Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Robert Thomas <Strangefate@*****.NET>
Subject: National Tournament???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 03:13:54 -0400
Has anyone heard if FASA is planning a national (and/or international)
tournament in the forseeable future for SRTCG? I am sure that there are
many people out there that would participate, and I would love to try
my hand at such a task as competing to make it to such a tournament.

------------------------------------------------------

"Are you afraid to die, or are you just afraid to live?"

-No Fear
Message no. 2
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 08:20:51 -0700
---Robert Thomas <Strangefate@*****.NET> wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard if FASA is planning a national (and/or international)
> tournament in the forseeable future for SRTCG? I am sure that there
are
> many people out there that would participate, and I would love to try
> my hand at such a task as competing to make it to such a tournament.

I've been parlaying with the DLOH's (Jim & Skuzzy) and FASA Mike to
get a FASA sanctioned tourney at Gen Con '98. That's still up in the
air.

Out side of that I'm going to do what I can to organize an SRCard
tourney at GC'98. If FASA doesn't host their own, then I also hope to
get some FASA involvement in this one to the vein of prizes or such.

One way or the other, there should be some form of SRTCG tourney at
GC. Beyond that I think it's just a matter of local tournies in varied
areas.

-== Loki ==-
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
SRCard FAQ: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/srstuff/tcgfaq1.htm
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr
SRTCG trade lists last updated 4/9/98
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 3
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 00:41:54 +0800
It'll be nice to be able to run tournaments.....
You'll need stricter guidelines regarding rules esp. objective points to win
a game...
The current "agreement" rule in the rulebook is too loose...
Also, winning decks are always built based on ways to abuse the rules...
When a combo abuses the rules too greatly, a way must be devised to control
this combo or the game will become a "Play this combo, or have no hope of
winning" game.
Ok... I know a lot of you have a bone to pick with Magic but I'm going to
quote it's tournament breif evolution because it does happen to be the
longest running card game....

When Magic tournaments were first organized there was no limit to the number
of cards in a deck only that the deck needed to contain at least 60 cards.
A lotta smart asses built decks with 40 lightning bolts and 20 mountains.
Anybody who has played Magic knows what this does....
They then ruled that you can only 4 of each card besides basic land to stop
this abuse.
Most card games now are smart enough to limit no of a card.
After magic became immensly popular, Power cards like the moxes and lotus
became stupendously expensive. New players who did not have them just
couldn't keep up with the older players. So, they became resticted.
Later as more cards were printed (and more power cards were removed from
current print), a new environment was created, then more powerful cards were
banned from the environment...
Now to keep people interested in Magic and to maintain game balance, cards
now do extremely weird things (go find out what dream halls or humility
does) or makes weaker copies of old power cards (mox diamond, lotus vale
etc..).
Each change of ruling makes the game more difficult to play.
The official errata and card rulings are pages long.
It is my hope that SRTCG does not fall into this trap.

-----Original Message-----
From: Loki <daddyjim@**********.COM>
To: SRCARD@********.ITRIBE.NET <SRCARD@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: National Tournament???


>---Robert Thomas <Strangefate@*****.NET> wrote:
>>
>> Has anyone heard if FASA is planning a national (and/or international)
>> tournament in the forseeable future for SRTCG? I am sure that there
>are
>> many people out there that would participate, and I would love to try
>> my hand at such a task as competing to make it to such a tournament.
>
>I've been parlaying with the DLOH's (Jim & Skuzzy) and FASA Mike to
>get a FASA sanctioned tourney at Gen Con '98. That's still up in the
>air.
>
>Out side of that I'm going to do what I can to organize an SRCard
>tourney at GC'98. If FASA doesn't host their own, then I also hope to
>get some FASA involvement in this one to the vein of prizes or such.
>
>One way or the other, there should be some form of SRTCG tourney at
>GC. Beyond that I think it's just a matter of local tournies in varied
>areas.
>
> -== Loki ==-
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Fearless Leader of the Shadowrun Trading Card Game Mailing List
> SRCard FAQ: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr/srstuff/tcgfaq1.htm
>+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> Poisoned Elves: www.primenet.com/~gamemstr
> SRTCG trade lists last updated 4/9/98
>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
Message no. 4
From: rabiola <rabiola@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 15:23:57 -0500
>Each change of ruling makes the game more difficult to play.
>The official errata and card rulings are pages long.
>It is my hope that SRTCG does not fall into this trap.
>


Can it be avoided? The more cards come out, the more combinations are
there, the more questions about certain situations come up...is it
inevitible?

But if you do not release new cards, the game becomes stale, too.

I used to play Highlander, and it fell to the power card demons...

Tony Rabiola rabiola@**.netcom.com
Fourth and Sixth World Adept
Still working on the Fifth...
Message no. 5
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 16:04:04 -0700
hansen wrote:

> It'll be nice to be able to run tournaments.....
> You'll need stricter guidelines regarding rules esp. objective points to win
> a game...

