Tournament Report & Winning Deck List - Battlecry 2000
Your Name
post-mortem...
First a little background.
--------------------------
Battlecry is held over two days once a year, in Auckland, New Zealand /
Aotearoa. A city of maybe a million people. The Jyhad had 16 entrants this
year, which is about average for Battlecry.
(We lose about 30% of our players to other Battlecry events.)
We had a great tourney this year, with originality and good play all-round.
How we scored it
----------------
The tournament is not DCI. Auckland has always run a pairing and scoring
system which we specifically developed to result in an awesome tournament.
How long did players spend waiting around for the next round in your last
DCI tourney? In Battlecry the average time between games is about 10
minutes!
Everyone starts rated equally, and the winner is determined by a spreadsheet
based on a rating system used in chess. I'll give more details if anyone's
interested, but basically this way of scoring the tourney means that players
may form a game whenever there are enough of them to do so. (4-6 players)
We have a final, involving the top 6 rated players. The only special thing
about it is that it effectively gets rated twice. This gives the tournament
a high-stress finale. A clean sweep in the final will generally give the
tourney to that player. (However, such is the level of competition in the
final that a clean-sweep has never happened.)
Special Rules
-------------
We *do* play the golden rule of card ownership (because players have to be
able to leap into their next game, and also because we like the strategy
element it brings).
Decks are 100-card, they can be stripped after you know who's your predator
& prey.
Multiple decks may be entered (for a little variety), but you must choose
your next deck well before you can guess who will be your opponents in the
next game (random is ok too). Decks cannot share cards or be altered.
We play a card limit (in this case 5) because we don't consider that the
following decks are clever, resourceful, challenging to play, or interesting
to play against:
Decks with 40 'Drawing out the Beast' cards.
Pleb decks with 40 'Cryptic missions'.
Decks with 40 presence bleed cards and 9 misdirections.
If *you* think the above are exciting decks we'll just have to agree to
differ.
We recognise the law of diminishing returns in deck-building. The problem
is that the advocates of no-card-limit deliberately ignore the fact that
that law kicks in at different points for different cards. Sometimes that
limit is as high as 40 cards, i.e. long after that sad repetition has
destroyed much of the enjoyment that the players expect from the game. The
card limit is merely the best way we know of to prevent this fact from
harming our tourneys.
Particularly entertaining decks included:
-----------------------------------------
1) Aaron's diseased friends of Smiling Jack
(Who had a 5-point Jack and 4 diseases at one stage)
2) Eevil Alex's Malkavians of smashing the state.
(Who missed no opportunity to dethrone or diablerise justicars and princes)
3) Andrew Young's friends of Millicent (who were quite keen on reversal of
fortunes).
4) Hamish's Naughty Nephandi and their Tremere minders.
The following decks made the final:
-----------------------------------
1) Phil's Gangrel of torpor, sneakiness, masochism, and Talbot.
(Based on his fiancee's personality we're told!)
2) Andrew Stott's junior vampires of unending fortitude.
(Who had their first 7 master cards reversed. A record?)
3) James' Ventrue-Anti of effective opportunism.
4) Gavin's European Brujah of Bash or Bleed
5) Dubious Chris' Ravnos of combat terror.
6) Dog's Tremere of masochism, Talbot and fortitude.
The Final
---------
The Opening:
An irresistible force meets an immovable object as Andrew's fortitude
collides with James' Ventrue-Anti.
Gavin's Brujah flail against the Ravnos' Animalism.
The Ravnos play lots of permanent intercept, which stalls the Tremere.
The Gangrel prepare for armageddon.
The Mid-Game:
The Ventrue-Anti collapse under pressure from two players with decks whose
only immediate purpose is bleed (Andrew's deck, and the Gangrel
(Deflected)).
The Brujah rebuild.
The Ravnos bleed the Tremere freely, but slowly.
The Tremere play lots of blood-dolls and wait for the end.
The End-game:
The Gangrel steam-roll Andrew, and then the Brujah. They are stalled by
their increasing atavism, and the terrifying Ravnos.
The Tremere risk immediate doom by buying Ulugh Beg, survive by luck, and
rebuild rapidly.
The Gangrel are up against two combat decks, and are squished.
The Tremere are left to face the Ravnos, but have no library. The Tremere
are flushed, and the Ravnos are pale...
A war of attrition ends with victory for Ulugh and his Archon (each on 1
blood).
Outcome:
Andrew's Fortitude - 1VP
Phil's Gangrel - 2VP
Dog's Tremere - 3VP
Tournament Scores:
------------------
Dog: 1st - 23vp from 12 Games
Phil: 2nd - 19vp from 13 Games
Andrew: 3rd - 19vp from 12 Games
James: 4th - 17vp From 12 Games
The Winning Deck:
-----------------
Deck name: Extreme Sports
Created by: Dog
Description: Tremere push the pain for all it's worth...
