(Rapid Thought Tournament) Impromptu Tournament: Ithaca!

So at our regular play night tonight, we decided to try a random 6 player Rapid Thought Tournament. But we had 8 people willing to play. So we dragooned Ben Stein to be our 9th by handing him a Dem/Obf S+B deck, and we were off. We tweaked decks to fit into the format (see below) and played a full 3R+F Rapid Thought Tournament in 2 hours and 18 minutes. And it was completely awesome, entertaining, and hysterical. If you haven't been following the format discussion, the current Rapid Thought test format is 3 player games, 45 minute time limit per round, 6 card minimum crypt, 40-90 card deck, and the following cards banned: -Blood Doll -Minion Tap -Villein -Vessel -Tribute to the Master In any case, after the 3 rounds, the standings were: 1. Steve Wampler, 3/6/180. Weenie CEL guns. 2. Peter Bakija, 2/7/168. Weenie Laibon POT flung junk. 3. Alex Korazanis, 1/3/138. Anarch Smiling Jack AUS/FOR wall. 4. Greg Galyanov, 1/3/138. DOM/FOR bleed. 5. Asif Chaudrhy, 1/3/84. Baron Chameleon. 6. John Stevens, 1/2/108. Anarch PRO S+B. 7. Ben Stein, 0/2/126. Dem/Obf Kindred Spirits bleed. 8. Dave Conroy, 0/1/108. Weenie DOM/obf S+B. 9. Ben Kalb, 0/0/54. Anarch Weenie Pro Hell for Leather Rush. (GW/VP/TP). For tournament points, we used 60/48/12, as I wasn't sure what was already planned, but that worked fine. Winner got 60, and in a 3/0/0 VP game, the other two got 30 TP each, otherwise in the 2/1/0 VP game, it was the 60/48/12. In the preliminary rounds (3 rounds, each of 3 games of 3 players), not a single game timed out. Round 1 was over in 34 minutes. Round 2 was over in 26 minutes. Round 3 was over in 31 minutes. The final was over in 29 minutes. The fastest game went 10 minutes, with the first player being ousted in 4 turns (Dave bled Ben K for 20 in 4 actions), and the game ended by concession on the first player's (Steve) 5th turn, as he had the only ready minions left in play. The final was: Peter>Alex>Steve> Peter and Steve got out minions fast, while Alex, not wanting to be piled on by the two Rush decks, delayed getting out minions for as long as possible. Steve rushed Peter's minions, where Steve's CEL/guns trumped Peter's Incresed Strength Gates, as Steve had a bunch of dodges. Peter got mangled pretty badly and was on the ropes, and then Alex brought out 4 minions in one turn. Steve, not too worried, bled into Peter, who ended up sending one of Steve's Famous minions into torpor. Peter, hoisted on his own petard, is ousted during his untap from the Fame. Alex bleeds some, gets out a Smiling Jack, and resists Steve's Rushes for a bit, but eventually, he runs out of fortitude, and Steve mangles him enough to oust. Steve wins the final with a 3 point sweep. As noted, this impromptu event was completely fantastic. We started the first game at 7:30, and the whole tournament was over before 10:00. Granted, everyone knew what they were doing, and playing quickly (Steve's Infernal Pursuit tomfoolery was the thing that took the longest in most games :-) The decks were mostly all single minded and brutal (3 Rush decks, 4 Bleed decks, 2 wacky decks). The 6 card crypts allowed for really focused vampire draws--Steve's crypt was 2x Victor Toliver (only 'cause he didn't have a Parmenedies), 2x Sarah Brando, 1x Scarlet Carson O'Toole, 1x Jimmy Dunn, so his crypt draw was pretty much always totally optimal. After playing all these games, we are still unconvinced that pool gain masters need to be removed from the environment--sure, they allow you to gain some pool stay a live longer, but as combat decks are so good in this environment, games aren't really generally going to be won or lost on how much pool you have. There was only 1 Kindred Spirits deck, and it never really went backwards, but the S+B decks didn't really do all that well as a group (the three S+B decks were at the bottom of the success pile). The only flaw with the format is that it needs exactly multiples of 3. Otherwise, gold. We are all planning what preposterous decks to play for the next one we'll run in a month or so. Do we want to play this format all the time? Of course not. But a solid, entertaining, full tournament resolved in less that 3 hours once and a while? Fantastic. -Peter

