The nationals deck list
Paul Barclay
Christopher Manners <christoph...@pembroke.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>Is anyone preparing to play in the nationals. Is the field likely to be
>the same old R/G beatdown that loses to control.
Nah. It'll obviously be all U/G/W Phelgagriff decks. Don't you know
anything? :-)
>Is the limited format Rochester draft? We should not play sealed deck in my
>opinion as in all fairness it is not a true test while the draft formats are
>better at consistently having better players in the top ranks.
Yes, it's Rochester (and yes, this is the most hideous format possible to
judge). Yes, I agree with you.
>I heard that the two days of the nationals have the same weighting so maybe
>two top 16 results could come 4th place and go to the worlds.
Possibly. All depends on what everybody else does.
>What will be the points for a draw?
I dunno. I think that the 2-1-0 system could work, since the tournament will
be 12 or more rounds long (12 round tournaments wipe out the Intentional draws
pretty well, so there's no point penalising real draws).
Paul Barclay.
Icebear
On Thu, 22 May 1997 15:45:54 -0700, Frank Kusumoto
<fkus...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Your deck looks good Mr. Manners. But what do
>you have in the sideboard to handle the decks
>below? Or will it just win straight up?
>
>Submitted for your approval, critique, or just
>to copy. If you can make a deck that will be
>beat both consistently, please let me know.
>Cheers!
>--
>The Magic Dojo - http://www.netcom.com/~fkusumot
>------------------------------------------------
>
> B/U WOrb
>
> 2 Shadow Guildmage
> 3 Erg Raiders
> 4 Fallen Askari
> 4 Black Knight
> 3 Knight of Stromgald
> 4 Skulking Ghost
> 3 Nekrataal
> 2 Contagion
> 1 Vampiric Tutor
> 3 Man-o'-War
> 4 Memory Lapse
> 2 Arcane Denial
> 3 Winter Orb
> 3 City of Brass
> 3 Undiscovered Paradise
> 4 Underground River
> 3 Quicksand
> 2 Island
> 8 Swamp
>
> Sideboard:
> 4 Knights of the Mist
> 3 Contagion
> 3 Crypt Rats
> 3 Disks
> 2 Dystopia
>
>
> R/G Meta-Deck
>
> 3 Quirion Ranger
> 4 Granger Guildmage
> 4 Ghazban Ogre
> 4 River Boa
> 1 Karoo Meerkat
> 3 Whirling Dervish
> 1 Jolrael's Centaur
> 1 Uktabi Orangutan
> 1 Lhurgoyf
> 1 Yavimaya Ants
> 2 Giant Growth
> 2 Armor of Thorns
> 2 Dwarven Miner
> 2 Suq'Ata Lancer
> 4 Incinerate
> 2 Disintegrate
> 3 City of Brass
> 2 Undiscovered Paradise
> 4 Karplusan Forest
> 10 Forest
> 4 Mountain
>
> Sideboard:
> 2 Wildfire Emissary
> 2 Emerald Charm
> 1 Whirling Dervish
> 2 Pillage
> 3 Pyroblast
> 1 Guerrilla Tactics
> 2 Winter Orb
> 2 City of Solitude
>
>
>
>--
>The Magic Dojo - http://www.netcom.com/~fkusumot
No ! Stupid jokers
Anthony "Boom Boom" Goh
DCI certified Level I Judge
Remove digits from email to reply
Icebear
In my opinion there is nothing unfair about byes and ID's. They add an
interesting element to the game and promote fairer competition. I see
no need to pealise players who wish to have 1 point each instead of 2.
They also help to weed the luck out of the game like straight sealed
deck competitions probably.
Anthony Goh
Christopher Manners
Whatever Mr $1000
Whatever (make an askari to block!!)
Christopher Manners
Didn't we discuss those exact two decks?