Crypt: (12 cards)
1 Bindusara, Historian of the Kindred (Ventrue, 9, AU DO FO PR th)
2 Blythe Candeleria (Tremere, 3, au TH)
2 Cardano (Tremere, 9, an au ce DO FO
TH, Prince)
1 Javier Montoya (Tremere, 9, an AU ce pr TH,
Prince)
1 Merrill Molitor (Tremere, 5, au do TH)
3 Muaziz, Archon of Ulugh Beg (Tremere, 7, au do fo TH)
2 Ulugh Beg, The Watcher (Tremere, 10, AU ce DO fo po
TH, Justicar)
Library: (100 cards)
28 Masters:
1 Academic Hunting Ground
2 Arcane Library
1 Archon Investigation
5 Blood Doll
2 Chantry
4 Fortitude
3 Gangrel De-evolution
2 Heidelburg Castle, Germany
1 Mob Connections
3 Strained Vitae Supply
4 Vast Wealth
28 Combat:
5 Burst of Sunlight
3 Hidden Strength
5 Skin of Night
4 Taste of Vitae
4 Theft of Vitae
3 Thoughts Betrayed
4 Weather Control
17 Block / Deflect:
2 Eagle's Sight
2 My Enemy's Enemy
4 Second Tradition: Domain
4 Telepathic Misdirection
5 Wake with Evening's Freshness
27 Other:
3 Conditioning
2 Dawn Operation
3 Fifth Tradition: Hospitality, The
5 Freak Drive
4 Masochism
1 Pulse of the Canaille
4 Restoration
3 Rutor's Hand
2 Talbot's Chainsaw
Instructions:
1: If the tourney rules allow you, don't be afraid to strip this deck by as
many as 30 cards...
a) The gangrel de-evolutions are because gangrel's persistent small bleeds
and many combat-ends cards are annoying.
b) The strained vitae supplies are great against pleb-decks.
c) Strip one Chainsaw and all Vast Wealth if you think the chainsaw is in
danger from canine hordes. If you think it may get stolen with fast
hands... Keep it in! ;o)
2: Try to save the bursts of sunlight for when you're blocking. Or your
opponent will just dodge of Combat ends.
3: Dawn-op, weather control, skin of night :o)
4: The chainsaw will start an entropic process, ending in your demise, or
the chainsaw-bearer going to torpor... Make sure you time its appearance so
that you have won before it causes you to lose. The restorations, the fifth
trads, the chantry, and the masochism will all help to make the chainsaw as
painless as possible.
5: The Chainsaw can be used twice in a turn if you use Heidelburg.
6: You *need* someone out with superior auspex if your predator is capable
of large bleeds.
7: You *can* survive for some time without a prince or justicar, but you'll
probably need one for the end-game.
8: Blood-dolls, restorations, fifth-trads, and the Arcane Library are your
blood-generation, Bindusara has superior auspex and can get you the arcane
library...
Political Defense: Block them.
S&B Defense: Deflect them until you can chop 'em up.
Pleb Defense: Beat 'em up, and eat 'em. Strained vitae supply.
Combat Defense: Agg-damage (dawn op / Weather control, or block and wait for
a good chance at Burst of sunlight, then be sure to diablerise them.
----------------
Thanks to Gavin for running the tourney, the rules team (Andrew Stott,
Andrew Young) for rulings, the players for their awesome sportsmanship and
commitment, and the computer for its cleverness.
--
On the net no one can tell you're a dog.
Peace & Mung Beans
Dog
(Auckland)
Chris Shorb & Tammy Martin
>
> How we scored it
> ----------------
>
> Everyone starts rated equally, and the winner is determined by a spreadsheet
> based on a rating system used in chess. I'll give more details if anyone's
> interested, but basically this way of scoring the tourney means that players
> may form a game whenever there are enough of them to do so. (4-6 players)
>
I'm interested - reply on this group, or via e-mail. Cheers!
> We have a final, involving the top 6 rated players. The only special thing
> about it is that it effectively gets rated twice. This gives the tournament
> a high-stress finale. A clean sweep in the final will generally give the
> tourney to that player. (However, such is the level of competition in the
> final that a clean-sweep has never happened.)
>
> Special Rules
> -------------
> We *do* play the golden rule of card ownership (because players have to be
> able to leap into their next game, and also because we like the strategy
> element it brings).
>
This I understand.
> Decks are 100-card, they can be stripped after you know who's your predator
> & prey.