Nah. Different classes: I know decks that can win a 75-point game and
not a 300-point game (eep!). Similarly, I know decks that rock in
two-player but will consistently lose in four-player. Unfortunately,
starting Pro Leagues has the tendency to homogenize game-playing *too
much*. The first question I hear when I meet a new Magic player is "Is
that a Type I or Type II deck?"

> The current "agreement" rule in the rulebook is too loose...

Not at all. In another game, the dispute would be left to the tourney
judge; I actually like to democritization -- leave it in the hands of
the players involved in the game.

> Also, winning decks are always built based on ways to abuse the rules...
> When a combo abuses the rules too greatly, a way must be devised to control
> this combo or the game will become a "Play this combo, or have no hope of
> winning" game.

Haven't found that combo in SRTCG (yet?). However, one of the major
sore points many players have with MtG is the tendency to a) have one
Power card in every expansion that you *must* play with; and b) the
follow-up banning/limiting of that card three months later. As powerful
as some cards are (Torgo, Skwark, younameit), I don't see any need, at
the moment, to limit them, or any combinations worthy of suppressing.
(In fact, my hackles are raised at the very talk of limiting card play.)

> Ok... I know a lot of you have a bone to pick with Magic but I'm going to
> quote it's tournament breif evolution because it does happen to be the
> longest running card game....

> When Magic tournaments were first organized there was no limit to the number
> of cards in a deck only that the deck needed to contain at least 60 cards.
> A lotta smart asses built decks with 40 lightning bolts and 20 mountains.
> Anybody who has played Magic knows what this does....
> They then ruled that you can only 4 of each card besides basic land to stop
> this abuse.
> Most card games now are smart enough to limit no of a card.

I assume 'limits numbers' of a card? Already in SRTCG.

(snippola)

> Each change of ruling makes the game more difficult to play.
> The official errata and card rulings are pages long.
> It is my hope that SRTCG does not fall into this trap.

Hmm. Good points, but I think they're already on the DLOHs' minds.

InQuest or Scrye (forget which one) does keep track of gaming
tournaments. I strongly urge people send in their results -- I can only
recall reading one, ever, in the magazine. And when FASA can see that
there are a dozen different tournaments, following a dozen slightly
different rules, then a national tournament might actually happen.


- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 6
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 05:28:39 +0800
I'm a judge for M:tG tournaments here in Singapore. I've helped run
sactioned tournaments for S'pore and Nationals for Singapore/Malaysia. Let
me share some of my opinions in reponse to Matb's comments.


>> It'll be nice to be able to run tournaments.....
>> You'll need stricter guidelines regarding rules esp. objective points to
win
>> a game...
>
>Nah. Different classes: I know decks that can win a 75-point game and
>not a 300-point game (eep!). Similarly, I know decks that rock in
>two-player but will consistently lose in four-player. Unfortunately,
>starting Pro Leagues has the tendency to homogenize game-playing *too
>much*. The first question I hear when I meet a new Magic player is "Is
>that a Type I or Type II deck?"
>
>> The current "agreement" rule in the rulebook is too loose...
>
>Not at all. In another game, the dispute would be left to the tourney
>judge; I actually like to democritization -- leave it in the hands of
>the players involved in the game.
>

W/o strict guidelines you get more work for the officials. This allows
players to really abuse the system. The problem with democracy in a
tournament is that it may lead to "did not, did too" arguements. Also it
allows a player to build a deck for the given situation (or environment if u
prefer). Let's give the example u gave above regarding the 75 pt vs the
300pt deck. The 75pt deck will probably rely on speed (Big bruisers,
rockers) rather than control while the 300 pt deck will concentrate more on
resource and control(sticky fingers, riots, fuchi industries, elite security
mage).
Let's say a comprimise at mid point of 180pts. I'd put my money on
control....
Nobody likes to lose.... And if they have on chance of winning they'd rather
not play.
Standardization allows all players an equaled chance of winning varied only
by the player's skill or luck. Give the players a goal and a path and you'll
have more players than if u gave them a goal in the dark......

>> Also, winning decks are always built based on ways to abuse the rules...
>> When a combo abuses the rules too greatly, a way must be devised to
control
>> this combo or the game will become a "Play this combo, or have no hope of
>> winning" game.
>
>Haven't found that combo in SRTCG (yet?). However, one of the major
>sore points many players have with MtG is the tendency to a) have one
>Power card in every expansion that you *must* play with; and b) the
>follow-up banning/limiting of that card three months later. As powerful
>as some cards are (Torgo, Skwark, younameit), I don't see any need, at
>the moment, to limit them, or any combinations worthy of suppressing.
>(In fact, my hackles are raised at the very talk of limiting card play.)
>

No. Not yet. But so far only the basic set and one expansion have been
released. So let's keep our fingers crossed......

