Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

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
>> 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
Let's say a comprimise at mid point of 180pts. I'd put my money on
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
>> 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
>> of cards in a deck only that the deck needed to contain at least 60
>> 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
>> 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????

>> 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..........


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.