Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Deck Building & Design => National Tournament Winners => Topic started by: Townsend on August 14, 2011, 04:43:57 PM
-
Player: Matt Townsend
Cards: 52
Lost souls 8
Hopper
First Round Protect
Wanderer
Revealer
Shuffler
Female Only
3-liner
Shutdoor
Good Dominants 6
Son of God
New Jerusalem
Grapes of Wrath
Guardian of Your Souls
Angel of the Lord
Harvest Time
Evil Dominants 4
Christian Martyr
Destruction of Nehushtan
Mayhem
Falling Away
Artifacts 5
Lampstand in the Sanctuary
Chariot of Fire
Four-Drachama Coin
Darius' Decree
Holy Grail
Good Fortress' 2
Herod's Temple
The Garden Tomb
Evil Fortress 1
Philistine Outpost
White Heroes 6
Mary the Mother of James
Salome
Joanna
Mary Magdaline
Susanna
Lydia
Red Heroes 3
Peter
Centurion at Calvary
Centurion at Capernaum
Silver Heroes 1
Gabriel (DI)
White Enhancements 4
He is Risen
Magnificat
Words of Encouragement
Consider the Lilies
Red Enhancements 3
A Soldier's Prayer
Mustering for War
David's Triumph
Multi-colored Enhancements 3
Faith in our High Priest
First Fruits
Benedictus
Black Evil Characters 3
Philistine Garrison
Goliath (Promo)
Philistine Armour Bearer
Brown Evil Character 1
Uzzah
Gray Evil Character 1
Sabbath Breaker
Multi-colored Evil Character 1
The Amalekites' Slave
This deck went 9-1 at this years Nats with its only loss being to Andrew Wester's Trololol which was an awesome deck.
The whole week I was debating on if I wanted to play my normal white offense that had been working extremely well for most of the year but it was getting kind of boring and wasn't winning as consistently as it used too so I was thinking about changing my deck the night before the T1 2P competition I was talking to Mitch Stewart about it cause I played him with this deck online a couple of times and he thought it was the right idea to switch so I thought about it and decided to go with the Red/Tomb because the centurions are pretty awesome first turn and they rock chump blockers, Dave's Win to rock the Phillies (which I thought there would be a ton of) and Mustering for War is one of my favorite set asides although it takes 2 turns for it but the fact I don't have to worry having my offense getting wiped out by DD which I also thought would be in almost every Deck.
-
Congrats on winning Nats! Double props for winning with Red before you could play with the new set.
-
GO MATT!!! Congrats to Andrew on beating the champ before he was the champ ;)
-
Congrats. Winning with red (kind of). Very creative. But also that's the longest sentence I have ever read. ;)
-
Congrats dude! ROOT FTW!!! :)
-
COOL DECK!!!!!!!
-DARiO
-
Way to represent the midwest!
-
Matt, I think I might have held you back in Teams. :P
-
Yep that deck is legit. I'm glad you decided to run it over the white deck. Congrats Matt. Well deserved.
-
Almost every year, the unexpected deck wins. Everybody was calling out a Disciples win, and then this comes along. Awesome job, and congrats. This deck was unique enough to catch people off guard, but still incredibly solid, and was in the hands of a great player, from what I could tell.
Why no Burial? Lampstand too popular?
-
Why no Burial? Lampstand too popular?
Actually I really didn't think about Burial...
Matt, I think I might have held you back in Teams. :P
Nah, you got way more rescues then I did. And you weren't the one who put 3 nails in a deck when we were both playin demons ;).
-
Nice work Matt.
When after your post on July 24 that you weren't going to nats did you decide to make the trek? ;)
Kirk
-
Nice work Matt.
When after your post on July 24 that you weren't going to nats did you decide to make the trek? ;)
Kirk
Thanks Kirk, but yea I got a ride with Travis last minute lol.
-
I love how you took a "cookie cutter" deck (White TGT) and fine tuned it for the meta (Philistines). I bet anyone had said white/red TGT is going to win Nats before the event started I think they would have been laughed at. :)
Way to be innovative. Congrats on your win. Welcome to the elite.
-
Disciples didn't win YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congrads on you victory. Aren't you concerned people are gonna clone your deck.