>> Ok... I know a lot of you have a bone to pick with Magic but I'm going to
>> quote it's tournament breif evolution because it does happen to be the
>> longest running card game....
>
>> When Magic tournaments were first organized there was no limit to the
number
>> of cards in a deck only that the deck needed to contain at least 60
cards.
>> A lotta smart asses built decks with 40 lightning bolts and 20 mountains.
>> Anybody who has played Magic knows what this does....
>> They then ruled that you can only 4 of each card besides basic land to
stop
>> this abuse.
>> Most card games now are smart enough to limit no of a card.
>
>I assume 'limits numbers' of a card? Already in SRTCG.
>

Yup.. This was just to illustrate poor playtesting.... I mean 40 LBs????

>(snippola)
>
>> Each change of ruling makes the game more difficult to play.
>> The official errata and card rulings are pages long.
>> It is my hope that SRTCG does not fall into this trap.
>
>Hmm. Good points, but I think they're already on the DLOHs' minds.
>
>InQuest or Scrye (forget which one) does keep track of gaming
>tournaments. I strongly urge people send in their results -- I can only
>recall reading one, ever, in the magazine.

Scrye does tournament reports.

>And when FASA can see that
>there are a dozen different tournaments, following a dozen slightly
>different rules, then a national tournament might actually happen.
>
Very true. This is the ONLY thing I found that M:tg picked up. Tournys
always attract attention. Whether it be the publisher or the public. The
greater the prize the more attention it gets. The more attention it get the
more people play. The more people play the the greater the prize becomes....
Also the greater the prize becomes the sleazier the players get. (Hey that
just like the world of Shadwrun isn't it.....) So go out and play , get a
bigger spot light on SR. When u can get a nationals, I'll propably be able
to get more people here to pay, more shops to bring in the game, sponsors
for tournaments..........
Message no. 7
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:44:02 -0700
hansen wrote:

> I'm a judge for M:tG tournaments here in Singapore. I've helped run
> sactioned tournaments for S'pore and Nationals for Singapore/Malaysia. Let
> me share some of my opinions in reponse to Matb's comments.

> >> The current "agreement" rule in the rulebook is too loose...

> >Not at all. In another game, the dispute would be left to the tourney
> >judge; I actually like to democritization -- leave it in the hands of
> >the players involved in the game.

> W/o strict guidelines you get more work for the officials. This allows
> players to really abuse the system. The problem with democracy in a
> tournament is that it may lead to "did not, did too" arguements.

The, ah, problem of only having one or two expansions solves this:
There are only so many "did not"s that would arise. More importantly:
SRTCG isn't about strict guidelines. It isn't about trying to hack
timing mechanics to your whim. You raise a question; the judge makes a
ruling or leaves it to the D6; end of story.

What you don't get is the sometimes unforeseen consequences of ruling a
card or game mechanic as being one way or another: no rules reversals,
because they were never ground in stone to begin with. Live, and live
easy; it's my particular belief that most people will be cool rather
than turn into pricks in such a situation.

> Also it
> allows a player to build a deck for the given situation (or environment if u
> prefer). Let's give the example u gave above regarding the 75 pt vs the
> 300pt deck. The 75pt deck will probably rely on speed (Big bruisers,
> rockers) rather than control while the 300 pt deck will concentrate more on
> resource and control(sticky fingers, riots, fuchi industries, elite security
> mage).
> Let's say a comprimise at mid point of 180pts. I'd put my money on
> control....

I wouldn't really call a Big Tough Guy deck speedy. In fact, my bets
would swing their way in the long run: there's only so long you can keep
resources under your control, and many of the anti-control cards cost
nothing (Bar Fight, Riots). The resource-manipulator is more likely to
run into problems on shadowruns, and its easier to score eight or ten
decent shadowruns than sixty-odd visits to Fuchi.

That's, of course, just speculation, and I wouldn't be surprised to
learn that the actual tournament results swung toward a third, unknown
category.

At any rate, the point of mentioning the Reputation total was that
there's a diversity some other games completely lack: since Magic
tournaments are (correct me if I'm wrong) all two-player format, it
eliminates certain deck types from the get-go.

It also enforces the concept that there's One Right Way to play, which
eventual becomes One Deck to Play.

> Nobody likes to lose.... And if they have on chance of winning they'd rather
> not play.
> Standardization allows all players an equaled chance of winning varied only
> by the player's skill or luck. Give the players a goal and a path and you'll
> have more players than if u gave them a goal in the dark......

On the other hand, standardization also kills non-tournament play (a
much-heard gripe about MtG). Obviously, each tournament will a follow
slightly different format; the difficulty is in ranking different types
of tournaments on the same post, which is something no other ccg seems
to be concerned with.

Part of the fun inherent in *any* card game is the flexibility inherent
in it -- paradoxical since the actual amount of rules are so small. I'd
like to be able to rate, say, one group that likes to play 300-point
games, and one that likes to play 75-point games, and -- since a
tournament system is going to have the trappings of officialty about it,
*encourage both*. That's the point I'm getting at here.

