Cactus Game Design Message Boards

T1 2 Player
JD Cunningham
Josh Potratz
Josiah Beers

All 'J' names. Maybe I should change my name to Jatrick...

That is awesome

Maybe Mitch's middle name is J.....?

That would explain everything.

1. JD Cunningham --> Coney/Chump Splash
2. Joshua Potratz --> Coney/Chump Splash
3. Josiah Beers --> Throne/Kings of Judah
4. Josh Knitt --> White-Clay/Brown Splash
5. Jacob Arrowood --> White-Clay/Brown Splash
6. Brian "Jonesy" Jones --> White-Clay/Emperors-Pharisees
7. Jay Chambers --> Clay Splash/Emperors-Pharisees
8. Mitch Stewart --> Colossae-Martyrs/Evil Banding
9. Jonathan Wagenknecht --> Prophets/Demons (CwD)
10. Jayden Alstad --> Judges/Crimson Splash

While it's true Coney went 1-2, it was one play away from being 2nd/4th. White/Brown was a clear top tier deck. Clay/Gray proved it was capable of defeating Coney (even if there was some soul drought involved, it could just as easily have been deck protection).

Prophets/Demons + CWD

What would have been...rankings after round 7

Top 4 Cut (Best of 3 games)

1. Josh K. vs 4. Josh P.
2. JD C. vs 3. Jay C.

Top 8 Cut (single elimination)

1. Josh K. vs 8. Jacob A.
2. JD C. vs 7. Jeremy C.
3. Jay C. vs 6. Josiah B.
4. Josh P. vs. 5. Jayden A.

*Jeremy C. and Jacob A. were tied with 15 points and +9 so I gave the higher ranking to Jeremy based on 30 LS rescued to Jacob's 29.

He was indeed. 

I can see the reasons why it was experimented with this year but I hope the plan next year isn't to run pure swiss again. It seems from the posts about it the majority if not all the players who were involved would have preferred at least some form of top cut, whether it be 8 or 4 players.

I can see the reasons why it was experimented with this year but I hope the plan next year isn't to run pure swiss again. It seems from the posts about it the majority if not all the players who were involved would have preferred at least some form of top cut, whether it be 8 or 4 players.

The majority of the top 8 probably did. I'm sure every single other person was glad that they got to play a few "extra" rounds considering they paid a boatload of money to get there, compete, and have fun.

I think it is unfair to have the decision made by the 8 people who are at the top. Obviously they don't care if the other 70+ get to play anymore. They still get to play.

But in a game that is meant for fun and fellowship should we really be limiting the number of rounds the "other" 90% of people get to play for the sake of the 8 best players?

I don't think we should.

I think top cut is lame because it limits the number of games the vast majority get to play. When I go to nats I go to have fun and play some good redemption games. I much liked it better playing 10 rounds Swiss style.

Even if top cut was better than Swiss (which I think it isn't) would it be worth it to limit the number of games the 90% play for a marginally better system?

I don't think so.

I hope this doesn't come across too strong, but I think top cut is horrible and not conducive of the atmosphere and purpose of Redemption. Fun and fellowship.

Why play less redemption when you can play more? Don't we want to save more souls!? Sheesh lol

But what do I know, I'm not a top cut player.

Quote from: Kevinthedude on August 09, 2017, 08:30:53 PM

I can see the reasons why it was experimented with this year but I hope the plan next year isn't to run pure swiss again. It seems from the posts about it the majority if not all the players who were involved would have preferred at least some form of top cut, whether it be 8 or 4 players.

The majority of the top 8 probably did. I'm sure every single other person was glad that they got to play a few "extra" rounds considering they paid a boatload of money to get there, compete, and have fun.

I think it is unfair to have the decision made by the 8 people who are at the top. Obviously they don't care if the other 70+ get to play anymore. They still get to play.

But in a game that is meant for fun and fellowship should we really be limiting the number of rounds the "other" 90% of people get to play for the sake of the 8 best players?

I don't think we should.

I think top cut is lame because it limits the number of games the vast majority get to play. When I go to nats I go to have fun and play some good redemption games. I much liked it better playing 10 rounds Swiss style.

Even if top cut was better than Swiss (which I think it isn't) would it be worth it to limit the number of games the 90% play for a marginally better system?

I don't think so.

I hope this doesn't come across too strong, but I think top cut is horrible and not conducive of the atmosphere and purpose of Redemption. Fun and fellowship.

Why play less redemption when you can play more? Don't we want to save more souls!? Sheesh lol

But what do I know, I'm not a top cut player.

The idea with top 8 topcut is that the people who don't have a chance at placing aren't forced to play extra rounds. Those same people are free to play games with the other "90%" of people who don't make it into the top 8.

This allows more fellowship between people earlier in the day and allows people to work towards playing Ironman/type half games, etc.

I honestly think it's against the atmosphere of Redemption to force people to play competitive games to satisfy the requirement of the tournament play style of choice.

Just my 2cents

I wouldn't be opposed to a system where top cut didn't stop everyone else from getting to play 2 extra rounds.

I just know more Redemption games  > less redemption games.

I just want to keep playing Redemption lol

Using the "why play when you can't place argument" would suggest anyone who hits 3-4 losses should just stop playing after that.

I just want to play as many rounds of  Redemption as I can.

I do agree that the year they broadcast the top games it was SUPER cool to watch. I enjoyed that. But they didn't broadcast any games this year.

Using the "why play when you can't place argument" would suggest anyone who hits 3-4 losses should just stop playing after that.

This is not the only argument. However it is an accurate argument for some.    Just ask jay.