Chris
DCI Ranked blah blah blah
Icebear
On Sat, 24 May 1997 13:41:28, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>ice...@artica1.demon.co.uk (Icebear) writes:
>
>>On Fri, 23 May 1997 12:57:18, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>
>>>>What will be the points for a draw?
>>>
>>>I dunno. I think that the 2-1-0 system could work, since the tournament will
>>>be 12 or more rounds long (12 round tournaments wipe out the Intentional draws
>>>pretty well, so there's no point penalising real draws).
>
>>In my opinion there is nothing unfair about byes and ID's. They add an
>>interesting element to the game and promote fairer competition. I see
>>no need to pealise players who wish to have 1 point each instead of 2.
>So you wouldn't use the ID rule if it was to your advantage to do so, then?
>The actual existence of the ID rule isn't really much of a problem, it's the
>fact that the tournament formats allow the rule to be abused. I see no reason
>to overly penalise players who lose their first match.
>
???????????????????
In what way exactly is the rule abused ?
>>They also help to weed the luck out of the game like straight sealed
>>deck competitions probably.
>
>Hmm. Since the first 3 rounds of Swiss are basically random pairings, and you
>only have to play 3 rounds to make the cut in a Pro Tour (win 3, ID 3), I
>don't think that you can say that IDs reduce the luck factor.
>
> Paul Barclay.
How can you say the first 3 round are random ? The 3rd round has
already reduced the field to 64.
Paul Barclay
ice...@artica1.demon.co.uk (Icebear) writes:
>On Fri, 23 May 1997 12:57:18, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>>>What will be the points for a draw?
>>
>>I dunno. I think that the 2-1-0 system could work, since the tournament will
>>be 12 or more rounds long (12 round tournaments wipe out the Intentional draws
>>pretty well, so there's no point penalising real draws).
>In my opinion there is nothing unfair about byes and ID's. They add an
>interesting element to the game and promote fairer competition. I see
>no need to pealise players who wish to have 1 point each instead of 2.
So you wouldn't use the ID rule if it was to your advantage to do so, then?
The actual existence of the ID rule isn't really much of a problem, it's the
fact that the tournament formats allow the rule to be abused. I see no reason
to overly penalise players who lose their first match.
>They also help to weed the luck out of the game like straight sealed
Paul Barclay
ice...@artica1.demon.co.uk (Icebear) writes:
>>>>>What will be the points for a draw?
>>>>
>>>>I dunno. I think that the 2-1-0 system could work, since the tournament will
>>>>be 12 or more rounds long (12 round tournaments wipe out the Intentional draws
>>>>pretty well, so there's no point penalising real draws).
>>
>>>In my opinion there is nothing unfair about byes and ID's. They add an
>>>interesting element to the game and promote fairer competition. I see
>>>no need to pealise players who wish to have 1 point each instead of 2.
>>So you wouldn't use the ID rule if it was to your advantage to do so, then?
>>The actual existence of the ID rule isn't really much of a problem, it's the
>>fact that the tournament formats allow the rule to be abused. I see no reason
>>to overly penalise players who lose their first match.
>>
>???????????????????
>In what way exactly is the rule abused ?
Almost every player who uses it doesn't use it in the way that they inteded it
to be used. It was intended to be a way of players who were friends who played
against each other to not disadvantage each other. It's now become an almost
collusive way of making the cut-off.
>>>They also help to weed the luck out of the game like straight sealed
>>>deck competitions probably.
>>
>>Hmm. Since the first 3 rounds of Swiss are basically random pairings, and you
>>only have to play 3 rounds to make the cut in a Pro Tour (win 3, ID 3), I
>>don't think that you can say that IDs reduce the luck factor.
>>
>How can you say the first 3 round are random ? The 3rd round has
>already reduced the field to 64.
Which is a _huge_ field in Swiss. You still have a lot of pretty rubbish
players who have been playing against other pretty rubbish players. Players
that, if they were forced to play the next 3 rounds, could very easily come up
against someone really good and get knocked out.