> >> Also, winning decks are always built based on ways to abuse the rules...
> >> When a combo abuses the rules too greatly, a way must be devised to
> control
> >> this combo or the game will become a "Play this combo, or have no hope
of
> >> winning" game.

> >Haven't found that combo in SRTCG (yet?). However, one of the major
> >sore points many players have with MtG is the tendency to a) have one
> >Power card in every expansion that you *must* play with; and b) the
> >follow-up banning/limiting of that card three months later. As powerful
> >as some cards are (Torgo, Skwark, younameit), I don't see any need, at
> >the moment, to limit them, or any combinations worthy of suppressing.
> >(In fact, my hackles are raised at the very talk of limiting card play.)

> No. Not yet. But so far only the basic set and one expansion have been
> released. So let's keep our fingers crossed......

And if it still doesn't happen...?

"All winnings decks ... abuse the rules..." I'm sorry, but that *was*
an extremely offensive statement; more importantly, it only leads into
the spiral of revamping the rules every release. Encourage the use of
decks that don't abuse the rules: *that* is the solution.

> >> Ok... I know a lot of you have a bone to pick with Magic but I'm going to
> >> quote it's tournament breif evolution because it does happen to be the
> >> longest running card game....

> >> When Magic tournaments were first organized there was no limit to the
> number
> >> of cards in a deck only that the deck needed to contain at least 60
> cards.
> >> A lotta smart asses built decks with 40 lightning bolts and 20 mountains.
> >> Anybody who has played Magic knows what this does....
> >> They then ruled that you can only 4 of each card besides basic land to
> stop
> >> this abuse.
> >> Most card games now are smart enough to limit no of a card.

> >I assume 'limits numbers' of a card? Already in SRTCG.

> Yup.. This was just to illustrate poor playtesting.... I mean 40 LBs????

That actually happened because Garfield wasn't expecting big print runs
or, more accurately, big purchases: He had played in an environment
where there were only one or two 'bolts in print, yet alone in play, so
in that sort of situation almost anything looks balanced (since it'll be
limited by draw).

On the other hand: OK, it's a twink deck - but the guy who first thought
it up probably thought he was a genius for it. Give him that proud
moment. It was, incidentally, before any official MtG tournament I'm
aware of (at least -- in place by Beta).

A while ago there was some talk of using Swiss-format scoring for
tournaments, which at the time I was rather outspokenly against;
however, given the possibilities for multiple tiers of game types, a
similar system might be used. Any suggestions? I'd much rather allow
(several) different gaming environments than one rather strict one, even
if it makes direct comparison a bit limited.


- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 8
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 15:26:27 +0800
My current debate with Matb on tournaments.....

>The, ah, problem of only having one or two expansions solves this:
>There are only so many "did not"s that would arise. More importantly:
>SRTCG isn't about strict guidelines. It isn't about trying to hack
>timing mechanics to your whim. You raise a question; the judge makes a
>ruling or leaves it to the D6; end of story.
>

Ah... I've forgotten the magic d6.....

>What you don't get is the sometimes unforeseen consequences of ruling a
>card or game mechanic as being one way or another: no rules reversals,
>because they were never ground in stone to begin with. Live, and live
>easy; it's my particular belief that most people will be cool rather
>than turn into pricks in such a situation.
>

That's now, I'm thinking about the future... It's easier to shape metal when
it's hot than when it's cold.....

>
>I wouldn't really call a Big Tough Guy deck speedy. In fact, my bets
>would swing their way in the long run: there's only so long you can keep
>resources under your control, and many of the anti-control cards cost
>nothing (Bar Fight, Riots). The resource-manipulator is more likely to
>run into problems on shadowruns, and its easier to score eight or ten
>decent shadowruns than sixty-odd visits to Fuchi.
>

Look I hardly play so I'm just guessing.....

>That's, of course, just speculation, and I wouldn't be surprised to
>learn that the actual tournament results swung toward a third, unknown
>category.
>
>At any rate, the point of mentioning the Reputation total was that
>there's a diversity some other games completely lack: since Magic
>tournaments are (correct me if I'm wrong) all two-player format, it
>eliminates certain deck types from the get-go.
>
>It also enforces the concept that there's One Right Way to play, which
>eventual becomes One Deck to Play.
>

There is a major diffence b/w magic and SR....
Magic is very rigid... There are 5 colors each with a spicific attribute....
This is their foundation.

SR however has ony one type of resource (nuyen) and with that all cards are
playable... That's very flexible....

As such, I don't see the "One deck to Play" problem really surfacing in SR.
If everybody played a certain deck it's propably because they think it's
cool rather than powerful....


>
>On the other hand, standardization also kills non-tournament play (a
>much-heard gripe about MtG). Obviously, each tournament will a follow
>slightly different format; the difficulty is in ranking different types
>of tournaments on the same post, which is something no other ccg seems
>to be concerned with.


