Adjusting to the wider meta-game?

So... I am looking for some advice from the seasoned players out there that have attended lots of tournaments and conventions and have played VTES with a wider group of players than their local weekly game... I've noticed that my decks tend to be highly (HIGHLY) tuned to destroy tables for my local meta-game here in Tucson, but when I head up to Phoenix for tournaments, the best I've been able to do is 2nd place in any tournament. Now obviously this can't all be blamed on the deck I play and how it's tuned of course; Fred especially as well as Ben and Scott and the other Phoenix guys are some skilled players and deserved their wins. But what I want to learn to do is tune my decks for a more general metagame, so I can take them to Phoenix, or really any tournament or metagame in the U.S., and be able to stand a chance at CONSISTENTLY getting some V.P.'s. So, is there a deck building strategy that those of you out there use to adjust your decks to a more general meta-game? Should decks be more tool-boxy? Is there a way to anticipate a tournament meta-game beforehand? Thanks in advance, Matt

On 22 Jan 2003, Ped Xing wrote: > So, is there a deck building strategy that those of you out there use > to adjust your decks to a more general meta-game? Should decks be more > tool-boxy? Is there a way to anticipate a tournament meta-game > beforehand? If you can, build your decks to look innocuous, then go for the one-turn kill. Realize that, unlike your local playgroup, your opponenents in a tournament are not going to know what your deck can do unless it's a hyperfocused, mono-discipline affair, or you are adhering tightly to a well-known archtype ("Law Firm", Malk S+B, et al.). Look for cards, or clusters of cards, that can address several game elements at once. Auspex has some good dual-use intercept, FOR has dual-use prevention, Dominate and Presence have dual-use bleed actions. Bloodlines has lots of this sort of thing, if you happen to be playing a deck that can benefit from it. Chimestry has nothing like this, though. Forget Chimestry. Try to choose vampires that have specials that support or compliment your strategy. A special, if it's good enough and you can see it hit the table, translates directly into freed-up card slots, and you can use those slots to painlessly diversify *or* focus even more on having your needed cards in hand, as you wish. Play eighty card decks and don't double up so much on the good mastercards. There are good arguments against this, but that's the side of the fence I'm on. I've been playing eighty card decks for at least a year now, and there does seem to be a noticeable improvement in draw and reliability. Play weenies. Or Dominate. Or both. David Cherryholmes Prince of Durham, NC

<d...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.21.03012...@petsparc.mc.duke.edu... > On 22 Jan 2003, Ped Xing wrote: > > > So, is there a deck building strategy that those of you out there use > > to adjust your decks to a more general meta-game? Should decks be more > > tool-boxy? Is there a way to anticipate a tournament meta-game > > beforehand? > > If you can, build your decks to look innocuous, then go for the one-turn > kill. Realize that, unlike your local playgroup, your opponenents in a > tournament are not going to know what your deck can do unless it's a > hyperfocused, mono-discipline affair, or you are adhering tightly to a > well-known archtype ("Law Firm", Malk S+B, et al.). I agree, this is good advice. Beyond what David has said, I'd add that there is very little difference between second place and first place. Yeah, the winning deck list doesn't think so, but in my experience, if you're good enough to come in second, you're also good enough to win - things just didn't work out in your favor. :-) If things never work out in your favor after 5+ times you've made the final round, then it may be that something is going on - that you're telegraphing your dangerousness too much, or something. And having a deck with the element of surprise is always nice - one that people have never seen anything like it before, or at least one that does surprising things, as David was saying. But overall, I think that if your decks are doing well enough to make the finals, there's probably no diagnosable reason that you haven't won with them - just not lucky, yet. Josh better lucky than good

Well....other cards game like Magics have sideboards. Maybe someday WW will come out with such a thing. That seems to be the only solution i can think of as far as adapting your deck to wide range of playgroups. later, Dice

>Well....other cards game like Magics have sideboards. Maybe someday WW >will come out with such a thing. That seems to be the only solution i >can think of as far as adapting your deck to wide range of playgroups. That's actually *not* a good thing. Many people out there believe that clan hosers are a pretty crappy (and cheap) tactic. Though they can have powerful effects, one of the drawbacks is that they only affect one particular clan so you see there's clearly an opportunity cost involved. If you're allowed to sideboard things, you eliminate this opportunity cost. Plus it would be sorta lame that, after seeing round one, everyone decided to pack Detections and Vicissitude Poisonings just for your deck... Halcyan 2

"Halcyan 2" <halc...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20030123013311...@mb-mo.aol.com... [ quoted text not captured ] But is that necessarily a bad thing? On the face of it, it would definitely seem a little shady, but I don't know if it wouldn't make for some more interesting tournaments. For one thing, it would serve to un-wallpaper a lot of cards. It would also introduce a new kind of strategy to the tournament scene. It's not as if you, as the Tzimisce Deck, wouldn't also have the opportunity to slide in some Cultivated Blood Shortages or Whispers of the Nictuku or something. I don't really have much of an idea as to the finer details of how sideboards work in other games (i.e. how big your side board is allowed to be, etc...), but it might be interesting if done properly. Speculation.... Peteo