On Jun 13, 12:39 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > 1. Steve Wampler, 3/6/180. Weenie CEL guns. > 2. Peter Bakija, 2/7/168. Weenie Laibon POT flung junk. > 3. Alex Korazanis, 1/3/138. Anarch Smiling Jack AUS/FOR wall. > 4. Greg Galyanov, 1/3/138. DOM/FOR bleed. > 5. Asif Chaudrhy, 1/3/84. Baron Chameleon. I just noticed this--Greg was actually 1/3/120. We were pleased that the tournament points actually worked and broke the 3 way tie. Alex got 60/48/30 TPs in his 3 games (a 2 point win, a 1 point second, a 0 point tied second); Greg got 60/30/30 (3 point win, 2x 0 point tied second); Asif got 60/12/12 (3 point win, 2x 0 point third). As a point of interest--Steve won all 4 games he played with his rush deck; I won two of the 4 games I played with my rush deck, losing the two I played with Steve :-) -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 13, 12:39 am, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> 1. Steve Wampler, 3/6/180. Weenie CEL guns. >> 2. Peter Bakija, 2/7/168. Weenie Laibon POT flung junk. >> 3. Alex Korazanis, 1/3/138. Anarch Smiling Jack AUS/FOR wall. >> 4. Greg Galyanov, 1/3/138. DOM/FOR bleed. >> 5. Asif Chaudrhy, 1/3/84. Baron Chameleon. > > I just noticed this--Greg was actually 1/3/120. We were pleased that > the tournament points actually worked and broke the 3 way tie. Alex > got 60/48/30 TPs in his 3 games (a 2 point win, a 1 point second, a 0 > point tied second); Greg got 60/30/30 (3 point win, 2x 0 point tied > second); Asif got 60/12/12 (3 point win, 2x 0 point third). is there any reason you didn't use 36 TPs for coming 2nd in a round? seems like if i was taking 60, 48, 36, 24, 12 and reducing it to three values, the values that at first glance seem most appropriate to choose would be 60, 36, 12. Just wondering if there's some other consideration i am missing here that led you to choose 48 instead of 36. -- salem (replace 'hotmail' with 'gmail' to email)

On Jun 13, 11:34 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > is there any reason you didn't use 36 TPs for coming 2nd in a round? The 4 player rules go with 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th (i.e. 60, 48, 24, 12). So in looking in that chart (which I had handily in my hand), I just figured I'd drop the 24 rather than the 48. I'f I'd been starting from the 5 player chart, I might have thought about dropping the 48 and the 24, but in working from the 4 player chart, it didn't occur to me. > Just wondering if there's some other consideration i am missing here > that led you to choose 48 instead of 36. Just worked out that way from looking at the 4 player numbers. We weren't keeping track of TPs for the first two rounds, and then when it became apparent that TPs would probably be important for 3rd place, we started figuring them out. And I was kind of flying by the seat of my pants. It is very possible that someone else (Kevin or LSJ) already figured this out, and did so more logically than me, but I didn't have that info handy :-) -Peter

Peter D Bakija schrieb: > In any case, after the 3 rounds, the standings were: > > 1. Steve Wampler, 3/6/180. Weenie CEL guns. > 2. Peter Bakija, 2/7/168. Weenie Laibon POT flung junk. I'd like to see these decklists, just in case ... -Alf

On Jun 14, 1:07 pm, alf <hudsonh...@web.de> wrote: > I'd like to see these decklists, just in case ... Off the top of my head, Steve's is: 2x Victor Toliver 1x Jimmy Dunn 1x Scarlet Carson O'Toole 2x Sarah Brando And then a bunch of Rush actions, .44, Concealed, celerity (Flash, Acrobatics, Blur, Psyche, Infernal Pursuit), and some Taste. Standard Rush deck masters (Fame, Dreams, Haven Uncovereds, that sort of thing) Mine is: 1x Uzoma 1x Fode 1x Patrick 1x Ariette Sylla 1x Kamaria 1x Beatrice Oracle 171 Tremblay The Computer Hackings, Rush actions, Increased/Thrown Gate/Backstep/ Mighty Grapple/Stunt Bike combat, and standard Rush deck master spread. I was using Powerbase: Luanda and 419 Operation 'cause I have Laibon/Osebo, but the 419 Operation never saw play (only 1, and when I drew it, it was unecessary). I'll see if I can get a copy of Steve's actual deck. -Peter