This is always the case.... Friendly become less and less common (sigh... I
don't seem to be able win much any more... But then I hardly build decks to
win... I build decks to shock my opponents socks off...)

>Part of the fun inherent in *any* card game is the flexibility inherent
>in it -- paradoxical since the actual amount of rules are so small. I'd
>like to be able to rate, say, one group that likes to play 300-point
>games, and one that likes to play 75-point games, and -- since a
>tournament system is going to have the trappings of officialty about it,
>*encourage both*. That's the point I'm getting at here.
>

I'm sorry, Ishould have stated this before... Standardization should only be
done during the tournament... For actual standards you'll need democracy....
For example having a 300pt tourny one day and a 75pt tourney the next. You
give everybody a fair chance while chatering to everyone.

>> >> Also, winning decks are always built based on ways to abuse the
rules...
>> >> When a combo abuses the rules too greatly, a way must be devised to
>> control
>> >> this combo or the game will become a "Play this combo, or have no
hope
of
>> >> winning" game.
>
>> >Haven't found that combo in SRTCG (yet?). However, one of the major
>> >sore points many players have with MtG is the tendency to a) have one
>> >Power card in every expansion that you *must* play with; and b) the
>> >follow-up banning/limiting of that card three months later. As powerful
>> >as some cards are (Torgo, Skwark, younameit), I don't see any need, at
>> >the moment, to limit them, or any combinations worthy of suppressing.
>> >(In fact, my hackles are raised at the very talk of limiting card play.)
>
>> No. Not yet. But so far only the basic set and one expansion have been
>> released. So let's keep our fingers crossed......
>
>And if it still doesn't happen...?
>
>"All winnings decks ... abuse the rules..." I'm sorry, but that *was*
>an extremely offensive statement; more importantly, it only leads into
>the spiral of revamping the rules every release. Encourage the use of
>decks that don't abuse the rules: *that* is the solution.
>

Yes, thats offensive... But then some players (esp in Magic) do this... A
lotta players have bluffed their opponents into conceiding ( if you follow
the tournament scene you'll know who I'm talking about...)

>
>That actually happened because Garfield wasn't expecting big print runs
>or, more accurately, big purchases: He had played in an environment
>where there were only one or two 'bolts in print, yet alone in play, so
>in that sort of situation almost anything looks balanced (since it'll be
>limited by draw).
>
>On the other hand: OK, it's a twink deck - but the guy who first thought
>it up probably thought he was a genius for it. Give him that proud
>moment. It was, incidentally, before any official MtG tournament I'm
>aware of (at least -- in place by Beta).
>
>A while ago there was some talk of using Swiss-format scoring for
>tournaments, which at the time I was rather outspokenly against;
>however, given the possibilities for multiple tiers of game types, a
>similar system might be used. Any suggestions? I'd much rather allow
>(several) different gaming environments than one rather strict one, even
>if it makes direct comparison a bit limited.

Swiss format : I'm very comfortable with that....
Problem : time.......

I'll leave you tho think on that ... I need to go now...
Message no. 9
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 18:52:37 -0700
hansen wrote:

> My current debate with Matb on tournaments.....

Debate? No. Discussion? Yes.

> >What you don't get is the sometimes unforeseen consequences of ruling a
> >card or game mechanic as being one way or another: no rules reversals,
> >because they were never ground in stone to begin with. Live, and live
> >easy; it's my particular belief that most people will be cool rather
> >than turn into pricks in such a situation.

> That's now, I'm thinking about the future... It's easier to shape metal when
> it's hot than when it's cold.....

Strangely enough, I see SRTCG without hard-and-fast tournament rules
being the more fluid. Obviously, some clarifications are needed, though
(that Z-zone thing, for instance).

> >I wouldn't really call a Big Tough Guy deck speedy. In fact, my bets
> >would swing their way in the long run: there's only so long you can keep
> >resources under your control, and many of the anti-control cards cost
> >nothing (Bar Fight, Riots). The resource-manipulator is more likely to
> >run into problems on shadowruns, and its easier to score eight or ten
> >decent shadowruns than sixty-odd visits to Fuchi.

> Look I hardly play so I'm just guessing.....

So am I. :) I've got three guys I play with, one of them only
sporadically; what the 'big game' is like is unknown to me.

> >Part of the fun inherent in *any* card game is the flexibility inherent
> >in it -- paradoxical since the actual amount of rules are so small. I'd
> >like to be able to rate, say, one group that likes to play 300-point
> >games, and one that likes to play 75-point games, and -- since a
> >tournament system is going to have the trappings of officialty about it,
> >*encourage both*. That's the point I'm getting at here.

> I'm sorry, Ishould have stated this before... Standardization should only be
> done during the tournament... For actual standards you'll need democracy....
> For example having a 300pt tourny one day and a 75pt tourney the next. You
> give everybody a fair chance while chatering to everyone.

