Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

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


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.