Paul Barclay.
Icebear
On Fri, 23 May 1997 12:57:18, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>Christopher Manners <christoph...@pembroke.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>
>>Is anyone preparing to play in the nationals. Is the field likely to be
>>the same old R/G beatdown that loses to control.
>
>Nah. It'll obviously be all U/G/W Phelgagriff decks. Don't you know
>anything? :-)
>
>>Is the limited format Rochester draft? We should not play sealed deck in my
>>opinion as in all fairness it is not a true test while the draft formats are
>>better at consistently having better players in the top ranks.
>
>Yes, it's Rochester (and yes, this is the most hideous format possible to
>judge). Yes, I agree with you.
I don't belive rochester is hard to judge at all. If your material is
there work as a draft judge is straight forward apart from going a
little hoarse. I have acted as draft judge for rochester on numerous
occasions and the draft has always gone without problems.
>
>>I heard that the two days of the nationals have the same weighting so maybe
>>two top 16 results could come 4th place and go to the worlds.
>
>Possibly. All depends on what everybody else does.
>
>>What will be the points for a draw?
>
>I dunno. I think that the 2-1-0 system could work, since the tournament will
>be 12 or more rounds long (12 round tournaments wipe out the Intentional draws
>pretty well, so there's no point penalising real draws).
>
> Paul Barclay.
Fine Tuner and True Player of the best UK MiVi deck (it was a pack)
Icebear
On Mon, 26 May 1997 18:01:55, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>ice...@artica1.demon.co.uk (Icebear) writes:
>
>>On Fri, 23 May 1997 12:57:18, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>
>>>Christopher Manners <christoph...@pembroke.ox.ac.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>>Is the limited format Rochester draft? We should not play sealed deck in my
>>>>opinion as in all fairness it is not a true test while the draft formats are
>>>>better at consistently having better players in the top ranks.
>>>
>>>Yes, it's Rochester (and yes, this is the most hideous format possible to
>>>judge). Yes, I agree with you.
>
>>I don't belive rochester is hard to judge at all. If your material is
>>there work as a draft judge is straight forward apart from going a
>>little hoarse. I have acted as draft judge for rochester on numerous
>>occasions and the draft has always gone without problems.
>
>It's not hard, it's just hugely labour intensive. 96 players will require 12
>judges minimum, plus at least 2 "floaters" to run smoothly. If you want to
>run it by the book (and I mean _really_ by the book), you'll need double that.
>The only other option is a staggered draft.
>
> Paul Barclay.
>
>
There is no diff between that and booster draft.
if you do it by the book PT style there is a judge per table ie per 8
and numerous 'floaters' anyway with booster draft. also if alll the
top tables just ID there is no drafting anyway, demonstrating the
benefits of ID.
Paul Barclay
Paul Barclay
ice...@artica1.demon.co.uk (Icebear) writes:
>On Mon, 26 May 1997 18:01:55, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>>>I don't belive rochester is hard to judge at all. If your material is
>>>there work as a draft judge is straight forward apart from going a
>>>little hoarse. I have acted as draft judge for rochester on numerous
>>>occasions and the draft has always gone without problems.
>>
>>It's not hard, it's just hugely labour intensive. 96 players will require 12
>>judges minimum, plus at least 2 "floaters" to run smoothly. If you want to
>>run it by the book (and I mean _really_ by the book), you'll need double that.
>>The only other option is a staggered draft.
>>
>There is no diff between that and booster draft.
You don't get nearly as many draft warnings in Booster Draft.
>if you do it by the book PT style there is a judge per table ie per 8
>and numerous 'floaters' anyway with booster draft. also if alll the
>top tables just ID there is no drafting anyway, demonstrating the
>benefits of ID.
This certainly isn't true (_shouldn't_ be true). Anyway, this situation won't
come up at the Nationals.
Paul Barclay.