That sounds like a cool idea .. have a couple different levels in the
tournament format (or, really, a couple different tournament types).
There's a wide difference in strategy between one-on-one decks and
multiplayer, and between short-game and long-game decks.

> A lotta players have bluffed their opponents into conceiding ( if you follow
> the tournament scene you'll know who I'm talking about...)

Not a clue. Last time I played Magic was.. um.. The Dark.

> >A while ago there was some talk of using Swiss-format scoring for
> >tournaments, which at the time I was rather outspokenly against;
> >however, given the possibilities for multiple tiers of game types, a
> >similar system might be used. Any suggestions? I'd much rather allow
> >(several) different gaming environments than one rather strict one, even
> >if it makes direct comparison a bit limited.

> Swiss format : I'm very comfortable with that....
> Problem : time.......

Mmm, I've seen a couple other problems with it. It was big in chess
because, well, it's the only way to really assign points (win-2, tie-1,
loss-0). Magic absorbed it because there are too many varied ways to
win: If you assign points based on, say, your remaining life total when
you kill your opponent, you ignore deck types that get kills by other
means (decking, poison counters, and other means).

SRTCG has a built-in score pad, though - Reputation. Using a second
system seems unnecessary (and possibly unwieldy).

At least, those were my beefs at the time. They don't quite seem as
important anymore. I'm really looking forward to a tournament being set
up.


- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 10
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 08:04:18 +0800
>> My current debate with Matb on tournaments.....
>
>Debate? No. Discussion? Yes.

I was struggleing for the right word..

>
>> >What you don't get is the sometimes unforeseen consequences of ruling a
>> >card or game mechanic as being one way or another: no rules reversals,
>> >because they were never ground in stone to begin with. Live, and live
>> >easy; it's my particular belief that most people will be cool rather
>> >than turn into pricks in such a situation.
>
>> That's now, I'm thinking about the future... It's easier to shape metal
when
>> it's hot than when it's cold.....
>
>Strangely enough, I see SRTCG without hard-and-fast tournament rules
>being the more fluid. Obviously, some clarifications are needed, though
>(that Z-zone thing, for instance).
>

Ok... that I can live with but wasn't actually talking about the card
rulings.

>> >I wouldn't really call a Big Tough Guy deck speedy. In fact, my bets
>> >would swing their way in the long run: there's only so long you can keep
>> >resources under your control, and many of the anti-control cards cost
>> >nothing (Bar Fight, Riots). The resource-manipulator is more likely to
>> >run into problems on shadowruns, and its easier to score eight or ten
>> >decent shadowruns than sixty-odd visits to Fuchi.
>
>> Look I hardly play so I'm just guessing.....
>
>So am I. :) I've got three guys I play with, one of them only
>sporadically; what the 'big game' is like is unknown to me.
>
>> >Part of the fun inherent in *any* card game is the flexibility inherent
>> >in it -- paradoxical since the actual amount of rules are so small. I'd
>> >like to be able to rate, say, one group that likes to play 300-point
>> >games, and one that likes to play 75-point games, and -- since a
>> >tournament system is going to have the trappings of officialty about it,
>> >*encourage both*. That's the point I'm getting at here.
>
>> I'm sorry, Ishould have stated this before... Standardization should only
be
>> done during the tournament... For actual standards you'll need
democracy....
>> For example having a 300pt tourny one day and a 75pt tourney the next.
You
>> give everybody a fair chance while chatering to everyone.
>
>That sounds like a cool idea .. have a couple different levels in the
>tournament format (or, really, a couple different tournament types).
>There's a wide difference in strategy between one-on-one decks and
>multiplayer, and between short-game and long-game decks.

This is really the point I want to put through... Get the players together
and let THEM decide how they will play the tournament... Then as the
official you enforce the rules THEY have decided upon... I feel this is
fairer since ultimately it will be the players who will be paying entry fees
to bolster the prizes (in addition to the sponsors if any...)

The problem now is format.... Most players do not know of a way to play
competitively.... They need a system... only one idea for a new system has
come up (the fixed # of rounds system)... This is what I'm attempting to
find and preferably refine...

>> A lotta players have bluffed their opponents into conceiding ( if you
follow
>> the tournament scene you'll know who I'm talking about...)
>
>Not a clue. Last time I played Magic was.. um.. The Dark.
>

Trust me when there's $150,000 up for grabs , a lot of scummy things
happen....

