tournament structure. Removing it or making it moot will raise the luck factor and lower the skill factor, which is not good. On that point, again, limiting the allowed changes is I think the only way to go: the only question that remains is do you choose/modify your deck before or after seating.
6. Scouting is already rewarded too much, some players have complained that scouts get an illegitimate edge in the finals. On that point, we could take a hint from more competitive CCGs and make the deck lists public after everybody submitted. This equalises the chances, which is more competitive. But more importantly, it improves tournament promotion and game exposure a lot. No secrecy means streamers can stream any round, and commentators can discuss player tactics with precision and analyse deck list and meta-game more easily. Publicising deck lists is demonstrably a huge boost in both the level of competition and the quality of game promotion.
7. For me, that's the biggest issue. We could make a multi-deck system work, but, given previous points, that would change the ambiance of a tournament a lot. Too much in my opinion.

As a conclusion, I'd say allowing some form of structure multi-decks in major tournaments sounds like a good way to raise the competitive level and get more exposure.

But an important point is the ambiance. Right now, there is a WoD quality in the way V:tES tournaments work. You bring your deck and you play it for multiple games, you essentially become "the Gangrel player" (or any other clan of course) for the duration fo the tournament. Old Methusalahs perform well because they know the inner workings of this ruthless world. The kindred network spans the entire world and clever Methusalahs prepare their Eternal Struggle well in advance, to rip the rewards ont the finals table. And during the tournament, politics and exchange of information are tools the best of us use to get an edge for their next round. Personally I'm not so sure I would want to depart from all of that. I've been playing competitive CCGs. This feeling you get from a V:tES tournament is exactly what brought me back to the game and the tournaments in the first place. Why exchange that for a highly competitive aseptic scene that cares only about statistics ? We've got Magic for that already. Let's play our strength, trying to copy a successful cousin will only throw us in its shadow.

I first didn't think about it but being first in finals, you could add a bunch of autarkis persecution in your vote deck and you have a good old time limit

The question is not the pros and cons of multi-deck tournaments but whether such a rule should be centrally enforced. Why would a rule team on the other side of the world assume they know what the local players want better than the tournament organizer? There are many places in the world where tournaments are (or at least were before the Plague) the only tabletop scene left. Those tournaments are bound to look very different from the competitive events of a big city with multiple weekly games.

I think this thread is onlu about VEKN-sanctioned tournaments using VEKN Tournament Rules.
Within your playgroup you can even play tournaments with right-bleeds if you like it and have fun.

Boris is right : I don't want all tournaments to become Multi Deck ones but simply the possibility to play one even if there are 20 players (that want to do so, and even if 4 of those decide to play the same deck they Can of course)