Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

freakshot3

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Liberator

About freakshot3

  • Rank
    Liberator
  1. I'm not familiar with a system that plays down to a single undefeated. (That's not to say they don't exists, just none I'm familiar with.) I think there are problems with running down to a single undefeated as well, losing 1 round in a tournament and no longer being live to win is going to cause a lot of drops after a single loss, and people disliking the tournament structure itself. So i'm not sure it's a great solution. Allowing a random loss in a 7 round tournament, in a game so influenced by randomness is a tough pill to swallow, knowing you cant win the tournament any more. Tournament sizes typically grow with player pool, and in my experience, a 128 person event would typically result in a 7 round event. With a cut to Top 8. I realize the game is in its early development, and the round time is longer than other games, but I imagine they will expand this out, based on the popularity of large tournaments. I believe 90 min is quite a bit of time for each round, I've found in playing Shadespire that if you get down to business on set up, etc. you can hammer a match out in 45-60 no problem. So maybe they'll move to a more compressed schedule, that doesn't include 1/2 hour breaks
  2. I think you may be misinterpreting the 3pt for win, 1pt for tie system. You are awarded 3pts for winning your Match, and 1pt if it goes to a tie. Not 3pts/1pt for each Game result inside of 1 match. Also for the record, I don't think there needs to be enough rounds to determine a single undefeated winner. I just believe there needs to be a top 8, at the minimum a top 4 to determine the winner. So that in this specific scenario we are talking (128 players, 4 Rounds), you can have the expected undefeated players all have a shot at winning.
  3. That's where the abusable nature of gaining glory comes up. Am I doing myself a disservice, in terms of trying to win the GC, by not "throwing game 2" if I believe that I can push my glory differential even higher in a game 3. Fortunately, it seems that in the LVO packet, they describe the breaker order as; Match Wins/Least Game Losses/Glory. Which helps in this scenario, although since the tournament is 4 rounds I still anticipate the need to use Glory to differentiate positions. Edit: Also, the standard rule for having the "bye", or an opponent no showing on you is a Match result of a Win by a differential of +7. This +7 glory might not be enough to keep you inline with other players who do get to play all of their matches, and score their own glory. Leaving you out of contention, having done nothing wrong yourself.
  4. Just looked at it. It's a slight improvement over the just glory tiebreaker, so I'll take it. It doesn't really solve the problem with shipping 6/8 People with 4-0 records out, but it's a certainly less abusable tiebreaker. Its going to lead to some brutal disappointment. Especially in a dice game with inherent randomness built directly in. Losing to a bad string of rolls inside of a game, basically can lead to you no longer being live for Top 2.
  5. Which packet are you referring to? From what I can tell Adepticon hasn't released their Shadespire packet. I have been talking with other previous GC attendees, and event organizers about the scoring and ranking systems. As well as reading through the in-store activity packet, where it outlines Glory being a tiebreaker, and then subsequently "roll-off" if there is another tie, as ridiculous as it sounds. All while waiting for Adepticons official rules and structure to be released.
  6. I've been preparing for the Shadespire Grand Clash at Adepticon this year. Since pretty much the time Shadespire released, and Adepticon announced that they would be holding a GC. It appears they have updated the event description to detail how the tournament will be run, and its ridiculous. They outline that the event will be 4 Rounds (Assuming Swiss pairings), and after 4 Rounds the top 2 players will play a 5th for the Grand Prize. Coming from a competitive card game background, this tournament structure devalues any intended "competitive nature" that GW insists exists in Shadespire. With the current event cap at 128 players, basic tournament math shows that after 4 rounds, you're going to end up with 8 undefeated players. Then it will cut straight to Top 2, based on breakers (Glory) to play a final round. That 5th round winner is the champion. This structure is absurd, and leaves 6 other players out of contention. They will be undefeated, which is all you can do in those 4 rounds, and still have no chance at actually winning. Hopefully in the future GW looks at the tournament models that are in place across other games. Then arrives at something more fair, and better decides a champion. For now it seems this is what we have to deal with, but it doesn't feel great going into the tournament anymore. Maybe I'm applying too harsh of competitive standard, but that's the claim that was made by GW. That Shadespire would walk a more competitive line. inb4: Score more Glory for better breakers! -- Glory is very poor way to decide tournament tie breakers. It's serviceable for a tiebreaker inside of a match to avoid it going to a draw. However, on a tournament level it's far too abusable to separate the difference between the quality of players in a tournament.
  7. I am looking for some clarification, if possible, on the rule of one as it pertains to team events. By team event I'm referring to the 2-Man, 1000pt each Team Tournaments similar to those at Adepticon and the like. From what I can tell, there is no definitive published ruling, in the Coalition of Death or otherwise, on whether or not the rule of one extends to the team, or just inside of one players individual 1000pt army. For example, is it possible for both me and my partner to cast Mystic Shield, Arcane Bolt, etc.. It's entirely possible that this is a tournament by tournament ruling, and there is no official ruling on this. I'm just trying to avoid any pitfalls in list building, and game planning for an upcoming doubles tournament. Thanks for the help!
  8. I'm right there with you man. As a person who's coming from high level TCG tournament play, this is one of the biggest culture shock cases that gets me all the time. As well as one of the things I believe are holding Shadespire back from taking off as a true competitive game. That's for another thread though!
  9. This is a fair point. The simple nature of the objective holding strategy does require being in a certain place at a certain time. Orruk objectives largely just say kill, or charge the enemy more or less. What I didn't touch on very much above, and @Killax talked about, is your offensive capabilities as SG. Champion with Cleave, Harvester hitting a large number of enemies, all combined with the range and damage output of the Warden. This all leads to a pretty decent offensive plan if need be.
  10. I couldn't agree more with this. I think there is a lot of thinking, and strategy in this matchup that makes for really fun games.
  11. In my experience of 20+ games in the Orruk v. SG matchup, I think you guys are being a little dramatic. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that its a tough matchup, but certainly winnable with a bit of patience. If you intend to take your basic SG strategy, and try to fight Orruk toe-to-toe, of course you're going to get blown out. There has to be adjustments made in all matchups, and this one is just a bit more of an intense adjustment. Again, from my experience, on both sides of this matchup board placement goes a long way. So even if you end up with only 2 objectives, you are in good shape. Selecting the proper board is incredibly powerful in this matchup. Bottlenecking the Orruk advances, and adding as much distance as possible for them to travel leads to some games where you wont even roll dice, which favors the SG. Strategically using ploys (ie. Shardfall, Illusory Fighter, etc.), you can constrict and even block pathways while you collect objective points. General matchup tips that I have found useful are things like abusing the Wardens attack range if they do breakthrough. Champion also has built in cleave, which of course is great against the Orruks. Agressively using Shardfall can mean that maybe they can only advance 1 model through a bottleneck each turn. Some tricky things also include, saving Illusory fighter, or a strategic resurrection to place a model on the closest starting point to the Orruks side of the board, and advancing it into their zone to deny end of game objectives. These are things that experienced Orruk players will also know, so be prepared. However still, I do not see this matchup as straightforward losing slugfest as it's described on these forums and others.
×
×
  • Create New...