>> >A while ago there was some talk of using Swiss-format scoring for
>> >tournaments, which at the time I was rather outspokenly against;
>> >however, given the possibilities for multiple tiers of game types, a
>> >similar system might be used. Any suggestions? I'd much rather allow
>> >(several) different gaming environments than one rather strict one, even
>> >if it makes direct comparison a bit limited.
>
>> Swiss format : I'm very comfortable with that....
>> Problem : time.......
>
>Mmm, I've seen a couple other problems with it. It was big in chess
>because, well, it's the only way to really assign points (win-2, tie-1,
>loss-0). Magic absorbed it because there are too many varied ways to
>win: If you assign points based on, say, your remaining life total when
>you kill your opponent, you ignore deck types that get kills by other
>means (decking, poison counters, and other means).
>
>SRTCG has a built-in score pad, though - Reputation. Using a second
>system seems unnecessary (and possibly unwieldy).
>
>At least, those were my beefs at the time. They don't quite seem as
>important anymore. I'm really looking forward to a tournament being set
>up.
>
You didn't catch my point (oh well it wasn't very clear in the first
place)... In swiss time is another resource. You can actually win by
manipulating the allocated time. The worst thing is that this can be done
without stalling. Swiss introduces a totally new resource into the game.
(Eg. Fast deck vs Slow deck. The slow deck manages to achive control. he
continues the game until the judge announces 5 minutes to time. He then
kills his opponent, sideboards & shuffels his opponent's deck. He draws his
cards and the judge announces time is up. He won the round W-U-U. No really
wonderful pointwise but still a win. Note this can happen with any deck that
have a fair amount of control.)

Of course, this is hardly what I call sportsmanlike but then I was giving
out a mox for the top prize and quite a lot of goodies for the rest of the
top 8.
Message no. 11
From: SWhaley PC <SWhaleyPC@***.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 22:52:19 EDT
< hansen wrote:
<
< SRTCG has a built-in score pad, though - Reputation. Using a second
< system seems unnecessary (and possibly unwieldy).

Here is an idea.......
Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long and tries
to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up with the
closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?
Message no. 12
From: Apone <mpcheval@********.FR>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 07:02:08 +0200
SWhaley PC wrote:

> Here is an idea.......
> Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long and tries
> to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up with the
> closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?

I don't really like this time limit concept. I do not play Magic myself but I've heard
a lot of players complaining about "stalling". Let's keep this shameful way of
playing away
from SRTTCG and set a limit based on Rep Points or a number of Rounds.
Should be more exciting this way...

so long,

Apone.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You may bury my body down by the highway side,
So my old evil spirit can catch a Greyhound bus n'ride."
Robert Johnson
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 13
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 05:09:12 -0700
SWhaley PC wrote:

> Here is an idea.......
> Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long and tries
> to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up with the
> closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?

Mmm, time limits tend to be bad. You end up with someone gaining a
decent lead (say, 15-20 points) and then stalling all they can. It's
not a *perfect* win, because the unexpected always happens, but it would
increase chances by a good margin. And whose to say you're not just
trying to determine whether its better to play Cement Shoes on
Hatchetman or Iron Mike?

OTOH, I kind of like Bradley's suggestion of a fixed number of turns. I
think it might throw the ball into the court of resource-denial decks
(and if there's ever a strong discard-from-hand ploy, that gets a major
boost), but that's just at first glance. It doesn't necessarily solve
the problem of time, either (I've had games where I probably wrapped
things up in fifteen turns, others that must have gone one several
hundred.)


- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 14
From: Felix Hoefert <FHoefert@********.DE>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1998 21:58:04 +0200
Matb wrote:
>
> SWhaley PC wrote:
>
> > Here is an idea.......
> > Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long and tries
> > to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up with the
> > closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?
>
> Mmm, time limits tend to be bad. You end up with someone gaining a
> decent lead (say, 15-20 points) and then stalling all they can. It's
> not a *perfect* win, because the unexpected always happens, but it would
> increase chances by a good margin. And whose to say you're not just
> trying to determine whether its better to play Cement Shoes on
> Hatchetman or Iron Mike?
>

Some people even stall involuntarily. One of my opponents is very (and I
mean VERY) talkative. He likes to talk about what his Runners would do
if they were real, if they had certain Gear, if he had certain cards,
what he would do with certain combos when heīd get them and so on and on
and on... You can shut him up for one turn, and he starts all over the
next - heīs a tongue hydra, if you get the idea.
Iīll suggest the rounds vs. time limit at the next tourney, but I bet
itīs going to be rejected.

Felix
Message no. 15
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 13:10:13 +0800
>> > Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long and
tries
>> > to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up with
the
>> > closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?


Very very bad idea....
Use time limit and time becomes a resource....
If i want to win this i'd use runners like drake , hatchetman, foxy roxy
(good sleazers or skills) and get some early rep.
Then play Saender Krupps & cherry bomb to stall.
And stall the game till time is almost up....
Message no. 16
From: Felix Hoefert <FHoefert@********.DE>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 02:10:11 +0200
hansen wrote:
>
> >> > Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long and
> tries
> >> > to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up with
> the
> >> > closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?
>
> Very very bad idea....
> Use time limit and time becomes a resource....
> If i want to win this i'd use runners like drake , hatchetman, foxy roxy
> (good sleazers or skills) and get some early rep.
> Then play Saender Krupps & cherry bomb to stall.
> And stall the game till time is almost up....

