Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: Minister Polarius on September 12, 2011, 10:53:07 PM
-
Amount of fun in a normal game: 100%
Amount of fun in a game where both me and my opponent use an offense and defense: 200%
Amount of fun in a game where I get a FTM: 0%
Amount of fun in a game where my opponent gets a FTM: LESS THAN 0%!!!!!
Last year's national winner: 6 FTM's for him, 0 FTM's for opponents.
This one card is single-handedly ruining the game. And yes, I do mean exactly that. I'm not exaggerating. I'm not overstating. If we don't get errata or an intro prep, Mayhem will undermine completely what is otherwise the best card game out there and almost balanced for the first time. All because of one card that determines the game before it begins with astonishing regularity.
-
Amount of fun in a normal game: 100%
Amount of fun in a game where both me and my opponent use an offense and defense: 200%
Amount of fun in a game where I get a FTM: 0%
Amount of fun in a game where my opponent gets a FTM: LESS THAN 0%!!!!!
Last year's national winner: 6 FTM's for him, 0 FTM's for opponents.
This one card is single-handedly ruining the game. And yes, I do mean exactly that. I'm not exaggerating. I'm not overstating. If we don't get errata or an intro prep, Mayhem will undermine completely what is otherwise the best card game out there and almost balanced for the first time. All because of one card that determines the game before it begins with astonishing regularity.
I won my ROOT game today after getting FTM'd out of a very good opening draw
-
Anecdotes hold no weight. Winning against a FTM is not impossible, but that's not the point.
-
How many FTM were with the winning deck for 2010? Just curious why with Disciples there was an uproar rather than in TeP when it was released...
-
When a broken card comes out, people complain. If it's still not fixed in the next set, it's kind of a big deal. By the third set and still as problematic as ever, enough is enough. Time for errata.
-
Odd... ??? FTM's aren't that common in our playgroup...
-
To be honest I think that FTM is WAY overrated. Really people I and my opponent just got a new hand of six cards. It's not that big of a deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know, maybe i'm stupid to be saying this big I really never give much to FTM.
-
To be honest I think that FTM is WAY overrated. Really people I and my opponent just got a new hand of six cards. It's not that big of a deal.
your opponent goes first, plays 4-7 cards down. Then you go, you d3, and he plays mayhem.
your opponent GAINS 5-6 cards, while you put back 6.
That's a 10-11 card advantage your opponent now has.
-
To be honest I think that FTM is WAY overrated. Really people I and my opponent just got a new hand of six cards. It's not that big of a deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know, maybe i'm stupid to be saying this big I really never give much to FTM.
The person who won Natz got 6 FTM's and 0 against him. And he won Natz. Not necessarily for that reason only, but it is worth noting that the biggest tournament of the year was won by someone who got a ton of FTM's.
-
To be honest I think that FTM is WAY overrated. Really people I and my opponent just got a new hand of six cards. It's not that big of a deal.
your opponent goes first, plays 4-7 cards down. Then you go, you d3, and he plays mayhem.
O. K. yeah I guess I've never had anyone use it that effectively against me but I see how that's gotta Hurt.
your opponent GAINS 5-6 cards, while you put back 6.
That's a 10-11 card advantage your opponent now has.
-
To be honest I think that FTM is WAY overrated. Really people I and my opponent just got a new hand of six cards. It's not that big of a deal!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know, maybe i'm stupid to be saying this big I really never give much to FTM.
The person who won Natz got 6 FTM's and 0 against him. And he won Natz. Not necessarily for that reason only, but it is worth noting that the biggest tournament of the year was won by someone who got a ton of FTM's.
Correlation =/= causation ::) There are so many variables to consider that I personally do not accept that as proper evidence.
-
I'm sure that most people who play regularly have times when they staged an epic comeback after getting FTM'd. I nearly did vs. lp670sv when my turn 5-6 Mayhem turned out to be way more devastating to him than his FTM (though I still lost by one turn). But overall I agree with Pol, and the sentiment expressed in the subject line. I'm not sure why
people serious players didn't fuss about it so much in the year after TexP came out, though I suspect it might be the fact that with Disciples came a recipe for an offense that required 10-12 Heroes and only 4-6 GEs, which means the odds of a player being able to put most of his hand down before FTM went up considerably.