>But is that necessarily a bad thing? In my opinion, yes. >On the face of it, it would definitely >seem a little shady, but I don't know if it wouldn't make for some more >interesting tournaments. For one thing, it would serve to un-wallpaper a >lot of cards. It would also introduce a new kind of strategy to the >tournament scene. It's not as if you, as the Tzimisce Deck, wouldn't also >have the opportunity to slide in some Cultivated Blood Shortages or Whispers >of the Nictuku or something. I don't really have much of an idea as to the >finer details of how sideboards work in other games (i.e. how big your side >board is allowed to be, etc...), but it might be interesting if done >properly. > Well, one of the most important and critical aspects of deck-building is how you deal with other deck archetypes. Some decks might decide to go more toolboxy. Passing on something more focused so that they'd be able to deal with a wider range of situations. Other decks might pack some defense (S:CE, Delaying Tactics, Wakes) in case they need it, but if you don't end up using it it just clogs their hand. And finally there are some decks that just say "screw it" and don't bother with defense. Some decks designed to go forward at full-strength don't bother with Wakes or other reactions. Some decks might just pass on combat defense. Etc. Choosing which path you will take is an important decision (and one that will potentially help or hinder you). Sideboards make things too easy. When you build your deck, you should build it to be able to deal with somethings and build it knowing that it can't deal with others (whether because you choose not to build it that way or because some deck types always get screwed over by others). Letting the fattie vote deck swap out all his combat defense (since know one's playing combat) and put in some Rabble Razings and Ancilla Empowerments to counter the weenie hordes isn't a good idea IMO. Nor is letting the Toreador vote deck ditch the intercept (since no one's playing s&b) and throw in some Justicar Retributions since there's going to be an IC deck at the table. The weenie Potence deck sees the Cailean Trap deck and decides to swap in 10 Sewer Lids. Etc, etc. As I pointed out before, it eliminates the opportunity cost for many of the potentially powerful but more cornercase cards and also takes away an important choice in deck-building. Halcyan 2

"diceruk" <dic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:98f58bd8.03012...@posting.google.com... > Well....other cards game like Magics have sideboards. Maybe someday WW > will come out with such a thing. That seems to be the only solution i > can think of as far as adapting your deck to wide range of playgroups. For reasons on why sideboards are bad, read some of these messages from the past: http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=sideboard&meta=group%3Drec.games.trading-cards.jyhad > > later, > Dice Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier

> will come out with such a thing. That seems to be the only solution i > can think of as far as adapting your deck to wide range of playgroups. For reasons on why sideboards are bad, read some of these messages from the past: http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=sideboard&meta=group%3Drec.games.trading- cards.jyhad Although I do not advocate the use of sideboards, a workable concept would be that if you discard, you can choose to pick from your sideboard or from your library. Sideboard is limited to 10 cards. -- http://vtes.sentientbeings.com - V:TES Collection and Deck builder http://www.finalfantasygoodies.nl - Final Fantasy Collectibles. V:EKN #1002592

> But is that necessarily a bad thing? On the face of it, it would definitely > seem a little shady, but I don't know if it wouldn't make for some more > interesting tournaments. For one thing, it would serve to un-wallpaper a > lot of cards. It would also introduce a new kind of strategy to the > tournament scene. It's not as if you, as the Tzimisce Deck, wouldn't also > have the opportunity to slide in some Cultivated Blood Shortages or Whispers > of the Nictuku or something. I don't really have much of an idea as to the > finer details of how sideboards work in other games (i.e. how big your side > board is allowed to be, etc...), but it might be interesting if done > properly. > > Speculation.... > > Peteo The real problem with clan hosers is that they vary wildly in effectiveness. At one end you have Out of Control which basically hoses a weenie potence deck using !Brujah or any deck using !Brujah by making it waste 3 pool, 3 transfers and a minion, and at the other end, you have infamous warlock and bestial appearance which makes a !Tremere vote deck lose the ability for one of its voterss to vote and the other makes a !Gangrel lose 1 stealth. These are not the same level of hoser. -- Comments Welcome, Norman S. Brown, Jr. XZealot Archon of the Swamp

"Peter Oh" <ohb...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message news:<p7NX9.126043$hK4.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>... > For one thing, it would serve to un-wallpaper a lot of cards. At what cost, though? This isn't like the un-wallpapering of Oxford University. The cards that you're un-wallpapering can completely hose a player's game, all because they chose the "wrong" clan to play when someone happened to be packing that clanhoser. You're introducing even more randomness and game imbalance with no clear benefit other than making a few cards useful. > It would also introduce a new kind of strategy to the tournament scene. > It's not as if you, as the Tzimisce Deck, wouldn't also > have the opportunity to slide in some Cultivated Blood Shortages or Whispers > of the Nictuku or something. There's been times where a clan hoser has shown up in a deck list (usually Malk Dementia). But as other people have said, that's an opportunity risk that you'll just have to take. Take away the opportunity cost away and it becomes "who happens to have the right clanhoser in their sideboard and who draws it at the right time". That seems to be introducing more luck, not more strategy. -Snapcase