-
I have to say that I'm a little surprised you didn't run into trouble with a speed deck... I feel like they could win before you, despite you being able to beat their offense. Was your loss to a faster deck?
-
his loss was to anti-meta, i believe.
-
I have to say that I'm a little surprised you didn't run into trouble with a speed deck... I feel like they could win before you, despite you being able to beat their offense. Was your loss to a faster deck?
His loss was to Andrew's watchful S. deck.
-
Oh yeah ok that's understandable.
-
I have to say that I'm a little surprised you didn't run into trouble with a speed deck... I feel like they could win before you, despite you being able to beat their offense. Was your loss to a faster deck?
To be honest I had no issues with speed decks and believe it or not my deck was faster than almost all the opponents I played.
-
And the 6 first turn Mayhems had NOTHING to do with that ;)
-
One of which was against me! lol and to think i beat you the day before in iron man.. ::)
-
And the 6 first turn Mayhems had NOTHING to do with that ;)
I calculate a .523% chance of 6 FTM's in ten rounds. This doesn't bring in the possibility of his opponent having a FTM.
/Anyone who was actually paying attention in stats, feel free to correct this.
//This makes it a 191.204 to 1 chance of happening. So I only need to attend 190 more nationals to guarantee a win.
EDIT: Math and general errors fixed.
-
We played 10 rounds, so that would make it 6 out of 10 I believe, which changes your math a bit. The odds of it happening for one you specifically may be slim, but given a field of almost 100 people the chances of it happening for someone go up significantly. Someone else who figured out the math told me that there's a 1 in 4 chance of someone in a field of 100 getting 6 FTM in 10 rounds.
All that still doesn't take into account whether or not their FTM is optimal or that they even get to play first when they draw it, only that they have it in their opening hand.
-
We played 10 rounds, so that would make it 6 out of 10 I believe, which changes your math a bit. The odds of it happening for one you specifically may be slim, but given a field of almost 100 people the chances of it happening for someone go up significantly. Someone else who figured out the math told me that there's a 1 in 4 chance of someone in a field of 100 getting 6 FTM in 10 rounds.
All that still doesn't take into account whether or not their FTM is optimal or that they even get to play first when they draw it, only that they have it in their opening hand.
That's also assuming that everybody is play Mayhem in a 50(?) card deck.
-
That's also assuming that everybody is play Mayhem in a 50(?) card deck.
Actually I think the person doing that math was assuming that about half the players had Mayhem in a 50 (or maybe 56) card deck).
-
I didn't even factor in opponents. First time around, I did the math wrong, it's fixed now. That's the probability of getting Mayhem in six out of ten test draws.
Gabe, I did my math with ten rounds, and then wrote six.
Wraith, it's a 50 card deck with hopper. Numbers will change even more with Matt's deck.
-
Where's the 25% coming from? I assumed a 19.8% chance (RDT crunched the numbers, I seem to remember that).
-
The 25% was referring to Gabe/Prof's 1/4 chance.
I deleted my post because I noticed an error. One min.
-
Where's the 25% coming from? I assumed a 19.8% chance
I didn't do the math myself, but perhaps the difference is that the 25% chance was of having AT LEAST 6 FTM out of 10 rounds. So a person could have 7, 8, 9, or 10, (although those would be smaller percentages) and that would still give them AT LEAST 6 FTM. So perhaps you forgot to add in those smaller percentages?
Just an idea.
-
I'm not much for stats but shouldn't the prob be about .198^6? (for a single person)
-
Ah, we were working from different angles of the problem. I just was working with the probability of one player, six only.
I'm not much for stats but shouldn't the prob be about .198^6? (for a single person)
Not in this case. That's basically what I did the first time around, but Bernoulli's formula is more appropriate.
-
but Bernoulli's formula is more appropriate.
I thought it fitting, considering the rocky terrain.
Naturally you expect me to attack with Caprifaire.
I find that Tybalt cancels out Caprifaire, don't you.
Unless his opponent has studied his Agrippa....which I have :)
-
Can you explain why? I am not much of a stats guy, like I said.
-
"Because my brother said so" is basically my defense.
-
Sounds good. I'm not really into learning about math, but this seemed like a straightforward problem, so I figured I'd ask.
-
Nice job at nats was this 2011
-
With all this math questions, why don't you just ask YMT