Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Topic started by: Alex_Olijar on June 09, 2013, 10:48:38 AM
-
Roy asked me to post the top cut rules that he, after consideration of the various options and consultation with Rob, felt were the best given the goals of the top cut and the time constraints of the National Tournament.
Procedure:
After 7 swiss rounds, the top 8 players are seeded. If a tie for either seeding (i.e 4 or 5) or to get into the cut (i.e. 8 and 9) occurs, the following tiebreakers are used:
1. Head to Head
2. Differential
3. Summing the total Swiss points of opponents (highest total wins)
4. Person who beat the highest ranked opponent
We then proceed in a bracket style tournament.
1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5
Top 4 would place the winner of 1v8 vs the winner of 4v5 and winner of 2v7 vs winner of 3v6.
Final Placing order would be determined as such:
Winner of the Top 2 round is First place
Loser of the Top 2 Round is Second place
Loser of Top 4 round with highest swiss point total through the original 7 rounds [aka highest original seed] is Third place
In case of a tie between the two losers of the top 4 round, the same tiebreaking procedure will be used as is used to determine tie within the top cut or to get into the top cut.
Special Top Cut rule: Immediately after the players who made Top Cut are announced, each player in the Top Cut must select one deck (if multiple decks have been checked) to use for the duration of the top cut. That deck must have been used at least twice during the Swiss Portion of the tournament (decks not used during swiss are not eligible to be played in the top cut). You may not change decks during the top cut for any reason. If your deck would be illegal due to ripping a Haman's Plot and you still have a round to play, you forfeit the round in question.
If there is a tie at time in the Top Cut, players play sequential rounds (each player taking a turn) until one player has taken a lead.
If you have any questions about the procedure of the top cut, please post here. I should be able to answer it. If clarification is necessary, I will make sure to alert Roy if a decision needs to be made.
-
I'm not crazy about two of the things here. First, I don't like that differential is taking precedence over strength of schedule. I also don't like that there isn't a game going on with the finals to decide third place. Minor irritations, and I'm glad that we're giving this a try this year. Special thanks to Roy and Rob for taking the leap. :)
-
I'm not crazy about two of the things here. First, I don't like that differential is taking precedence over strength of schedule. I also don't like that there isn't a game going on with the finals to decide third place. Minor irritations, and I'm glad that we're giving this a try this year. Special thanks to Roy and Rob for taking the leap. :)
I am not personally opposed to the game for third place, but I do think it'd be better to allow everyone to get to see the Championship game and not be playing a third place game at the same time.
-
I'm not crazy about two of the things here. First, I don't like that differential is taking precedence over strength of schedule. I also don't like that there isn't a game going on with the finals to decide third place. Minor irritations, and I'm glad that we're giving this a try this year. Special thanks to Roy and Rob for taking the leap. :)
I am not personally opposed to the game for third place, but I do think it'd be better to allow everyone to get to see the Championship game and not be playing a third place game at the same time.
I understand that point, but having just one other game on at that (or another time) shouldn't make too much of a difference. Further, I'm not sure I'm a big fan of deciding Third place as the person with the original highest rank (which can be a bit subjective with no real difference between the top 8 seeds from the morning rounds) who won one game. Both people who lose in the second round should be given the opportunity to place.
-
I'm not crazy about two of the things here. First, I don't like that differential is taking precedence over strength of schedule. I also don't like that there isn't a game going on with the finals to decide third place. Minor irritations, and I'm glad that we're giving this a try this year. Special thanks to Roy and Rob for taking the leap. :)
I am not personally opposed to the game for third place, but I do think it'd be better to allow everyone to get to see the Championship game and not be playing a third place game at the same time.
I understand that point, but having just one other game on at that (or another time) shouldn't make too much of a difference. Further, I'm not sure I'm a big fan of deciding Third place as the person with the original highest rank (which can be a bit subjective with no real difference between the top 8 seeds from the morning rounds) who won one game. Both people who lose in the second round should be given the opportunity to place.
From my understanding logistically, there isn't another time, so it would have to occur at the same time. Considering how many complaints there have been about Top Cut devaluing swiss rounds, I didn't really think that sort of decision on third place would matter too much.
