#566264
Well, looks like it's Friday! This week, it's my turn to ask you a Friday Question, and I've got kind of a vague one for you:
What do you think about batch seeding in the dilemma phase?
Traditionally (and still in Open), the game used alternate seeding in the dilemma phase, just like in every other phase: you took turns. You seeded a card, your opponent seeded a card, you seeded a card, until there were a bunch of dilemmas under every mission on the spaceline.
In May 2009, Revised Format v5.6 officially introduced a slew of new rules to the World Championship Series, including a four-card limit, a once-per-game interrupt restriction, the ability to move between quadrants on your turn, the first version of the Intermix Ratio rule... and batch seeding. (Revised was primarily a local format until v5.6.) Most of those early Revised rules are gone now, but batch seeding has stuck around as part of Official Tournament Format.
In batch seeding, both you and your opponent make piles of seed cards you want to put under missions, then you shove 'em under simultaneously. There have been several minor variations on this (especially how batch seeds deal with shared missions), but the gist of it has remained the same for about 12 years now. (Here is the current rule, which I know for a fact from the PM'd questions I get that most of you haven't re-read recently.)
That means that batch seeding has been around almost as long as alternate seeding was! I, for one, returned to the game in 2011, after this change was made. As a result, I have never played a game using alternate seeding in the CC era.
The argument for batch seeding was really, really straightforward: Batch seeding speeds up the game
The argument for alternate seeding was also straightforward:Alternate seeding is a creative and strategic element of the seed phase (and the wider game).
Supporters of batch seeding counter-argued that the "creative and strategic element" destroyed by batch seeding was actually bad for the game. A common sentiment was "The only reason at this point in the game you are going to be self-seeding is if you are doing something you really shouldn't be doing... An experienced player will be able to see and stop a self-seed trick from a million miles away anyways."
Supporters of alternate seeding counter-argued that batch seeding didn't really save very much time, if any; alternate seeding shouldn't take more than a few seconds per card, after all. If it is taking longer than that, supporters suggested, it was really necessary for T.D.'s to step in and hurry things along.
To me, this question of timing is a core question with an empirical answer: is batch seeding actually faster? To my knowledge, there is no formal data or reporting about this. Batch seeding was playtested, but the playtester notes have not survived (and reputedly focused mostly on the "rule of 4" copy limits). Many of you out there will have had experience with both methods for seeding -- perhaps you can share some memories.
Supporters of alternate seeding had one additional argument: alternate seeding is fundamental to the game. It's a core strategic element introduced by Decipher in the Premiere Rulebook, which survived all subsequent rules overhauls. Not only shouldn't we remove it, alternate-seeders argued... by doing so, we were changing the STCCG in a fundamental way. We are supposed to broaden and streamline and add layers to the STCCG... but there's a line somewhere where you start changing the game into a different game like 2E, and many alternate seeders felt that batch seeding crossed that line.
2009 and 2010 were times of ferment and change. Card copy limits were imposed and lifted in quick succession; the first ban list came into being (and a ton of cards got banned with very little discussion). The Director of 1E ran Worlds in Revised format, but paid cash prizes to players who played X-List-compatible decks at Worlds in order to promote both formats. Did you know there was briefly a rule that batch seeding happened in the Facility Phase, too? That lasted about six months. Suffice to say that most changes that were proposed eventually happened, and batch seeding won the argument back in 2009. This aggressive attitude toward change was, I think, necessary at the time, and many of us agree OTF saved the game.
But now it's 2021. We are much more conservative now. I have a reputation as a fairly aggressive Rules Master, but even I quail at the idea of taking a major dimension of the Premiere Rulebook and chucking it out the window. If the batch seeding debate happened today instead of ten years ago, there's just no way it would have gotten through this community.
And there are some pressures on the idea: there's been no serious open conversation about batch seeding in at least a decade. Alternate seeding still has advocates, but no rules support (unless they want to play Open, which is very rare among this player community). There are modern decks (like Obsession and Amargosa decks... and does anyone remember Return Orb To Bajor and actually getting to turn on a Bajoran Shrine? Or triggering a self-seeded Balancing Act?) that would really like to be able to get an occasional strategic self-seed that isn't dead last in the dilemma stack. We have also recently come into contact with fairly large populations of Traditional players (in the Facebook world and so forth) who would like to see gameplay pulled back in the direction of Traditional gameplay.
I think we're about due for a check-in on batch seeding. So that's today's 1EFQ. Some things you might consider in your answer:
Is batch seeding accomplishing its goals? Does it actually save time? Has the dilemma phase gotten shorter since it was implemented?
Is alternate seeding desirable? Is it an important dimension of the game?
Is the current version of batch seeding the best version it could be?
Is there a way to bring back that strategic ability to bluff the seed phase a bit, and maybe get a self-seed into a useful position, under batch seeding?
Is there a compromise available where batch seeders are able to batch seed and alternate seeders are able to alternate seed -- that is, the rules support both methods somehow?
What do you think about batch seeding in the dilemma phase?