We play for 50 minutes or 80 Rep. I donīt think (hope) anybody would be
such a bunghole to stall for time, although some people do it
involuntarily, as Iīve stated earlier (Tongue Hydra). ---Felix
Message no. 17
From: Quicksilver <qwksilvr@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 22:20:41 -0500
At 01:10 PM 4/18/98 +0800, you wrote:
>>> > Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long and
>tries
>>> > to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up with
>the
>>> > closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?
>
>
>Very very bad idea....
>Use time limit and time becomes a resource....
>If i want to win this i'd use runners like drake , hatchetman, foxy roxy
>(good sleazers or skills) and get some early rep.
>Then play Saender Krupps & cherry bomb to stall.
>And stall the game till time is almost up....

Go for an accumulated total over the course of several rounds. Stalling
would then hurt you as well.

Hg

Warning: This message contains my opinions.
I've been wrong before....
....I'll be wrong again.
Message no. 18
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:30:53 +0800
>hansen wrote:
>>
>> >> > Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long
and
>> tries
>> >> > to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up
with
>> the
>> >> > closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?
>>
>> Very very bad idea....
>> Use time limit and time becomes a resource....
>> If i want to win this i'd use runners like drake , hatchetman, foxy roxy
>> (good sleazers or skills) and get some early rep.
>> Then play Saender Krupps & cherry bomb to stall.
>> And stall the game till time is almost up....
>
>We play for 50 minutes or 80 Rep. I donīt think (hope) anybody would be
>such a bunghole to stall for time, although some people do it
>involuntarily, as Iīve stated earlier (Tongue Hydra). ---Felix
>

U assuming that no assholes exist.... I'm sad to say they do.... (Sigh)...
Message no. 19
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:36:15 +0800
>At 01:10 PM 4/18/98 +0800, you wrote:
>>>> > Why don't you set a time limit and everyone plays that long
and
>>tries
>>>> > to get as many rep points in that time. After time up you pair up
with
>>the
>>>> > closest totals and play again. Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>>Very very bad idea....
>>Use time limit and time becomes a resource....
>>If i want to win this i'd use runners like drake , hatchetman, foxy roxy
>>(good sleazers or skills) and get some early rep.
>>Then play Saender Krupps & cherry bomb to stall.
>>And stall the game till time is almost up....
>
> Go for an accumulated total over the course of several rounds.
Stalling
>would then hurt you as well.
>
> Hg
>
>Warning: This message contains my opinions.
> I've been wrong before....
> ....I'll be wrong again.
>

Not of almost everyone plays the same way...

The idea of tournament organization is to anticipate where glitches can
happen.... I hope u guys understand why I'm bashing EVERY tournament post
that comes in.... Anyway I still find Time as opposed to rounds a bad
idea....
Message no. 20
From: Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 04:37:49 -0700
Quicksilver wrote:

> >Use time limit and time becomes a resource....
> >If i want to win this i'd use runners like drake , hatchetman, foxy roxy
> >(good sleazers or skills) and get some early rep.
> >Then play Saender Krupps & cherry bomb to stall.
> >And stall the game till time is almost up....

> Go for an accumulated total over the course of several rounds. Stalling
> would then hurt you as well.

... Go for an assortment of milestones? ("Get 20 Rep by turn five, 50
Rep by turn ten, and
100 Rep by turn 15. The player who passes the most milestones wins?")
Obviously a lot of tinkering as far as which turns and which Reps to
'win' at, and a frequent visits from the tourney judge, but every
tournament has its drawbacks...


- Matt

------------------------------------
Ask me tonight why love is strange
For I am drunk and full of reasons....

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm
Message no. 21
From: hansen <hansen@********.COM.SG>
Subject: Re: National Tournament???
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 16:38:46 +0800
>Quicksilver wrote:
>
>> >Use time limit and time becomes a resource....
>> >If i want to win this i'd use runners like drake , hatchetman, foxy roxy
>> >(good sleazers or skills) and get some early rep.
>> >Then play Saender Krupps & cherry bomb to stall.
>> >And stall the game till time is almost up....
>
>> Go for an accumulated total over the course of several rounds.
Stalling
>> would then hurt you as well.
>

Then what about people who play the big brutes and dragon hunts/cleanse the
hive/room whateverthenumber decks they can amass huge amounts of rep once
set up......

>... Go for an assortment of milestones? ("Get 20 Rep by turn five, 50
>Rep by turn ten, and
>100 Rep by turn 15. The player who passes the most milestones wins?")

Difficult to come up (For me at least) with the scale... Has posibillities
but looks difficult... Hmm...

>Obviously a lot of tinkering as far as which turns and which Reps to
>'win' at, and a frequent visits from the tourney judge, but every
>tournament has its drawbacks...
>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about National Tournament???, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!