Also, do other games even do third place matches?
-
I'm not crazy about two of the things here. First, I don't like that differential is taking precedence over strength of schedule. I also don't like that there isn't a game going on with the finals to decide third place. Minor irritations, and I'm glad that we're giving this a try this year. Special thanks to Roy and Rob for taking the leap. :)
I am not personally opposed to the game for third place, but I do think it'd be better to allow everyone to get to see the Championship game and not be playing a third place game at the same time.
I understand that point, but having just one other game on at that (or another time) shouldn't make too much of a difference. Further, I'm not sure I'm a big fan of deciding Third place as the person with the original highest rank (which can be a bit subjective with no real difference between the top 8 seeds from the morning rounds) who won one game. Both people who lose in the second round should be given the opportunity to place.
From my understanding logistically, there isn't another time, so it would have to occur at the same time. Considering how many complaints there have been about Top Cut devaluing swiss rounds, I didn't really think that sort of decision on third place would matter too much.
Also, do other games even do third place matches?
Yu Gi Oh does.
Source: Bracket is near the bottom (http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/World_Championship_2012)
-
Really happy this is going to be implemented. Big thumbs up, and the rules look really solid.
-
Hey,
For clarification, Head to Head is the first tie breaker in cases of two way ties only correct?
I agree that is seems kinda weird to not have a third place game.
The fact that your deck only has to be used in one game durring the swiss rounds worries me a bit.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
The fact that your deck only has to be used in one game durring the swiss rounds worries me a bit.
Why does that worry you? Check in three identical decks. After you play a game that you don't rip a plot, set it to the side and use that for Top Cut. If you're worried your super secret deck will be found out, play it first round against somebody who won't talk.
-
The fact that your deck only has to be used in one game durring the swiss rounds worries me a bit.
Why does that worry you? Check in three identical decks. After you play a game that you don't rip a plot, set it to the side and use that for Top Cut. If you're worried your super secret deck will be found out, play it first round against somebody who won't talk.
Top Cut counter decks are probably more problematic, but considering only 2 people will enter the final round knowing they made the cut and willing to play their top cut only deck, I'm not sure how real of an issue that will be.
-
Still very much in favor of a 3rd place game, for the reasons being brought up earlier in this thread.
However, I have another question: Is there a time limit for Top Cut games? And if so, what determines the winner? Is it played just first-to-five, sudden-death OT, or more of a baseball scenario (if you go 'up' as the player who took first turn, the other player gets their turn still as well)?
-
Hey,
Westy, my concern is on the other side. I'd prefer that you have to use the deck in at least two swiss rounds if not three. A player should not be able to design one deck for top cut and another for the swiss rounds, the same deck(s) should have to be viable for both.
Alex, I think it's more likely a player would play their Top Cut deck in round 1 where they most likely will be in an uneven matchup. Worst case scenario they lose have their Top Cut deck "activated" and are playing from the bottom up against easier opposition to help pad their differential for one of the higher one loss top cut seeds.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Alex, I think it's more likely a player would play their Top Cut deck in round 1 where they most likely will be in an uneven matchup. Worst case scenario they lose have their Top Cut deck "activated" and are playing from the bottom up against easier opposition to help pad their differential for one of the higher one loss top cut seeds.
That seems like a really bad strategic decision as the second loss nearly surely eliminates you unless your differential is great
-
Hey,
Alex, I think it's more likely a player would play their Top Cut deck in round 1 where they most likely will be in an uneven matchup. Worst case scenario they lose have their Top Cut deck "activated" and are playing from the bottom up against easier opposition to help pad their differential for one of the higher one loss top cut seeds.
That seems like a really bad strategic decision as the second loss nearly surely eliminates you unless your differential is great
That depends on how likely the worst case scenario is. If the changes are 90% you win your first round regardless of what deck you use...
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Alex, I think it's more likely a player would play their Top Cut deck in round 1 where they most likely will be in an uneven matchup. Worst case scenario they lose have their Top Cut deck "activated" and are playing from the bottom up against easier opposition to help pad their differential for one of the higher one loss top cut seeds.