In message <3e2fe59c$0$57479$1b62...@news.euronet.nl>, "intGod" <iem...@microsoft.com> mumbled something about: >> will come out with such a thing. That seems to be the only solution i >> can think of as far as adapting your deck to wide range of playgroups. > >For reasons on why sideboards are bad, read some of these messages from the >past: >http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=sideboard&meta=group%3Drec.games.trading- >cards.jyhad > >Although I do not advocate the use of sideboards, a workable concept would >be that if you discard, you can choose to pick from your sideboard or from >your library. Sideboard is limited to 10 cards. My sideboard will be two Blood Dolls, two Sudden Reversals, one Direct Intervention, and five Wakes. I figure most games wouldn't really end. -- "There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.

>Although I do not advocate the use of sideboards, a workable concept would >be that if you discard, you can choose to pick from your sideboard or from >your library. Sideboard is limited to 10 cards. I don't think it's workable at all because it completely overrides the problem of drawing a particular card. A Nu + Eye of Hazimel deck is currently being discussed on another thread and some have expressed the problem of drawing the Eye in time. With your method, you could simply pack 1 Eye of Hazimel in your sideboard. Similarly with Blood Dolls, IG's, Awes, or whatever card suits your fancy. Way, way, *way* too powerful. And from your wording, you can even play The Barrens, discard and draw from your sideboard. And then at the end of your turn discard and draw from your sideboard again. Plus from your method you'd end up with > 90 cards in the game. Not good. Not good at all. Halcyan 2

> >Although I do not advocate the use of sideboards, a workable concept would > >be that if you discard, you can choose to pick from your sideboard or from > >your library. Sideboard is limited to 10 cards. > > My sideboard will be two Blood Dolls, two Sudden Reversals, one Direct > Intervention, and five Wakes. > > I figure most games wouldn't really end. Or even better, I play weenie rush. My deck consists soley of Minion Cards dedicated to combat. My sideboard contains my 10 master cards. At the end of every turn I discard a card and pull a master card into my hand. I will always have one master card to play each turn and will never suffer from Master Hand jam no matter how many cards I play. I would love this version of the game. I cycle through my deck as smoothly as a hot knife goes through butter. You die. [ quoted text not captured ]

Regarding "side-boards," my own obersvation is that, at least to some extent, playing with the same local meta-game week-to-week is like having/using side-boards allready in place. After consistent and repeated play with the same people, a player starts to know what decks his opposition plays, as well as any specific playing styles and strategies. Thus, in the long term, the same kind of deck-tweaking occurs that might occur between rounds in a tournament that uses side-boarding. But this happens occasionally on an even on a larger, wider scale. Case in point: take a look at David Cherryholmes' "Big Hair, Bad Attitude" deck posted on this NG (http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Pine.GSO.4.21.0301211231190.1545-100000%40petsparc.mc.duke.edu) in which he freely admits that his intention is to survive Peter's inevitable weenie potence horde in Boston. David's advantage is that he posseses the foreknowledge that the Nosferatu hate him (they hate everybody!) and has "side-boarded" an entire deck which he hopes will disrupt a strategy in that specific meta-game. Is it a mistake on Peter's part that the Nosferatu are so vocal in their hatred that they will allow other players to anticipate their wrath? My own understanding is that a "Spanish Inquisition"** technique is preferable in the wider meta-game. Or is a fearsome confidence in your deck and your playing ability a far more powerful tool? In order to adjust to the wider meta-game, is it a "mental" tweaking that's required rather than a deck tweaking? Thanks in advance to all responses, Matt (**btw, by "Spanish Inquisition," I mean, "fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms").

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:48:44 -0500, "Joshua Duffin" <jtdu...@yahoo.com> wrote: >Beyond what David has said, I'd add that there is very little >difference between second place and first place. Yeah, the >winning deck list doesn't think so, but in my experience, if >you're good enough to come in second, you're also good enough >to win - things just didn't work out in your favor. :-) Yeah, but back to the original question...*is* there a "wider" metagame? I'm not sure there is. Not sure I want to go into lots of detail right now, but I think it's questionable if there is a metagame that applies to "large" tournaments and above. Sure, everyone wants quick ousting decks, but beyond that, it's kind of up for grabs. And there are always Jeff's rules about what you're going to see, but even those aren't failsafe. >David was saying. But overall, I think that if your decks >are doing well enough to make the finals, there's probably no >diagnosable reason that you haven't won with them - just not >lucky, yet. Replace "lucky" with "tricky enough" and "diagnosable" with "metagame-based" and you may have something. :) Xian replace dog with son and accidentally with repeatedly...