So you can't add cards, but you can subtract them? Can you do this
even before the first seating?
>
> Multiple decks may be entered (for a little variety), but you must choose
> your next deck well before you can guess who will be your opponents in the
> next game (random is ok too). Decks cannot share cards or be altered.
>
I don't understand this. What if I am the 4th person ousted, so I
know who at least 3 of my next opponents would be. Can't I then pick
the deck that would maximize my chances with them? What do you mean
by "well before"? Also, doesn't the rule about Decks cannot be
altered go against what you said before about "stripping" your deck?
> We play a card limit (in this case 5) because we don't consider that the
> following decks are clever, resourceful, challenging to play, or interesting
> to play against:
>
> Decks with 40 'Drawing out the Beast' cards.
> Pleb decks with 40 'Cryptic missions'.
> Decks with 40 presence bleed cards and 9 misdirections.
>
> If *you* think the above are exciting decks we'll just have to agree to
> differ.
>
I would think that this problem would be obviated since folks can
strip their decks out or even pick the best deck to minimize or even
pummel above mentioned decks. In fact, the more broad based your
deck, the better chance it seems you would have in this format of
tourney ("Kiwi rules constructed"?). And on the other hand, the more
focused your deck the worse off you will be. NB I am *not* arguing
about card limits here. I agree to disagree with you on your point re
card limits. Objectively speaking, do you think that Kiwi-rules can
work with no card limits, if most participants don't feel as you guys
do re: "cheese" (and let's not argue this term either folks!). I
think that it can, and that is why I am interested...
[snip CL/NCL argument]
>
> Particularly entertaining decks included:
> -----------------------------------------
> 1) Aaron's diseased friends of Smiling Jack
> (Who had a 5-point Jack and 4 diseases at one stage)
>
I like this a lot. Have been bumping a version of this around in my
head...
[Snip rest of decks]
My only comment on the decks is that there seemed to be a lot of
fortitude running around, esp masochism and undead persistence(?).
And my only question - was Life Boon as abused in this tourney as it
seems to be coming here in the States?
Chris
--
Tammy Martin 5'7"
Alexander Shorb 2'10"
Chris Shorb 5'11"
Shameless plug:
<http://www.graphicnovels.com/>
Dog
>> ----------------
>> spreadsheet based on a rating system used in chess. I'll give more
>> details if anyone's interested, but basically this way of scoring the
>> tourney means that players may form a game whenever there are enough
>> of them to do so. (4-6 players)
Hokey dokey:
The player's rating is based on the sum of:
1) The average rating of their opponents (weighted for how many times they
were played against).
2) 100 rating points for every VP above the 'expectation' which they
achieve. (The 'expectation' is one VP per game). Conversely you lose 100
rating points for each VP by which you miss.
All the games are included in this, and all are calculated at once in an
interative calculation (because everyone's score depends on everyone
else's). Naturally you want a computer to do this :o)
The mathematically minded among you may have noticed that I need to anchor
this equation somehow... I do this by assuming that everyone starts the
tourney having drawn a game against the phantom player, who has an
unmovable rating of 1000.
This gives the top-ranking players an incentive to get a few games under
their belt, to minimise the impact of their 'average' performance against
the phantom player.
It sounds complex, but it is extremely easy to use, gives an instant result
after every game, and has shaken out a fair result every year.
If you'll let me know what version of excel you possess I'll post you a
filled-in copy of the spreadsheet (from out last tourney) so you can see it
work.
The system has the following advantages.
1) People can start a game whenever they like.
2) If a player is doing poorly they enthusiastically leap into games in the
hope of gaining more VP before the final.
3) If a player is doing well they leap into more games in an effort to
further their lead.
4) Players are less likely to win a tourney by a lucky draw because their
feeble opponents will drag their score down some.
5) Players *can* turn up for just one day of the event, and don't upset the
system.
We set a minimum number of games to qualify for either prizes, or the final
(Yes, people sometimes come 5th or 6th without making the final, which is
fine with us). This year it was 7 games to make the final, which is pretty
easy over two days (and many players achieved on the first day).
This system revolves around rewarding people for doing well in lots of
games. (i.e. getting as many points over the expectation as they can)
This encourages the players who are doing well to play more, and not to sit
on their laurels...
If you're worried about this being abused, just set a maximum number of
games (we've considered this, but never found it at all necessary).
It is easy to alter the rating system slightly to set the system revolving
around the *average* performance of the player (i.e. don't total the vp in
excess of expectation, instead average them). This tends to resolve into a
very slightly more even system near the middle of the pack, and makes
bugger all difference at the top and bottom. It also encourages the
leaders to take tea-breaks once they're on top and have the requisite
number of qualifying games under their belt, so I don't advocate it.