That seems like a really bad strategic decision as the second loss nearly surely eliminates you unless your differential is great
That depends on how likely the worst case scenario is. If the changes are 90% you win your first round regardless of what deck you use...
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
That's playing the odds and not true. Ask Gabe and John Earley about the first round at MN :)
-
I just wanted to make sure that the following got clarified before the tournament, especially because a change to the time limit rules would definitely affect deck selection:
Is there a time limit for Top Cut games? And if so, what determines the winner? Is it played just first-to-five, sudden-death OT, or more of a baseball scenario (if you go 'up' as the player who took first turn, the other player gets their turn still as well)?
-
I just wanted to make sure that the following got clarified before the tournament, especially because a change to the time limit rules would definitely affect deck selection:
Is there a time limit for Top Cut games? And if so, what determines the winner? Is it played just first-to-five, sudden-death OT, or more of a baseball scenario (if you go 'up' as the player who took first turn, the other player gets their turn still as well)?
I thought I responded to this, sorry. I talked to Roy and it has been decided that it would be a baseball type scenario. First person to take a lead, as long as you've taken an equal number of turns.
-
Hey,
Alex, I think it's more likely a player would play their Top Cut deck in round 1 where they most likely will be in an uneven matchup. Worst case scenario they lose have their Top Cut deck "activated" and are playing from the bottom up against easier opposition to help pad their differential for one of the higher one loss top cut seeds.
That seems like a really bad strategic decision as the second loss nearly surely eliminates you unless your differential is great
That depends on how likely the worst case scenario is. If the changes are 90% you win your first round regardless of what deck you use...
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
Do you think requiring it to be played for two rounds (which, if you lost twice, would virtually eliminate you from cut [or at least from having any control over your own cutting]) would be enough?
-
Hey,
Do you think requiring it to be played for two rounds (which, if you lost twice, would virtually eliminate you from cut [or at least from having any control over your own cutting]) would be enough?
Yes, I think that would probably be enough.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
Do you think requiring it to be played for two rounds (which, if you lost twice, would virtually eliminate you from cut [or at least from having any control over your own cutting]) would be enough?
Yes, I think that would probably be enough.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
I'm going to update the rules to reflect that then.
-
Is this going to be all event?
-
Just T1 as far as I know.
-
T1 2P, or all T1 events?
-
T1 2P, or all T1 events?
Just T1-2P. There would be no good way (nor any good reason) to implement top cut in T1-MP.
-
Suppose I check in two identical decks, both at 51 cards, and in the final round before top cut, I rip a Plot in one. Am I allowed to use the other identical deck with the Plot for top cut?
-
Id say no because your other deck is still legal. I'm not the final authority though
-
If I only have one legal deck at the point that Top Cut begins?
-
If I only have one legal deck at the point that Top Cut begins?
Then I would say you'd be forced to use that one.
-
Hey,
I have a couple questions about how timeouts will be handled in the Top Cut rounds.
If a game times out with one player "winning at time out" and one player "losing at timeout" that will be treated as a full win and full loss correct?
If a game times out in a 4-4 tie and neither player is able to rescue additional lost souls even with extra rounds how will that game be handled?
If a game times out in a 4-4 tie and both players make a rescue in the first "extra inning" round does the player who got to 5 first win, or are they then tied at 5-5 and play a second "extra inning" round to break the 5-5 tie?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Hey,
I have a couple questions about how timeouts will be handled in the Top Cut rounds.
If a game times out with one player "winning at time out" and one player "losing at timeout" that will be treated as a full win and full loss correct?
If a game times out in a 4-4 tie and neither player is able to rescue additional lost souls even with extra rounds how will that game be handled?
If a game times out in a 4-4 tie and both players make a rescue in the first "extra inning" round does the player who got to 5 first win, or are they then tied at 5-5 and play a second "extra inning" round to break the 5-5 tie?