Traditionally (and still in Open), the game used alternate seeding in the dilemma phase, just like in every other phase: you took turns. You seeded a card, your opponent seeded a card, you seeded a card, until there were a bunch of dilemmas under every mission on the spaceline.
In May 2009, Revised Format v5.6 officially introduced a slew of new rules to the World Championship Series, including a four-card limit, a once-per-game interrupt restriction, the ability to move between quadrants on your turn, the first version of the Intermix Ratio rule... and batch seeding. (Revised was primarily a local format until v5.6.) Most of those early Revised rules are gone now, but batch seeding has stuck around as part of Official Tournament Format.
In batch seeding, both you and your opponent make piles of seed cards you want to put under missions, then you shove 'em under simultaneously. There have been several minor variations on this (especially how batch seeds deal with shared missions), but the gist of it has remained the same for about 12 years now. (Here is the current rule, which I know for a fact from the PM'd questions I get that most of you haven't re-read recently.)
That means that batch seeding has been around almost as long as alternate seeding was! I, for one, returned to the game in 2011, after this change was made. As a result, I have never played a game using alternate seeding in the CC era.
The argument for batch seeding was really, really straightforward: Batch seeding speeds up the game
The argument for alternate seeding was also straightforward:Alternate seeding is a creative and strategic element of the seed phase (and the wider game).
Supporters of batch seeding counter-argued that the "creative and strategic element" destroyed by batch seeding was actually bad for the game. A common sentiment was "The only reason at this point in the game you are going to be self-seeding is if you are doing something you really shouldn't be doing... An experienced player will be able to see and stop a self-seed trick from a million miles away anyways."
Supporters of alternate seeding counter-argued that batch seeding didn't really save very much time, if any; alternate seeding shouldn't take more than a few seconds per card, after all. If it is taking longer than that, supporters suggested, it was really necessary for T.D.'s to step in and hurry things along.
To me, this question of timing is a core question with an empirical answer: is batch seeding actually faster? To my knowledge, there is no formal data or reporting about this. Batch seeding was playtested, but the playtester notes have not survived (and reputedly focused mostly on the "rule of 4" copy limits). Many of you out there will have had experience with both methods for seeding -- perhaps you can share some memories.
Supporters of alternate seeding had one additional argument: alternate seeding is fundamental to the game. It's a core strategic element introduced by Decipher in the Premiere Rulebook, which survived all subsequent rules overhauls. Not only shouldn't we remove it, alternate-seeders argued... by doing so, we were changing the STCCG in a fundamental way. We are supposed to broaden and streamline and add layers to the STCCG... but there's a line somewhere where you start changing the game into a different game like 2E, and many alternate seeders felt that batch seeding crossed that line.
2009 and 2010 were times of ferment and change. Card copy limits were imposed and lifted in quick succession; the first ban list came into being (and a ton of cards got banned with very little discussion). The Director of 1E ran Worlds in Revised format, but paid cash prizes to players who played X-List-compatible decks at Worlds in order to promote both formats. Did you know there was briefly a rule that batch seeding happened in the Facility Phase, too? That lasted about six months. Suffice to say that most changes that were proposed eventually happened, and batch seeding won the argument back in 2009. This aggressive attitude toward change was, I think, necessary at the time, and many of us agree OTF saved the game.
But now it's 2021. We are much more conservative now. I have a reputation as a fairly aggressive Rules Master, but even I quail at the idea of taking a major dimension of the Premiere Rulebook and chucking it out the window. If the batch seeding debate happened today instead of ten years ago, there's just no way it would have gotten through this community.
And there are some pressures on the idea: there's been no serious open conversation about batch seeding in at least a decade. Alternate seeding still has advocates, but no rules support (unless they want to play Open, which is very rare among this player community). There are modern decks (like Obsession and Amargosa decks... and does anyone remember Return Orb To Bajor and actually getting to turn on a Bajoran Shrine? Or triggering a self-seeded Balancing Act?) that would really like to be able to get an occasional strategic self-seed that isn't dead last in the dilemma stack. We have also recently come into contact with fairly large populations of Traditional players (in the Facebook world and so forth) who would like to see gameplay pulled back in the direction of Traditional gameplay.
I think we're about due for a check-in on batch seeding. So that's today's 1EFQ. Some things you might consider in your answer:
Is batch seeding accomplishing its goals? Does it actually save time? Has the dilemma phase gotten shorter since it was implemented?
Is alternate seeding desirable? Is it an important dimension of the game?
Is the current version of batch seeding the best version it could be?
Is there a way to bring back that strategic ability to bluff the seed phase a bit, and maybe get a self-seed into a useful position, under batch seeding?
Is there a compromise available where batch seeders are able to batch seed and alternate seeders are able to alternate seed -- that is, the rules support both methods somehow?
Rules Manager | Official Rulings in blue. All else opinion. | Rules Archive
"We pledge our loyalty to the Glossary from now until death."
"Then receive this reward from the Glossary. May it keep you strong."
~Iron Prime
"We pledge our loyalty to the Glossary from now until death."
"Then receive this reward from the Glossary. May it keep you strong."
~Iron Prime