Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

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

- Matt

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

SRCard list.member.newbie
Teen Poets FAQ:
SRTCG Website:


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.