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
1. Yes. Player winning at time wins.
2. Great question. Don't let it happen? I'm not sure there is a fair and equitable way to handle this situation. Feel free to offer suggestions to myself/Roy if your deck is in danger of this occurring. I even played a lock deck at States and I don't see this happening.
3. You'd keep playing to break the tie.
-
3. I'm not sure that answered Tim's question. The way I'm reading the tie breaker rules (and how its handled in most other CCGs) is the first player to break the tie wins. In Tim's example, the first player to win another Lost Soul would win the game; there would be no further chance to tie the game back up.
If there is a tie at time in the Top Cut, players play sequential rounds (each player taking a turn) until one player has taken a lead.
-
That's poor writing on my part, sorry. The each player taking a turn thing is meant to say it's like extra innings in baseball. Each player gets a turn to rescue. I tried to use the turn and round terminology.
-
Then that still creates a scenario where its possible both players can still be tied after all Lost Souls are exhausted from play.
-
Then that still creates a scenario where its possible both players can still be tied after all Lost Souls are exhausted from play.
Fair point. I'll discuss that with Roy.
-
Then that still creates a scenario where its possible both players can still be tied after all Lost Souls are exhausted from play.
1 - this seems VERY unlikely
2 - this is better than saying the first person to take a LS wins. No one wants the most important games of the tournament to be determined by a coin flip.
-
Hey,
I think a game that is tied 4-4 should be sudden death (next soul wins). That's the way it is before the time limit I don't see a reason to change it after.
Tschow,
Tim "Sir Nobody" Maly
-
Then that still creates a scenario where its possible both players can still be tied after all Lost Souls are exhausted from play.
1 - this seems VERY unlikely
Seems? Or actually is? Since the scenario exists regardless of how unlikely you think it is, the system needs a better remedy than affording players an extra turn to 'catch up' to the leading player, creating a cyclic nature further perpetuating the tie.
2 - this is better than saying the first person to take a LS wins. No one wants the most important games of the tournament to be determined by a coin flip.
I find this comment highly ironic coming from a player that touts defense as much as he does.
-
That's poor writing on my part, sorry. The each player taking a turn thing is meant to say it's like extra innings in baseball. Each player gets a turn to rescue. I tried to use the turn and round terminology.
I think you should say it is like the overtime rules in college Football. That way when someone compares it to professional football...
I think a game that is tied 4-4 should be sudden death (next soul wins).
...we have one consistent set of analogies to juggle in our minds. (Otherwise you have a bird in the hand gathering no moss sort of situation. ;) )
Just a suggestion.
-
Maybe we should just have the panel of judges and/or redemption MetaGaming hosts make an informed decision on who they feel would win
-
Maybe we should just have the panel of judges and/or redemption MetaGaming hosts make an informed decision on who they feel would win
That would be hilarious if you and Westy were matched up in a Top Cut round that was tied at time-out...
-
I'd get the win because I built the key points of our deck.
/shotsfired
-
I'd get the win because I built the key points of our deck.
/shotsfired
I'm not going to do this over the internet. You, me, top cut, Friday night, in front of all the internet. It's on.
-
Top 2. It's a date.
-
Top 2. It's a date.
If this happens I will eat my trophies. All of them. ::)
-
Top 2. It's a date.
If this happens I will eat my trophies. All of them. ::)
Better buy some Tums, you know, just in case
-
Top 2. It's a date.
If this happens I will eat my trophies. All of them. ::)
That's a decently risky call considering I'd put the chances of Alex and Westy meeting up in the final to be somewhere about 1:675. That's not very likely, but MUCH more likely than a lot of other things (winning the lottery, getting hit by lightning, etc.)
-
I don't like the idea of a Swiss style top cut. I mean for my situation I don't wanna go to nationals and lose and be eliminated from the first round and the sit out for the rest of the tournament. To be honest, eleminations take the fun out of the tournament. I think Swiss style should be kept as it always had been for almost twenty years
-
I don't like the idea of a Swiss style top cut. I mean for my situation I don't wanna go to nationals and lose and be eliminated from the first round and the sit out for the rest of the tournament. To be honest, eleminations take the fun out of the tournament. I think Swiss style should be kept as it always had been for almost twenty years
That's not how top cut works. Everybody entered in the field plays a set number of rounds (I think it's been at least six for both Nats that have employed T1-2P top cut). Win, lose, or draw doesn't matter. You still play all of those rounds before the actual cut is made. And it's quite possible to get into the top cut group with a loss. Even two, depending on how tiebreakers and whatnot break down. Only after all Swiss rounds are finished is a cut made and single elimination matches for the top 8 begin.