-
I'm not sure why people didn't fuss about it so much in the year after TexP came out, though I suspect it might be the fact that with Disciples came a recipe for an offense that required 10-12 Heroes and only 4-6 GEs, which means the odds of a player being able to put most of his hand down before FTM went up considerably.
FTR, Sauce was raving about Mayhem from day 1.
-
Noted. Previous post modified.
-
lol
-
I think the intro-prep phase would be a good alternative to banning Mayhem.
-
I'm not sure why people didn't fuss about it so much in the year after TexP came out, though I suspect it might be the fact that with Disciples came a recipe for an offense that required 10-12 Heroes and only 4-6 GEs, which means the odds of a player being able to put most of his hand down before FTM went up considerably.
FTR, Sauce was raving about Mayhem from day 1.
Word that. I said that Mayhem was far and away the best card in TXP while everyone was ranting on about grapes. I traded for like 3 right after nats for seemingly nothing because no one valued it highly enough.
-
I think the intro-prep phase would be a good alternative to banning Mayhem.
This helps, but not enough. Do I really want to play as much as possible (especially EC's?)
-
There is a 7 page thread with 97 replies on the playtester side of the board about how to deal with Mayhem. We are aware of the issue and are considering many options.
Some like intro-prep. Some don't, since it is yet another rule for new players to have to learn, and changes the game more than players want, just for the sake of one card.
Some like this errata: "If it is not the first round, ..." Some don't like that since you can't use it to "mulligan" and get a hero or EC, for example.
Some like this errata: "If it is your turn, or in a battle phase, ..." Some don't like ANY errata at all and hope to avoid it if there is any possible way.
Some like this rule change: "dominants (or just evil dominants) cannot be played in the first round." Some think that extra rules like this just alienate new players.
Some prefer to lessen the chances of FTM happening by printing new cards, such as a lost soul that protects hand (and probably deck, too, to make it more playable), and an EC that looks at opponent's hand and discards an evil dominant. Others say that just lessening the chances of FTM happening is not enough.
Another option that some have considered is a Dominant cap identical to the Site cap. That is, you can't have more dominants in your deck than Lost Soul cards (and Hopper doesn't count, just as it doesn't count for sites, or any deck building for that matter).
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask some opinions here. We don't promise to go with the majority or anything, but we do like to hear what you like. We want the game to be fun after all.
By the way, extra points to Pol for the use of "LESS THAN 0%!!!!!"
-
Another card idea that could stop Mayhem is a dominant that says something like:
"If cards in your hand are being shuffled by an opponent's card ability, discard this card instead"
You could even make it "discarded or shuffled" to make it more useful against cards other than Mayhem.
Actually that would be a cool type of counter to make, dominants that you discard from your hands to instead abilities.
-
Ranked according to which proposed "solution" on the playtester side I believe would be the most appropriate.
1. Dominant cap identical to the Site cap. That is, you can't have more dominants in your deck than Lost Soul cards (and Hopper doesn't count, just as it doesn't count for sites, or any deck building for that matter).
2. Intro-Prep
3a.
- No players may play dominants during the first round of play. Instead, players have the option to shuffle any number of dominants back into deck and draw an equal number of cards.
3b. Rule change: "dominants (or just evil dominants) cannot be played in the first round."
4. Errata: "If it is not the first round, ..."
5. Errata: "If it is your turn, or in a battle phase, ..."
6. Printing new cards, such as a lost soul that protects hand (and probably deck, too, to make it more playable), and an EC that looks at opponent's hand and discards an evil dominant.
--------
Those ranked 1-3 take care of more than just the current Mayhem predicament and reduce the power of dominants, which I believe many players have strongly supported for years.
Kirk
-
The dom cap is a good idea, but it doesn't fix Mayhem because it'll still be in every good deck. I think it's going to be too difficult to lessen the chance of a FTM without a change to game rule/errata, as they only thing you'll have a chance to play before it are souls and doms. If there's only one soul that protects my hand, it only lowers the chance by like 4% of something. I'm against errata'ing it, that's more difficult and alienating than the rule changes. The other two should work.
Or I may be way off because I haven't played this game seriously since TXP.
-
Some like intro-prep. Some don't, since it is yet another rule for new players to have to learn, and changes the game more than players want, just for the sake of one card.
