Author Topic: National Tournament Report (Read 24445 times)

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #50 on:** July 31, 2009, 11:15:14 PM »

Congrats Gabe, soon you will have to have stunt doubles play for you!

I am sad that I couldn't go to Nationals. But hey there is nothing Ice cream and butter cant fix!

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on July 31, 2009, 11:11:54 PM

Is Jeff Lau from CA? Who is he?

I thought he was form out east. huh guess not.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #51 on:** July 31, 2009, 11:16:30 PM »

If he was, he wasn't at Regionals. At least, I didn't meet him.

mjwolfe · « **Reply #52 on:** August 01, 2009, 12:05:06 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on July 31, 2009, 11:11:54 PM

Is Jeff Lau from CA? Who is he?

Jeffrey plays at Bryon's tournaments in California.

Mike

crustpope · « **Reply #53 on:** August 01, 2009, 01:09:10 AM »

This is what Type 1 Two player RNRS looks like after Gabe leap frogs the field.

Gabe Isbell (IA) - 109
Nick Archick (CT) - 86
Mark Underwood (KY) - 86
Jonathan Steckmann (OR) - 80
Tim Maly (NE) - 70
John Michaliszyn (MA) - 54
Brandon West (CA) - 49.5
Chris McCravy (GA) - 47
Matt Archibald (OH) - 47
Benjamin Diep (CA) - 46

crustpope · « **Reply #54 on:** August 01, 2009, 01:16:55 AM »

This is what Type 2 Multiplayer RNRS looks like after today

Josh Randolph (OR) - 80
Matt Archibald (OH) - 63.5 (Yay! I finally placed in RNRS in a category! yay for me!)
Steve Kamke (SC) - 60
Jonathan Greeson (NY) - 60
Scott Kramer (CA) - 59
John Michaliszyn (MA) - 57
Tyler Stevens (GA) - 47
Scott Stamp (OR) - 47
Gabe Isbell (IA) - 45.5
Justin Alstad (MN) - 45
Ron Sias (MI) -45 (Only points in the category were the win at Nats today - Tied for 10th)

John Earley, who placed 2nd at Nats, just missed the top ten with a 41.5 total score.

sk · « **Reply #55 on:** August 01, 2009, 02:40:54 AM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on July 31, 2009, 02:17:52 PM

Early tweets from Scott show...nothing of interest really, as far as results go.

Apologies. Nearly all of my games today in T2 MP went to the buzzer, so there wasn't enough of a break to post updates at times. Also, the long list of game scores didn't fit on the screens, so I had to ask around to get the data I posted. I'll be more on top of results tomorrow.

Lawfuldog · « **Reply #56 on:** August 01, 2009, 02:42:19 AM »

So far I've gotten 4th and 5th. One lost soul from placing 1st in Type-2 Multi.

Looks like the same old luck is coming around for me this year...

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #57 on:** August 01, 2009, 10:44:49 AM »

No problem, I was just commenting since I had it up at the time. Your doing better than most people seeing as your actually tweeting.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #58 on:** August 01, 2009, 01:16:58 PM »

Did you guys see the tweet (RED made me aware of it) that as of Monday, the second player to play will draw three cards...

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #59 on:** August 01, 2009, 01:21:14 PM »

It's only for online play I believe.

redemption99 · « **Reply #60 on:** August 01, 2009, 01:24:08 PM »

^ that is what he told me when i asked him about it as well

Red · « **Reply #61 on:** August 01, 2009, 01:24:54 PM »

i rechecked he did.

uthminister [BR] · « **Reply #62 on:** August 01, 2009, 04:29:01 PM »

Man, I had my hopes up and everything...

crustpope · « **Reply #63 on:** August 01, 2009, 11:55:55 PM »

RNRS Finals for Type 1 Multiplayer

T.J. Stamp (OR) - 88
Matt Archibald (OH) - 82 (YAY! I place again!)
Brandon West (CA) - 73
Matt Stupienski (CT) - 60
Nick Archick (CT) - 59
Justin Alstad (MN) - 57
Nathan Voigt (MN) - 45
Mark Underwood (KY) - 45
Rob Mulye (KY) - 42.5
Mike Mendicino (CT) - 38

A lotta guys from CT in that group!