> For reasons on why sideboards are bad, read some of these messages from > the past: > Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) > "Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles > you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War* > "Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier I have been playing Magics for years and sideboards are great. Some sideboards are going to be clan hoser and so what? They can hose me all day, thats not going to stop me from ousting them, might take a little bit longer. Beside, if someone from your play group over play Brujah-anti, i might just pack in some "Out of Control". I think switching some cards out after a game or two is not going to change the game a whole lot. If someone is going to pack clan hosers as their sideboards, then let them jammed up with that stuffs. I truly do not thing sideboards are necessary, but having it won't totally bring down the game. I mean 90 cards+always replace cards to 7+discard phase, thats already heaven for those who have played Magics so i'm not complaining much. > >Although I do not advocate the use of sideboards, a workable concept would > >be that if you discard, you can choose to pick from your sideboard or from > >your library. Sideboard is limited to 10 cards. I do not agree with your sideboard concept. Like Norm said, why don't you just seperate your masters and then cycle through your library like nuts. I think inorder for sideboard to work for vampire, there's got to be some sort of cards limit rules. If Magics did not put card limit rules, someone would just pack 15 "Lighting Bolt" and take someone out in 4 turns. Anyhow, I think Vampire is an awesome game and I like it the way it is, I'm not here to advocate placing Magics components into Vampire so don't get me wrong. later, Dice

"diceruk" <dic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:98f58bd8.03012...@posting.google.com... > I think inorder for sideboard to work for vampire, there's > got to be some sort of cards limit rules. I knew this would eventually degenerate into a CL discussion. :) > If Magics did not put card > limit rules, someone would just pack 15 > "Lighting Bolt" and take someone out in 4 turns. Red herring: Magic was DESIGNED as a CL game. VTES was NOT. > Anyhow, I think > Vampire is an awesome game and I like it the way it is, I'm not here > to advocate placing Magics components into Vampire so don't get me > wrong. Good to hear it. Hey, I suggested that Concealed Weapon be made dicipline-less, and see what happened! ;) > > later, > Dice [ quoted text not captured ]

halc...@aol.com (Halcyan 2) wrote in message news:<20030123122108...@mb-cu.aol.com>... [ quoted text not captured ] I agree, on top of this practically all games will get timed out as it becomes far too easy to get blood gain going/defences up. I suggest this idea gets thrown on the f-pile. Baker(TM) > > Halcyan 2

In message <RH1Y9.11229$LA4.5...@news1.west.cox.net>, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: >Red herring: Magic was DESIGNED as a CL game. Pedantry: No it wasn't. Magic was *later* altered to be a CL game. It is probably true that all revisions post the introduction of the CL regarded it as *only* a CL game. The 20 Mountains, 40 Lightning Bolt deck (and similar) is mostly *why* the CL was introduced. Jyhad was designed knowing this. Hence Jyhad has many rules in place (no repeat action modifiers, no repeat reactions, no excess stealth, no excess intercept, no useless maneuvers, no useless presses, - later on, no repeat actions, and its current version) and many concepts in place (vampires->actions, so combat can take out actions, jamming a deck) which made the lack of a card limit entirely possible. But Magic wasn't designed with a CL. Richard Garfield assumed no-one would ever get a full set, and that 400 cards would be a *lot* of cards for one player to have. (This is also why balancing cards through rarity is bad.) It was designed as a fun, knockabout game. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D

"James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:K2q3Bdn8...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... > In message <RH1Y9.11229$LA4.5...@news1.west.cox.net>, Kevin M. > <you...@imaspammer.org> writes: > >Red herring: Magic was DESIGNED as a CL game. > > Pedantry: No it wasn't. > > Magic was *later* altered to be a CL game. It is probably true that all > revisions post the introduction of the CL regarded it as *only* a CL > game. > > The 20 Mountains, 40 Lightning Bolt deck (and similar) is mostly *why* > the CL was introduced. > > Jyhad was designed knowing this. Hence Jyhad has many rules in place > (no repeat action modifiers, no repeat reactions, no excess stealth, no > excess intercept, no useless maneuvers, no useless presses, - later on, > no repeat actions, and its current version) and many concepts in place > (vampires->actions, so combat can take out actions, jamming a deck) > which made the lack of a card limit entirely possible. > > But Magic wasn't designed with a CL. Richard Garfield assumed no-one > would ever get a full set, and that 400 cards would be a *lot* of cards > for one player to have. (This is also why balancing cards through > rarity is bad.) It was designed as a fun, knockabout game. OK. When Richard Garfield decided he wanted to make some money on his invention, Wizards of the Coast designed the first public, non-playtest version of Magic (i.e. "Alpha") to be a CL game. OK. But I appreciate the clarification. It's good having you around to help me with that. :) > James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D > EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 > Hi! I'm Nancy Drew! You must be the Hardy Boys! 13D7E668C3695D623D5D Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:29:47 GMT, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > >"diceruk" <dic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message = >news:98f58bd8.03012...@posting.google.com... >> Well....other cards game like Magics have sideboards. Maybe someday WW >> will come out with such a thing. That seems to be the only solution i >> can think of as far as adapting your deck to wide range of playgroups. > >For reasons on why sideboards are bad, read some of these messages from = >the past: >http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=3Dsideboard&meta=3Dgroup%3Drec.games.t= >rading-cards.jyhad I couldn't get the above link to work as is, so with a little tweaking try the link below pasting the second line immediately after the 1st; http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=sideboard&meta=group %3Drec.games.trading-cards.jyhad >>=20 >> later, >> Dice > >Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

<berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM> wrote in message news:3e3181bb....@netnews.attbi.com... > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:29:47 GMT, "Kevin M." <you...@imaspammer.org> > wrote: > > > > >"diceruk" <dic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message = > >news:98f58bd8.03012...@posting.google.com... > >> Well....other cards game like Magics have sideboards. Maybe someday WW > >> will come out with such a thing. That seems to be the only solution i > >> can think of as far as adapting your deck to wide range of playgroups. > > > >For reasons on why sideboards are bad, read some of these messages from = > >the past: > >http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=3Dsideboard&meta=3Dgroup%3Drec.games.t= > >rading-cards.jyhad > > I couldn't get the above link to work as is, so with a little tweaking > try the link below pasting the second line immediately after the 1st; > > http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=sideboard&meta=group > %3Drec.games.trading-cards.jyhad The link in my original newsgroup post works perfectly. The link, above, which you stated did not work was not the link in my original message. It's probably all those '3D's and '='s that people's crappy newsreaders are putting into their newsgroup responses. > >>=20 > >> later, > >> Dice > > > >Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) > > BernieTime > Lansing, Michigan Kevin M., Prince of Henderson, NV (USA) [ quoted text not captured ]

Kevin M. wrote: > "James Coupe" <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote in message news:K2q3Bdn8...@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk... >>But Magic wasn't designed with a CL. Richard Garfield assumed no-one >>would ever get a full set, and that 400 cards would be a *lot* of cards >>for one player to have. (This is also why balancing cards through >>rarity is bad.) It was designed as a fun, knockabout game. > > > OK. When Richard Garfield decided he wanted to make some money on his invention, Wizards of the Coast designed the first public, non-playtest version of Magic (i.e. "Alpha") to be a CL game. OK. > > But I appreciate the clarification. It's good having you around to help me with that. :) The four card limit on everything that except basic land didn't appear in the first public, non-playtest version. It was added by the Deulist Convocation for tournament play, and then later added to the basic rules of the game. Not sure exactly when the latter happened. -- LSJ (vte...@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc. Links to V:TES news, rules, cards, utilities, and tournament calendar: http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/

Joshua Duffin wrote: > Beyond what David has said, I'd add that there is very little > difference between second place and first place. Yeah, the > winning deck list doesn't think so, but in my experience, if > you're good enough to come in second, you're also good enough > to win - things just didn't work out in your favor. :-) > > <snip> > > But overall, I think that if your decks are doing well enough > to make the finals, there's probably no diagnosable reason that > you haven't won with them - just not lucky, yet. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! No!!!!! There is a BIG difference between first place and second place. Certain types of decks - particularly intercept-combat walls - are great at coming in second place at a table (and tournaments) but are absolutely horrible at coming in first place. I can't count the number of times I've witnessed players - particularly in the pre-Table-Wins Era - approach a tournament with the attitude of "If I just get 2 VP per round, then I'll make the finals, and then I'll have a shot at winning!", only to lose in the finals - in second place. Mind you, there are a lot of players out there who are just fine with coming in second place a lot, 'cause it's not a bad track record at all. However, there are probably at least as many who see that track record as a sign that they're on the right track towards winning tournaments, and if they just keep at it they'll eventually get it right and start winning tournaments regularly. The fact of the matter is that second place decks are only good at coming in second place, and while they might win a tournament once in a blue moon (it's happened), they realistically can't expect to do any better than second. First place decks, on the other hand, may come in second place at times, may come in first place at times, and may flame out entirely. However, they at least give themselves a realistic shot of winning a game. - Ben Peal, Prince of Boston fu...@mindstorm.com

In message <3E31AB46...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- wolf.com> writes: >The four card limit on everything that except basic land didn't appear in the first >public, non-playtest version. > >It was added by the Deulist Convocation for tournament play, and then later added to >the basic rules of the game. Not sure exactly when the latter happened. Yes, I've been trying to find a reference for this because I could have sworn that the public game went without a CL and then had it bodged on. There doesn't seem to be a useful source of M:tG history on the web that any of my Google searches are picking up. -- [ quoted text not captured ]

In message <bf72a12e.03012...@posting.google.com>, Ben Peal <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> writes: > Certain types of decks - particularly intercept-combat walls - > are great at coming in second place at a table (and tournaments) > but are absolutely horrible at coming in first place. I can't > count the number of times I've witnessed players - particularly > in the pre-Table-Wins Era - approach a tournament with the > attitude of "If I just get 2 VP per round, then I'll make the > finals, and then I'll have a shot at winning!", only to lose in > the finals - in second place. If they're coming in second place and getting 2VPs, they're not getting a table win - someone else must have got more than 2VPs (they're in second) and therefore got a table win. A deck that manages 0 table wins and 6 VPs is unlikely to reach the final, in most tournaments. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:06:25 +0000, James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote: >In message <3E31AB46...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- >wolf.com> writes: >>The four card limit on everything that except basic land didn't appear in the first >>public, non-playtest version. >> >>It was added by the Deulist Convocation for tournament play, and then later added to >>the basic rules of the game. Not sure exactly when the latter happened. > >Yes, I've been trying to find a reference for this because I could have >sworn that the public game went without a CL and then had it bodged on. >There doesn't seem to be a useful source of M:tG history on the web that >any of my Google searches are picking up. > >-- >James Coupe I can back you up on this James, as when we first started playing Magic in college, there were no card limits defined in the rulebook. A friend of ours had a bunch of the Beta cards, and everyone then started to buy into Revised. My faulty memory would like to say that Card Limits (4-CL) came into being just before Unlimited came out. I have old copies of the Duelist hiding in a closet someplace. If I happen to find them, will verify the info. BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