We've been asking for intro-prep since long before Mayhem. Mayhem has just made it a more urgent request. As for changing the game more than players want, which players? I've never seen anything but overwhelming support for it from the community.
Some prefer to lessen the chances of FTM happening by printing new cards, such as a lost soul that protects hand (and probably deck, too, to make it more playable), and an EC that looks at opponent's hand and discards an evil dominant. Others say that just lessening the chances of FTM happening is not enough.
The problem with that is the only thing that could stop a FTM is a LS or another Dom, and they'd have to be in the D8 while the other player has a whole turn to try to draw into a Mayhem. Many of the FTM's I've done, the Mayhem wasn't in the D8. Perhaps if there were released at the same time a LS that protected cards in hand from opponents and a LS that searched each deck for a LS and put it in play when drawn. That would up the odds of stopping FTM off your D8 from about 20% to about 40%.
Some like this rule change: "dominants (or just evil dominants) cannot be played in the first round." Some think that extra rules like this just alienate new players.
It'd better be all doms if it happens, and not just evil. We don't want to trade FTM's for the inability to respond to an AotL with a CM. As for alienating new players, almost all card games have special rules about the very first turn or round. It's not complex. But that doesn't matter because...
Another option that some have considered is a Dominant cap identical to the Site cap. That is, you can't have more dominants in your deck than Lost Soul cards (and Hopper doesn't count, just as it doesn't count for sites, or any deck building for that matter).
This is the best proposition I've ever heard. I'd like this even more than an intro prep. Please, Santa, will you have the tooth fairy bring me this one for St. Batholomew's Day?
-
I LOVE the dominant cap idea. That is absolutely amazing.
-
My vote would be:
1. Dominant Cap
2. Intro-Prep
3. No Change (I don't see any of the other "solutions" as being beneficial for the game)
-
I HIGHLY support the dominant cap. Not only might that help against FTM, it helps against speed as well. Not only that, it makes you think carefully about which 7 dominants you use.
-
not really. you'll only see more mained lamps and less evil doms outside of mayhem with that. speed and gets by lampstand in one card? yeah, i'll take that for a slot.
-
1. Intro-Prep
2. Rule change: "dominants (or just evil dominants) cannot be played in the first round."
3. Dominant cap identical to the Site cap. That is, you can't have more dominants in your deck than Lost Soul cards (and Hopper doesn't count, just as it doesn't count for sites, or any deck building for that matter).
4. Errata: "If it is not the first round, ..."
5. Errata: "If it is your turn, or in a battle phase, ..."
6. Printing new cards, such as a lost soul that protects hand (and probably deck, too, to make it more playable), and an EC that looks at opponent's hand and discards an evil dominant.
-
I like the dominant cap, it brings a little increase in diversity since decks would no longer be 1/5 dominants. I've seen a ton of decks that include:
Good- SOG,NJ,Guardian,Harvest Time,Grapes
Evil- Burial, Destruction, CM, Falling Away, Mayhem
-
I love the idea of a Dominant cap, because overall it will improve the game. Unfortunately, I agree with Sauce that this isn't really going to do much to stop FTM. (Since FTM ups your chances of winning so significantly, no one is going to dump Mayhem.)
I also really like Intro Prep.
The others I am kinda "meh" about.
What about a rule that says no evil dominants may be played in a game until after the first good dominant is played? Probably not a very good idea, but I would prefer something like that to a blanket prohibition in the first round.
-
How about if you play Mayhem the first round, it only affects you. I.e. your opponent won't be affected by FTM.
-
No doms first round. the rest are horrid for the game.
-
I like the dominant cap, though it doesn't actually fix the problem at hand. Why not go about giving Mayhem an errata a different way? This would be my proposal:
"[If you have more than 5 cards in your hand]..."
OR
"...[cannot be played if you have less than 6 cards in your hand."
These do essentially the same thing, though I prefer the first one because it still allows Mayhem to be played without being used for whatever reason. While it won't completely destroy FTM, it will greatly lessen the gap that there is if a Mayhem is indeed played in the first round, since the person playing it has to have seven cards in hand (including Mayhem) in order to use it.