-
It's worth pointing out that by and large, most of the people who have played in T12P the last two years came away with positive impressions of top cut. I was especially pleased to find out that Chris Bany, who staunchly opposed the introduction of cutting prior to New York, became a big believer in it that year, which is the main reason he chose to implement it this year in MN. We actually cut at seven rounds both years, though I believe it should be smaller, especially considering what happened to Jerome this last tournament (he was the last undefeated player, took two hard losses, and ultimately didn't cut). Cutting after six rounds, to me, is the sweet spot, and I would like to see it implemented in future tournaments.
This year was especially weird because the field wasn't nearly as stacked as normal (missing people like Gabe, Greeson, Townsend, Martin, Westy, and Alex), leaving only a handful of people with any kind of legitimate record (Earley, Nathan, Underwood, Connor, Josiah [who didn't even cut], and myself) to compete. The drama in the later rounds certainly doesn't help the perception that this year felt a little off, but that has nothing to do with top cut, and had to do with the people who ended up making it (or rather, who didn't).
-
It's worth pointing out that by and large, most of the people who have played in T12P the last two years came away with positive impressions of top cut. I was especially pleased to find out that Chris Bany, who staunchly opposed the introduction of cutting prior to New York, became a big believer in it that year, which is the main reason he chose to implement it this year in MN. We actually cut at seven rounds both years, though I believe it should be smaller, especially considering what happened to Jerome this last tournament (he was the last undefeated player, took two hard losses, and ultimately didn't cut). Cutting after six rounds, to me, is the sweet spot, and I would like to see it implemented in future tournaments.
This year was especially weird because the field wasn't nearly as stacked as normal (missing people like Gabe, Greeson, Townsend, Martin, Westy, and Alex), leaving only a handful of people with any kind of legitimate record (Earley, Nathan, Underwood, Connor, Josiah [who didn't even cut], and myself) to compete. The drama in the later rounds certainly doesn't help the perception that this year felt a little off, but that has nothing to do with top cut, and had to do with the people who ended up making it (or rather, who didn't).
Does Mitchell Stewart not count as a good player in your opinion?
-
It's worth pointing out that by and large, most of the people who have played in T12P the last two years came away with positive impressions of top cut. I was especially pleased to find out that Chris Bany, who staunchly opposed the introduction of cutting prior to New York, became a big believer in it that year, which is the main reason he chose to implement it this year in MN. We actually cut at seven rounds both years, though I believe it should be smaller, especially considering what happened to Jerome this last tournament (he was the last undefeated player, took two hard losses, and ultimately didn't cut). Cutting after six rounds, to me, is the sweet spot, and I would like to see it implemented in future tournaments.
This year was especially weird because the field wasn't nearly as stacked as normal (missing people like Gabe, Greeson, Townsend, Martin, Westy, and Alex), leaving only a handful of people with any kind of legitimate record (Earley, Nathan, Underwood, Connor, Josiah [who didn't even cut], and myself) to compete. The drama in the later rounds certainly doesn't help the perception that this year felt a little off, but that has nothing to do with top cut, and had to do with the people who ended up making it (or rather, who didn't).
Does Mitchell Stewart not count as a good player in your opinion?
Primarily a T2 player. Clearly very skilled, just not quite as well known.
-
Mitch fell in a grey area (along with Jerome Beers) since he's an exceptionally skilled player (and just the nicest guy; meeting him was one of the highlights of Nats for me) but hasn't done too well at the Nats level (at least that I'm aware of). The two nonetheless deserve to be named with the others in that list.
-
Mitch is the best.
-
I'd jump off a metaphorical bridge for Mitch and I've only met him twice.