"Ben Peal" <fu...@optical.mindstorm.com> wrote in message news:bf72a12e.03012...@posting.google.com... > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! > > No!!!!! > > There is a BIG difference between first place and second place. > Certain types of decks - particularly intercept-combat walls - > are great at coming in second place at a table (and tournaments) > but are absolutely horrible at coming in first place. I can't > count the number of times I've witnessed players - particularly > in the pre-Table-Wins Era - approach a tournament with the > attitude of "If I just get 2 VP per round, then I'll make the > finals, and then I'll have a shot at winning!", only to lose in > the finals - in second place. I'm not sure I agree. Though what I was talking about was second place in a *tournament* not second place in a single game, which might be why you're objecting. Yes, in any game, obviously first is better than second. But if you're doing well enough in tournaments to make the finals and come in second overall, you're probably not playing an "always comes in second" deck. As James Coupe pointed out, in the post-TW era, in tournaments of any size, you can't get to the finals without having earned some game wins in the prelim rounds. So if your deck is totally unable to do better than second place, it's not going to even make the finals, let alone get second place in the finals. All the people it lost to in the first three rounds will be ahead of it. :-) I'll agree that some decks have a harder time getting to 3 VPs than others, especially wall-type decks. But in individual games as well as tournaments, I see a lot more randomness than we might like to admit, and that can certainly lead to walls getting game wins and even tournament wins. They're annoying to play against, and if played badly can be very ineffective at winning and "screw up" the dynamics of the table. But the same can be said of a lot of decktypes, by no means excluding the "never does anything but hurt my prey" type. Josh moderation in all things

In message <b13i0t$v0ldt$1...@ID-121616.news.dfncis.de>, Joshua Duffin <jtdu...@yahoo.com> writes: >As James Coupe pointed out, in the post-TW era, in tournaments >of any size, you can't get to the finals without having earned >some game wins in the prelim rounds. Well, this isn't entirely true, obviously. It's just pretty damn unlikely. The table wins and play to win rules are quite scary in the subtle effects they have. [ quoted text not captured ]

>As James Coupe pointed out, in the post-TW era, in tournaments >of any size, you can't get to the finals without having earned >some game wins in the prelim rounds. So if your deck is totally >unable to do better than second place, it's not going to even >make the finals, let alone get second place in the finals. All >the people it lost to in the first three rounds will be ahead of >it. Not "any" size. We've had someone with 0 VPs make the finals of a 9 player tournament, hysterical because he had the good fortune of playing at the largest tables with the most sweeps, always a strong criterion for one's finals path. That was extreme. But, then, another tournament, which I think had 3 tables, saw the eventual winner go into the finals with 1 VP. Last standard constructed I played in I made the finals with no TWs and only half a VP less than the top seed (I was the fifth seed, though). Yes, we see a lot of time outs, even table splits, and sweeps.

"Curevei" <cur...@aol.commetal> wrote in message news:20030127152523...@mb-cd.aol.com... > >As James Coupe pointed out, in the post-TW era, in tournaments > >of any size, you can't get to the finals without having earned > >some game wins in the prelim rounds. So if your deck is totally > >unable to do better than second place, it's not going to even > >make the finals, let alone get second place in the finals. All > >the people it lost to in the first three rounds will be ahead of > >it. > > Not "any" size. > > We've had someone with 0 VPs make the finals of a 9 player tournament, > hysterical because he had the good fortune of playing at the largest tables > with the most sweeps, always a strong criterion for one's finals path. OK, by writing "of any size" I was trying to use an expression meaning "that are reasonably large". :-) A 9-player tournament's obviously not large enough that all the finalists would have to have a game win (max 6 game wins in three two-table rounds). Anything 15+ I expect you should need at least one game win to qualify for the finals. (So, there were 5 players with 0 VPs in this tournament, and the other 4 had all the VPs? Two-round tournament?) > That was extreme. But, then, another tournament, which I think had 3 tables, > saw the eventual winner go into the finals with 1 VP. Last standard > constructed I played in I made the finals with no TWs and only half a VP less > than the top seed (I was the fifth seed, though). > > Yes, we see a lot of time outs, even table splits, and sweeps. You'd have to, for 1 VP to make the finals... that happened with no one dropping? Sheesh. :-) OK, anyway, if our intrepid questioner has in fact been playing in small tournaments and, say, getting to the finals by getting second place in several prelim rounds, and then consistently getting second place in the finals - then yes, it may be that the problem he's running into is that his deck doesn't have the oomph to actually win games. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. :-) Josh i weaken your attack