-
I can honestly say I have had games that have both been hurt, and have benefited from FTM. Say I get a crappy hand and I can't do anything about it, then my opponent does his stuff and mayhems, it could hurt yes, but at the same time it could be beneficial. I guess the best way to counter the negative is to have an intro no-dominant no-rescue turn, then in that scenario you could always drop a rain becomes dust and stick it to your opponent :P
-
I like the dominant cap, though it doesn't actually fix the problem at hand. Why not go about giving Mayhem an errata a different way? This would be my proposal:
"[If you have more than 5 cards in your hand]..."
OR
"...[cannot be played if you have less than 6 cards in your hand."
These do essentially the same thing, though I prefer the first one because it still allows Mayhem to be played without being used for whatever reason. While it won't completely destroy FTM, it will greatly lessen the gap that there is if a Mayhem is indeed played in the first round, since the person playing it has to have seven cards in hand (including Mayhem) in order to use it.
that first errata would just make it so FTM could only be played in the situation it hurts most haha, the perfect FTM is that I have no cards left in my hand after playing it, it might stop a few FTM but not the worst of them, the second ability however would do the trick because it limit the card swing, they wouldn't be getting any extra cards from it. It would still hurt the oppopnent taking them from 11 to 6 but not nearly as much as when that is combined with drawing more then you shuffled
-
I like the dominant cap, though it doesn't actually fix the problem at hand. Why not go about giving Mayhem an errata a different way? This would be my proposal:
"[If you have more than 5 cards in your hand]..."
OR
"...[cannot be played if you have less than 6 cards in your hand."
These do essentially the same thing, though I prefer the first one because it still allows Mayhem to be played without being used for whatever reason. While it won't completely destroy FTM, it will greatly lessen the gap that there is if a Mayhem is indeed played in the first round, since the person playing it has to have seven cards in hand (including Mayhem) in order to use it.
that first errata would just make it so FTM could only be played in the situation it hurts most haha, the perfect FTM is that I have no cards left in my hand after playing it, it might stop a few FTM but not the worst of them, the second ability however would do the trick because it limit the card swing, they wouldn't be getting any extra cards from it. It would still hurt the oppopnent taking them from 11 to 6 but not nearly as much as when that is combined with drawing more then you shuffled
You seem to have misunderstood the first ability. It doesn't activate unless you have at least six cards in hand when you play Mayhem.
-
What I find is that the prep phase concept seems to help immensly vs. FTM.
-
I would definitely go with intro prep phase.
-
My vote for anti-FTM: Intro-Prep. My vote for best overall for the game: Dom cap. I would love to see either or both of these rules implemented.
-
I believe that Kirk in another thread actually came up with an even morn interesting idea involving not playing dominants first turn. If you get dominants in your opening hand, you can redraw for them and then shuffle them back into your draw pile. Kinda like a mulligan but for dominants only.
-
I believe that Kirk in another thread actually came up with an even morn interesting idea involving not playing dominants first turn. If you get dominants in your opening hand, you can redraw for them and then shuffle them back into your draw pile. Kinda like a mulligan but for dominants only.
I don't know if I'd go for that. Doms are still powerful enough that I'd keep them for the second round.
-
I believe that Kirk in another thread actually came up with an even morn interesting idea involving not playing dominants first turn. If you get dominants in your opening hand, you can redraw for them and then shuffle them back into your draw pile. Kinda like a mulligan but for dominants only.
I don't know if I'd go for that. Doms are still powerful enough that I'd keep them for the second round.
That's up to you. You can shuffle them back and redraw if you want. If you'd rather keep a Harvest Time when your opponent has 6 lost souls out and you have no heroes in your hand, go ahead.
-
Yes, but how often would that happen? Sure, there are situations where it would be useful, but those are few and far between. The clearest thing would be an errata if it is not the first round...
-
I hate the introprep phase. I love the dom cap.
-
The advantage of the dom cap is that Cactus can print more doms without reducing the variety of decks further.
This is also a disadvantage.
-
Dom cap sounds great, but what would we put it at? 4? 6? 8?
-
The cap = the number of lost souls in the deck, just like the site cap.
The advantage of the dom cap is that Cactus can print more doms without reducing the variety of decks further.
This is also a disadvantage.
Agreed. Though the potential disadvantage can be kept in check by making dominants that are a lot more situational or tied to specific themes. Things like Glory of the Lord, which currently is only in a small percentage of decks.