RNRS Final Standings for Booster Draft

Josh Randolf (OR) - 80
Sam Nurge (CT) - 77
Ben Nicholls (MN) - 60
Scott Stamp (OR) - 46
Scott Kramer (CA) - 45
Clift Crysel (GA) - 44.5
Tyler Stevens (GA) - 44.5
Jacob Stroh (OH) - 42.5
Chris McCravy (GA) - 41
Jonathan Greeson (NY) - 40

With the win today, Nurge Leaps into second! Congratulations to all!

robm · « **Reply #64 on:** August 01, 2009, 11:57:43 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on August 01, 2009, 11:55:55 PM

RNRS Finals for Type 1 Multiplayer

T.J. Stamp (OR) - 88
Matt Archibald (OH) - 82 (YAY! I place again!)
Brandon West (CA) - 73
Matt Stupienski (CT) - 60
Nick Archick (CT) - 59
Justin Alstad (MN) - 57
Nathan Voigt (MN) - 45
Mark Underwood (KY) - 45
Rob Mulye (KY) - 42.5
Mike Mendicino (CT) - 38

A lotta guys from CT in that group!

Rob Mulye (KY) NY! - 42.5 I Made the top 10!!

Ironica · « **Reply #65 on:** August 02, 2009, 01:50:37 AM »

Quote from: uthminister [BR] on August 01, 2009, 04:29:01 PM

Man, I had my hopes up and everything...

From what I heard (I left before the anouncement to be with my wife who came with me) is that they will have the draw three for a few months and then they will add in the begining prep phase as well (online only, of course). Depending on how they play out, they will be part of regular play eventually.

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #66 on:** August 02, 2009, 03:17:07 AM »

There will be threads of what was discussed and the final discussion to come, probably this week.

Gabe · « **Reply #67 on:** August 02, 2009, 12:49:19 PM »

I had the privilage of playing at a T1-MP table with Rob Anderson, Roy Cruz and Justin (cooldudejsw). Rob mentioned that for 2P only (not for MP) that Redemption is going to try the 2nd player draw on their first turn rule. He said he'd make a post with the details soon.

As a side note, he's not in favor of the intro prep phase. It didn't sound like that will be ever be used for official play.

drb1200 · « **Reply #68 on:** August 03, 2009, 12:27:26 PM »

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #69 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:23:50 PM »

Inro prep phase?

sk · « **Reply #70 on:** August 03, 2009, 02:35:37 PM »

Search around the boards, there are several threads discussing variations of it. I don't like it myself, as it might get a bit slap-jacky.

@Gabe, is the "second player draw" being extended beyond ROOT? Your announcement during the awards only included that it was going to be online, will Rob be extending it?

XeroSplash · « **Reply #71 on:** August 04, 2009, 01:28:08 PM »

No, as of right now, there are no additional rules or phases being added or changed.
Intro-prep phase is a definite not going to happen.
The online tournament will be the only type using 2nd player draw 3.
Teams will not be an official type this calendar year.
Hand sizes are still as much as you want.

We (the playtesters and others) are in the process of determining what will help benefit the game. The online tournament is going to try the 2nd player draws 3 and report back to us with some numbers. Other things are being discussed to try and help the game stay the way it has been, but shy away from first person to rescue 3 wins in T1, draw everything possible in T1 and T2, and the table-talk/ganging-up that goes on in T1 multi. There might be some type of change in January, but don't expect any major rule/game changes until then.

For now, just enjoy TexP.
Eric "IHOP conversations ftw" Largent

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #72 on:** August 04, 2009, 01:38:23 PM »

Quote from: XeroSplash on August 04, 2009, 01:28:08 PM

Intro-prep phase is a definite not going to happen.

If that's the way it's going to be, then I'll have to live with it. But would someone please tell me what the downside to the "intro-prep" phase is. I've heard that Rob, Gabe (and now playtesters in general) don't like it. But I don't remember every hearing anyone give reasons why it would be bad. Can someone please help me out here so I can understand both sides.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #73 on:** August 04, 2009, 02:24:56 PM »

The downside is that it doensn't help nearly as much as any other option at correcting what it is supposed to correct and gives unnecessary strength to arguably the best defensive structure in the game to which a large majority of decks can only afford to contain 2-3 counters. If the introprep were enacted, people would have to start carrying nearly 4 or 5 site access cards IMO due to the ease of setting up and the structure of teh current card base, which highly promotes playing a some sort of softlock, if not a hardcore sitelock.

happyjosiah · « **Reply #74 on:** August 04, 2009, 03:39:51 PM »

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on August 04, 2009, 02:24:56 PM

The downside is that it doensn't help nearly as much as any other option at correcting what it is supposed to correct and gives unnecessary strength to arguably the best defensive structure in the game to which a large majority of decks can only afford to contain 2-3 counters. If the introprep were enacted, people would have to start carrying nearly 4 or 5 site access cards IMO due to the ease of setting up and the structure of teh current card base, which highly promotes playing a some sort of softlock, if not a hardcore sitelock.

This. To elaborate, the powers that be are going to shy away from things that make the game longer, which this would certainly do.

News:

Author Topic: National Tournament Report (Read 24445 times)

TheHobbit13

Ironica

drb1200

TheHobbit13