James Coupe: > Ben Peal wrote: > > Certain types of decks - particularly intercept-combat walls - > > are great at coming in second place at a table (and tournaments) > > but are absolutely horrible at coming in first place. I can't > > count the number of times I've witnessed players - particularly > > in the pre-Table-Wins Era - approach a tournament with the > > attitude of "If I just get 2 VP per round, then I'll make the > > finals, and then I'll have a shot at winning!", only to lose in > > the finals - in second place. > > If they're coming in second place and getting 2VPs, they're not getting > a table win - someone else must have got more than 2VPs (they're in > second) and therefore got a table win. > > A deck that manages 0 table wins and 6 VPs is unlikely to reach the > final, in most tournaments. Thank you, Captain Obvious. What the intercept-combat wall decks would try to do is be the last man standing in a given round. That way they'd get 2 VP, and occasionally get a win if nobody else got more than 1 VP. They might even occasionally oust someone earlier on, too. In the PRE-TABLE-WINS-ERA, as I mentioned above and which was scarcely more than a year ago, this was a very common approach, and in my opinion stunted the player's development as they had a hard time breaking out of their brain lock and learning how to actually win a game. What caused the unwillingness to break out of playing intercept-combat was the perception that they were _almost_ there...that since they were coming in 2nd place so much, and were _in_ every game so much that they must be doing something right and they should just stick with it and refine it, never realizing that they had hit a wall. In the Table Wins Era, yes, intercept-combat wall decks have become less common, but they do still exist. They still get 2nd place at a table with the same regularity. They still might get a Table Win on occasion if they're the last deck standing and nobody gets more than 1 VP. Hell, they might even get an oust earlier in the game. On those occasions when they get a Table Win, there's a good chance that they'll make the finals, and then inevitably come in 2nd place in the finals. And if you tell them to try something else, they'll point at the few intercept-combat wall decks that were lucky enough to win a tournament. How did they win? If you can occasionally get a Table Win in the preliminary rounds, then occasionally you might get a Table Win in the finals. So, once in a blue moon upon a blue moon, an intercept-wall deck might win. So, the difficulty a new player can have with assessing their decks and strategy is that they might not know when they're hitting a wall, and when they're actually onto something that could win them a tournament with some development. If the advice is simply, "Hey, you took second place! You're almost there!", you might be doing them more harm than good. [ quoted text not captured ]

>> Not "any" size. >> >> We've had someone with 0 VPs make the finals of a 9 player tournament, >> hysterical because he had the good fortune of playing at the largest tables >> with the most sweeps, always a strong criterion for one's finals path. > >OK, by writing "of any size" I was trying to use an expression meaning >"that are reasonably large". :-) > >A 9-player tournament's obviously not large enough that all the >finalists would have to have a game win (max 6 game wins in three >two-table rounds). Anything 15+ I expect you should need at least >one game win to qualify for the finals. (So, there were 5 players >with 0 VPs in this tournament, and the other 4 had all the VPs? >Two-round tournament?) Perhaps this is another area where there are regional differences. Here in the Midwest, most of the tourneys attract 4-8 at worst and maybe 8-12 players at best. In addition, IL and WI seem to have a penchant for 2 rounders as well. So what this means is that getting a single Table Win pretty much guarantees you into getting to finals and oftentimes, scoring just one or two VP's is enough as well. Hmmm... Halcyan 2

>Perhaps this is another area where there are regional differences. > >Here in the Midwest, most of the tourneys attract 4-8 at worst and maybe 8-12 >players at best. In addition, IL and WI seem to have a penchant for 2 >rounders >as well. So what this means is that getting a single Table Win pretty much >guarantees you into getting to finals and oftentimes, scoring just one or two >VP's is enough as well. Hmmm... 2+1, according to someone's post not long ago, has become the more common format. 3+1 is rare 'round here. The differences are somewhat important. Still, I kind of expect people to think of 2+1 as the more common format for locals.

James Coupe wrote: > > In message <3E31AB46...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > wolf.com> writes: > >The four card limit on everything that except basic land didn't appear in the first > >public, non-playtest version. > > > >It was added by the Deulist Convocation for tournament play, and then later added to > >the basic rules of the game. Not sure exactly when the latter happened. > > Yes, I've been trying to find a reference for this because I could have > sworn that the public game went without a CL and then had it bodged on. > There doesn't seem to be a useful source of M:tG history on the web that > any of my Google searches are picking up. If you're referring to, "When was the 4 CL rule added to the 'little rulebook' rules - as opposed to DCI tournament construction rules?", I believe it was first added in the the fifth edition. (It might have been one of the standalones around that time, too. So I'm not 100% sure.) (I believe they also changed it from a 40 card minimum to 60 around then, too.) I remember beating up on a Netrep around that time because WotC seemed to have some idea that having a 4 CL somehow made their non-tournament game more "balanced" without reference to limiting or banning any old undercosted cards. After all, just because you you'd play with 20 mountains and 40 Lightning Bolts doesn't mean you'd stoop to using four Time Walks and 20 Moxen, right? At least, not _many_ of you would. Fred