On Jun 13, 11:34 pm, Salem <kella...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Just wondering if there's some other consideration i am missing here > that led you to choose 48 instead of 36. So is there an established TP rule for the Rapid Thought tournament yet? As noted, I used 60/48/12 simply 'cause it seemed like a good idea at the time based on the 4 player TP chart. But 60/36/12 seems a lot more sensible. Kevin? -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] 12 is the base for 4p/5p because you need* a number divisible by 4, 3 and 2. Because there are only 3p tables in RT, you only need a number divisible by 2. So 6/4/2 suffices: 3-0-0: 6/3/3 2-1-0: 6/4/2 1-1-1: 4/4/4 1.5-1.5-0: 5/5/2 * "need" in the simplest analysis, with an eye toward robustness.

[ quoted text not captured ] Ooh! That is clever and seems like it would work nicely. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Hmm. Not really feasible to get 1.5-1.5-0, so ignore that bit.

On Jun 16, 1:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Hmm. Not really feasible to get 1.5-1.5-0, so ignore that bit. Heh. The only possible outcomes are: 3/0/0 2/1/0 1.5/.5/0 .5/.5/.5 And, uh, I think that is it. Will using 6/4/2 as TPs provide enough variation to make it a good tie breaker? Probably. Just haven't run through all the possibilities yet. -Peter

Peter D Bakija wrote: > On Jun 16, 1:55 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> Hmm. Not really feasible to get 1.5-1.5-0, so ignore that bit. > > Heh. The only possible outcomes are: > > 3/0/0 > 2/1/0 > 1.5/.5/0 > .5/.5/.5 > > And, uh, I think that is it. 1/1/1 is very possible. > Will using 6/4/2 as TPs provide enough variation to make it a good tie > breaker? Probably. Just haven't run through all the possibilities yet. If the progression suffices for 5p, it ought to suffice for 3p.

On Jun 16, 6:51 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > 1/1/1 is very possible. Really? How? Am I not seeing something obvious? If you withdraw, you get .5VP. If you time out, you get .5VP. If I oust you before you get a VP, the game will end as either a 3/0/0 or a 2/1/0. If I oust you after you get a VP, the game is going to end 2/1/0. Is there something I'm not seeing? > If the progression suffices for 5p, it ought to suffice for 3p. Cool. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] I am sure that only LSJ can decide such a thing, if he decides that the format is rate-worthy, but unless there is a reason to have TPs a certain way then I think 60/36/12 seems better. Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas "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 Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Jun 16, 6:37 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 6:51 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > > 1/1/1 is very possible. > > Really? How? Am I not seeing something obvious? > > If you withdraw, you get .5VP. If you time out, you get .5VP. If I > oust you before you get a VP, the game will end as either a 3/0/0 or a > 2/1/0. If I oust you after you get a VP, the game is going to end > 2/1/0. > > Is there something I'm not seeing? > Aha! Took me a while while I was responding to this post, but I got it. Was thinking about Gambit Accepted, but with Gambit Accepted + Withdraw, you end up with 1/.5/0. If you don't withdraw, then any other play of Gambit Accepted ends up in 3/0/0 or 1.5/.5/0. However, a vote that ousts all 3 players simultaneously could end up in a 1/1/1 split.

On Jun 16, 9:03 pm, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > However, > a vote that ousts all 3 players simultaneously could end up in a 1/1/1 > split. Ah, yes. That makes it work. Anarchist Uprising for the 3 way simultaneous oust! -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] In Ithaca, NY (otherwise known as Spitey McSpite-ville at times), the 3 way oust isn't just possible, it will probably happen with regular frequency! For what it's worth, I was playing a Jank-tacular Anarch baron Chameleon deck, which rocked a 3-0 sweep in the first round, and then died horribly in the 2nd round due to being Steve's weenie celerity predator and having deck malfunction due to lack of shuffle, followed by a 3rd round where one horrible mistake of picking the wrong vamp to influence out first, followed by MORE horrible shuffle malfunction (6 freak drives in a row - FTW baby!) led to more horrible oustination. -Asif