>> Decks are 100-card, they can be stripped after you know who's your
>> predator & prey.
>So you can't add cards, but you can subtract them? Can you do this
>even before the first seating?
Yes, and more to the point, even after the first seating.
The idea is that if your predator is playing a munchkin deck you can strip
yours and torpedo them.
>> Multiple decks may be entered (for a little variety), but you must
>> choose your next deck well before you can guess who will be your
>> opponents in the next game (random is ok too). Decks cannot share
>> cards or be altered.
>I don't understand this. What if I am the 4th person ousted, so I
>know who at least 3 of my next opponents would be. Can't I then pick
>the deck that would maximize my chances with them? What do you mean
>by "well before"?
Well spotted. At the start of each game we require any players with
multiple decks to specify their deck for their *next* game.
(The player may inform the arbiter, or specify that it will be a random
deck from those which they're playing, e.g. "I'll be rolling a dice")
>Also, doesn't the rule about Decks cannot be
>altered go against what you said before about "stripping" your deck?
We define the 'deck' as 100 (or fewer) cards which you enter as your 'deck'
at the start of the tournament. You may not add cards to, or swap cards in
the deck for other cards. On the other hand, we have no problem with
people stripping cards pre-game :o)
>> We play a card limit (in this case 5)
>I would think that this problem would be obviated since folks can
>strip their decks out or even pick the best deck to minimize or even
>pummel above mentioned decks. In fact, the more broad based your
>deck, the better chance it seems you would have in this format of
>tourney ("Kiwi rules constructed"?). And on the other hand, the more
>focused your deck the worse off you will be.
You are entirely correct in all of these observations, you clearly have an
understanding of the way these things work.
The reason we play the card limit is because we find the decks
uninteresting, so we don't *want* to play against them :o)
I absolutely agree with you that the practice of allowing deck-stripping
undermines the effectiveness of over-concentrated decks and rewards those
with a broader base. If I were running a NCL tourney I would certainly
wish to retain this practice.
Hmm, "Kiwi Rules" isn't a name that's going to get us anywhere...
I dub thee the "Free Format Tournament"
(Unless anyone has any better suggestions?)
>Objectively speaking, do you think that Kiwi-rules can
>work with no card limits, if most participants don't feel as you guys
>do re: "cheese" (and let's not argue this term either folks!). I
>think that it can, and that is why I am interested...
We created this format because we believe that the aim of a tourney is to
play lots of really good jyhad.
We started by limiting the down-time by freeing up the pairing system, and
created a rating system to work within that format.
We noticed that cheese decks were detracting from our fun (a little
weirdness is entertaining), so next year we introduced stripping of decks.
We noticed that 12 games with the same deck was a little tedious so we
decided to test the idea of multiple decks. After a 2-year test we decided
this was a good addition, and kept it.
In the 6 years we've run this tournament we've always been happy with the
way the ratings have shaken out. The winner on ratings has always been
someone we thought most deserved it, so we think it's a good system.
>> Particularly entertaining decks included:
>> -----------------------------------------
>> 1) Aaron's diseased friends of Smiling Jack
>> (Who had a 5-point Jack and 4 diseases at one stage)
>I like this a lot. Have been bumping a version of this around in my
>head...
Aaron is a resourceful and clever designer, however he works crazy hours
and was exhausted during play this year, so he made some errors in play
which let him down. This was a malkie concealed exploding gun deck, which
seemed to work well. I suspect that if he'd stripped his deck a little
more agressively against S&B predators he'd have made the final.
>My only comment on the decks is that there seemed to be a lot of
>fortitude running around, esp masochism and undead persistence(?).
Loove fortitude. We were all using it for different aims though. The
gangrel were using it for unblockability and bleed. The Tremere were using
it for masochism and agg-damage conversion. Andrew's deck was using it for
damage-prevention & press (a fortitude-grind deck).
>And my only question - was Life Boon as abused in this tourney as it
>seems to be coming here in the States?
Actually, yes, though I hand't realised it was occurring overseas.
This was the first year I've (frequently) seen losing methuselahs life-boon
themselves effectively out of the game to gain 1VP (they were life-booning
their predator). The highest-ranked player who engaged in this practice
came 4th, so I don't think it was very effective.
I have a solution though...
Next year I'm going to add a couple of life-boons of my own. If anyone
life-boons themselves out of the game I'll boon them when they die, give
them one blood, kill them and gain the 1VP from *their* life-boon
<Manic Grin>
Whoops, here comes my boss, time to run.
Regards
Dog