Which 7 would you use? Is it worth growing to a 63 card deck to add the 8th dominant?
Son of God
Angel of the Lord
Grapes of Wrath
Guardian of Your Souls (if only to stop abuse of Falling Away with 2/3 liner)
Christian Martyr
Burial (if the new rescue rule is adopted) or NJ (if it is not adopted, or in a multi-player deck)
Destruction of Nehushtan
What are your 7? Does it depend on your deck?
-
The cap = the number of lost souls in the deck, just like the site cap.
The advantage of the dom cap is that Cactus can print more doms without reducing the variety of decks further.
This is also a disadvantage.
Agreed. Though the potential disadvantage can be kept in check by making dominants that are a lot more situational or tied to specific themes. Things like Glory of the Lord, which currently is only in a small percentage of decks.
Which 7 would you use? Is it worth growing to a 63 card deck to add the 8th dominant?
Small percentage as in LESS THAN 0%!!!!! Come on, nobody seriously uses that card that I am aware of. ;)
-
Which 7 would you use?
I think 90% of decks would use the same 7 doms:
Son of God
New Jerusalem
Angel of the Lord
Grapes of Wrath
Christian Martyr
Destruction of Nehushtan
Mayhem
-
David Schewan (kingarv) did at our last tournament.
GoYS can be replaced with Lamp.
-
I think that for there to truly be variety of which doms are chosen in a deck the cap would have to be lower (like 5).
At that point people would have to think about taking out NJ (if the new rule happens) or DoN (if their deck isn't scared of artifacts) or Mayhem (if they don't play speed) or Grapes or AotL or CM. If the cap was at 5, then people would actually have to really put some THOUGHT into what doms went into their deck.
-
Cap 7 is fine. Sure, SoG, NJ, AotL, CM, Grapes will be in every deck, but then you only get to pick 2 of the rest. GoyS and FA for a potential 2 card swing? Mayhem for a potential FTM? It's not so easy to pick the last 2.
-
I think that for there to truly be variety of which doms are chosen in a deck the cap would have to be lower (like 5).
At that point people would have to think about taking out NJ (if the new rule happens) or DoN (if their deck isn't scared of artifacts) or Mayhem (if they don't play speed) or Grapes or AotL or CM. If the cap was at 5, then people would actually have to really put some THOUGHT into what doms went into their deck.
Not really. If it went to 5, I'd use Christian Martyr, Son of God, New Jersualem, Destruction of Nehushtan, and Mayhem in every single deck ever.
-
The dominant limit could be really good for the game. In Teams, my teammate and I don't duplicate all of our Dominants. I really enjoyed the freedom to expand the offense and defense because I didn't need to make room to include 11 Dominants in my deck.
-
There is a 7 page thread with 97 replies on the playtester side of the board about how to deal with Mayhem. We are aware of the issue and are considering many options.
Some like intro-prep. Some don't, since it is yet another rule for new players to have to learn, and changes the game more than players want, just for the sake of one card.
Some like this errata: "If it is not the first round, ..." Some don't like that since you can't use it to "mulligan" and get a hero or EC, for example.
Some like this errata: "If it is your turn, or in a battle phase, ..." Some don't like ANY errata at all and hope to avoid it if there is any possible way.
Some like this rule change: "dominants (or just evil dominants) cannot be played in the first round." Some think that extra rules like this just alienate new players.
Some prefer to lessen the chances of FTM happening by printing new cards, such as a lost soul that protects hand (and probably deck, too, to make it more playable), and an EC that looks at opponent's hand and discards an evil dominant. Others say that just lessening the chances of FTM happening is not enough.
Another option that some have considered is a Dominant cap identical to the Site cap. That is, you can't have more dominants in your deck than Lost Soul cards (and Hopper doesn't count, just as it doesn't count for sites, or any deck building for that matter).
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to ask some opinions here. We don't promise to go with the majority or anything, but we do like to hear what you like. We want the game to be fun after all.
By the way, extra points to Pol for the use of "LESS THAN 0%!!!!!"
In the interest of continuing to simplify the rules, I would prefer to do nothing at this point.
However, in general I do like the idea of a cap on dominants. Even though it would be an added rule it certainly wouldn't add any complexity.