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > I can back you up on this James, as when we first started playing Magic > in college, there were no card limits defined in the rulebook. > A friend of ours had a bunch of the Beta cards, and everyone then > started to buy into Revised. > > My faulty memory would like to say that Card Limits (4-CL) came into > being just before Unlimited came out. I have old copies of the Duelist > hiding in a closet someplace. If I happen to find them, will verify the > info. Scott was right. It was always in DCI tournament rules. It was added to the basic game much later. (As I said in the other post, I believe it was in Fifth Edition.) Fred

>If you're referring to, "When was the 4 CL rule added to the 'little >rulebook' rules - >as opposed to DCI tournament construction rules?", I believe it was first >added in the >the fifth edition. Really? I got into the game during Revised (right after The Dark) and I always played 4 CL (and I wasn't a very avid tourney player). Halcyan 2

Ped Xing wrote: > > So... I am looking for some advice from the seasoned players out there > that have attended lots of tournaments and conventions and have played > VTES with a wider group of players than their local weekly game... > > I've noticed that my decks tend to be highly (HIGHLY) tuned to destroy > tables for my local meta-game here in Tucson, but when I head up to > Phoenix for tournaments, the best I've been able to do is 2nd place in > any tournament. Now obviously this can't all be blamed on the deck I > play and how it's tuned of course; Fred especially as well as Ben and > Scott and the other Phoenix guys are some skilled players and deserved > their wins. But what I want to learn to do is tune my decks for a more > general metagame, so I can take them to Phoenix, or really any > tournament or metagame in the U.S., and be able to stand a chance at > CONSISTENTLY getting some V.P.'s. (Thanks, by the way. But I agree with Josh - I won that tournament by the thinnest of margins and got some pretty meaningful breaks along the way. Such as in the finals when Scott used his Archon Investigation to burn Ben's vampire that I'd bounced to him. _That_ doesn't happen every day...) I've been exactly where you are but substitute, "Able to win in Phoenix" and then go to LA or Gencon and would get totally trashed. My answer to this is to go to LA and Gencon as much as I possibly can. Get your butt kicked, but do so with your eyes open. Notice what other people do to you that hurts. That both give you the option of picking up the same techniques and figuring out how to resist them. My last year has been a lot of lessons in the importance of having stealth, intercept, and bounce in my deck. This may not come as a shock to folks on this forum, but I guess I was just ignoring these too much in my decks and building things that just couldn't win against good competition. I think you can win without any of them but I'm not very good with rush combat and any other deck ideas had better be damn good or you'll pay too much. Anyway, that was just my little experience. Your own may be different. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] Maybe. But the rulebook construction rules were so stupid, everyone tended to ignore them. At that time, I always played DCI construction rules (later known as Type 1) outside of tournaments myself. Fred

[ quoted text not captured ] When you have a low turnout of players for a tourney, it gets pretty tedious seeng the same people over three rounds (let alone four). On tournaments where I had less than 9 players, switched to 2+F rather than 3+F. Not sure if sanctioned structure allows flexibility to switch between 2+F/3+F depending on conditions. Regards, BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

[ quoted text not captured ] Well, I can verify that 4-CL came out before any further base sets post-unlimited. I ran the first santioned tournament in Michigan back in the day. Might even still have one of the flyers in a box someplace. It was held at Eastern Michigan University (for E-Con), with a turnout of 260+ players. I recall having people show up from Bowling Green, and Chicago (amongst other places). Of course, that was also before WotC came up with classifications (Type 1.5, Type II, etc..). >Fred BernieTime Lansing, Michigan

berni...@attbi.comHOLDLeSPAM wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:09:57 GMT, Frederick Scott > <freds64_at_...@removethis.com> wrote: > > >> In message <3E31AB46...@white-wolf.com>, LSJ <vtesrep@white- > >> wolf.com> writes: > >> >The four card limit on everything that except basic land didn't appear in the first > >> >public, non-playtest version. > >> > > >> >It was added by the Deulist Convocation for tournament play, and then later added to > >> >the basic rules of the game. Not sure exactly when the latter happened. ... > >If you're referring to, "When was the 4 CL rule added to the 'little rulebook' rules - > >as opposed to DCI tournament construction rules?", I believe it was first added in the > >the fifth edition. > > Well, I can verify that 4-CL came out before any further base sets > post-unlimited. I ran the first santioned tournament in Michigan back > in the day. 4 CL was part of sanctioned tournaments from the very beginning. I assumed Scott and James already knew this. I was talking about when they added it to the little rulebook rules no one ever uses. (Just got out a Fifth Edition little rulebook - it still had 40 card minimum, NCL deck construction rules. I'm sure I have an Urza's Saga rulebook around here somewhere but can't seem to find it at the moment.) Fred