As for FTM, I posit that a special rule be used for state tournaments and above, as this is the only time it can become a real problem. Use any of Bryon's ideas. More than likely almost all of the players at these tournaments will be aware of a special rule, and for those that don't, the host can review it during host introductions. For every tournament I have run I have provided an initial presentation to cover all the bases. This would just be another agenda item for the top tournaments.
-
FTM is always a problem. State tournaments don't magically create more FTM.
-
A dom cap just wouldn't feel right. why don't you people like the idea of no doms first round?
-
FTM is always a problem. State tournaments don't magically create more FTM.
If this in response to my post, please read it again. I did not imply that there are more FTM at those tournaments. The reason FTM is more of a problem is that the talent level of the participants is more equal, in that the luck of the draw involving a FTM could tip the scales.
-
So if there is a local with 4 national champions do we get to introduce the special rule for the talent elite?
You don't make rules that are only rules are certain tournaments, on certain days of the week, or when you jumped around in a circle three times and scream MOAR MT DEW! really loud. Rules are Rules are Rules.
-
The best answer for FTM is intro prep. I don't understand the opposition its better than banning the card.
-
So if there is a local with 4 national champions do we get to introduce the special rule for the talent elite?
A local with 4 national champions...in the northwest...I have a better chance of finding Bigfoot. ;)
You don't make rules that are only rules are certain tournaments, on certain days of the week, or when you jumped around in a circle three times and scream MOAR MT DEW! really loud. Rules are Rules are Rules.
I agree.
Rules are Rules are Rules.
House Rules are House Rules are House Rules.
Top Tournament Rules are Top Tournament Rules are Top Tournament Rules.
-
It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that different tournaments should intentionally have different rules.
-
It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that different tournaments should intentionally have different rules.
There are optional rules in the game and always have been. Its not rediculous at all. If everyone knows what the tourney rules are then so be it...
-
It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that different tournaments should intentionally have different rules.
There are optional rules in the game and always have been. Its not rediculous at all. If everyone knows what the tourney rules are then so be it...
He didn't propose an optinoal rule. He proposed a different rule only for higher tournaments. Not an option for all tournaments.
-
It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that different tournaments should intentionally have different rules.
There are optional rules in the game and always have been. Its not rediculous at all. If everyone knows what the tourney rules are then so be it...
He didn't propose an optinoal rule. He proposed a different rule only for higher tournaments. Not an option for all tournaments.
Just saying the concept isn't new in regards to having different rules...
-
Just to sum up how unpopular Glory of the Lord is, until this thread I had no idea it even existed.
-
hillary clinton announced today there is less than zero percent chance she will play with glory of the lord.
-
Just to sum up how unpopular Glory of the Lord is, until this thread I had no idea it even existed.
It was quite good, back in the day. (that I didn't even play)
-
Just to sum up how unpopular Glory of the Lord is, until this thread I had no idea it even existed.
It was quite good, back in the day. (that I didn't even play)
It was in fact one of the key cards in the 3rd place T1-2P Nationals 2004 deck (but that was before Blue Tassels and Priestly Crown were made non-temple artifacts and Lampstand made Glory irrelevant).
-
Was that me? I think it was me. I can't remember what natz I took 3rd at, but I used GotL in that deck.
-
I got a FTM and LOST today at the TOP TABLE in the FINAL round of a tournament. I guess that might happen when your other 7 cards are SOG, 5 enhancements, and an EC though.
-
I got a FTM and LOST today at the TOP TABLE in the FINAL round of a tournament. I guess that might happen when your other 7 cards are SOG, 5 enhancements, and an EC though.
You lost because you're a noob. You cost us the national TEAMS title, which would have given us 4 national champions at a local today. In Rochester. Chobo.
-
I got a FTM and LOST today at the TOP TABLE in the FINAL round of a tournament. I guess that might happen when your other 7 cards are SOG, 5 enhancements, and an EC though.
You lost because you're a noob. You cost us the national TEAMS title, which would have given us 4 national champions at a local today. In Rochester. Chobo.
Rats stay rats yo.
Things I like:
Beating you constantly this year
Not losing to you this year
Placing above you in every category we've played this year, except teams. We tied in teams.
Buffalo
Having an undefeated record against you this year.
-
I got a FTM and LOST today at the TOP TABLE in the FINAL round of a tournament. I guess that might happen when your other 7 cards are SOG, 5 enhancements, and an EC though.
You lost because you're a noob. You cost us the national TEAMS title, which would have given us 4 national champions at a local today. In Rochester. Chobo.
We had 4 at a Local today in California :P
-
We had 6 people at our latest local.
-
I got a FTM and LOST today at the TOP TABLE in the FINAL round of a tournament. I guess that might happen when your other 7 cards are SOG, 5 enhancements, and an EC though.
You lost because you're a noob. You cost us the national TEAMS title, which would have given us 4 national champions at a local today. In Rochester. Chobo.
We had 4 at a Local today in California :P
Bryon (T2 sometime...), You (Sealed 2010), Eric Wolfe (Booster 2011), and...?
-
Brandon West (T1MP 2009)
-
California: Where the best players are.
;)
-
California: Where the best players are.
I forgot to mention that we had Belle the Great, future 12 time national champion. She's already beat out Justin and Tim at nationals, and she should have won nats, if RDT and mjwaree had a heart.
-
California: Where the best players are.
I forgot to mention that we had Belle the Great, future 12 time national champion. She's already beat out Justin and Tim at nationals, and she should have won nats, if RDT and mjwaree had a heart.
Yeah but Brandon used Name-on-Name bonus with Goat and the 2/3 black enhancement*. Did Belle do that? ;)
*We had to open up 8 Prophets backs on the spot to pull the 3rd for the lolz, but we pulled it. :D
-
Was that me? I think it was me. I can't remember what natz I took 3rd at, but I used GotL in that deck.
No, you got third in '05, in MN. I was the one who took third in '04.
But there you go. Now it has been firmly established that Glory did have its Glory days.
California: Where the west players are.
;)
I assume that's what you meant, as what you wrote doesn't make sense. Even Iowa has more National Championships than California, and Iowa is hardly even a state. It's more like a footstool for the state where the real best players are.
/trash talk
-
Yes, the West player. That's what I said, best player. ;)
/trashtalk
-
He only placed third, I wouldn't say he's the best.
-
He only placed third, I wouldn't say he's the best.
I'm not sure who this is to. Haha I got 1st, my name is Brandon West. If you were making a different joke, I didn't get it. :)
-
CA may hold the West player.
But MN holds a couple players that are even Wester!
-
Was that me? I think it was me. I can't remember what natz I took 3rd at, but I used GotL in that deck.
No, you got third in '05, in MN. I was the one who took third in '04.
But there you go. Now it has been firmly established that Glory did have its Glory days.
California: Where the west players are.
;)
I assume that's what you meant, as what you wrote doesn't make sense. Even Iowa has more National Championships than California, and Iowa is hardly even a state. It's more like a footstool for the state where the real best players are.
/trash talk
Iowa is under New York? The Prof needs to work on his geography. ;)
not /trash talk in fact, just the beginning. :-*
-
He only placed third, I wouldn't say he's the best.
CA may hold the West player.
But MN holds a couple players that are even Wester!
Beaten to my own joke. Twice.
I'm not sure who this is to. Haha I got 1st, my name is Brandon West. If you were making a different joke, I didn't get it. :)
My last name is Wester. I got 3rd in T1-2P this year. And I'm a complete chobo.
-
Iowa is under New York? The Prof needs to work on his geography. ;)
not /trash talk in fact, just the beginning. :-*
My geography is fine. Your math might be a bit off, because last I checked, 14>3. In case you're wondering about the significance of those numbers, 14 is the number of national championships owned by Minnesota players. 3 is the number of national championships owned by New Yorkers. Also, 2>0. 2 being the number of national championships Minnesotans have from National tournaments in New York. 0 being the number of national championships New Yorkers have from MN.
So to summarize, one word: scoreboard.
Also, there's only one person I want kissing me, and she's a lot more attractive than you are. So....eww.
-
Also, 2>0. 2 being the number of national championships Minnesotans have from National tournaments in New York. 0 being the number of national championships New Yorkers have from MN.
What's even more sad is we've given them three times the opportunities they've given us.
-
The Beast from the Weast says hi! 8)
-
Locked for puns.