Monkeybowl IX (April 5-6, 2014) - PURPLEGOO WINS

[Don__Vito]

Six games, six different races, team tournament, eating parmos, drinking from traffic cones, while stripping.

That.

[Purplegoo]

I'd like another year of the same, I thought it was fun, and you may as well do it for at least one more running.

[JT-Y]

I'd vote the same but with the caveat that each team be used twice.
This gives greater tactical depth; do you risk a bad match up during early rounds to ensure you you have a choice of teams for the last rounds, or do you ensure good match ups early on to get good results and risk a bad match up in the final rounds.

[Purplegoo]

I'm missing something with this 'use your list twice' idea. We used them each three times, surely? Or do you mean select a race for game one and be locked in for game two too? I don't see how that adds strategic depth, or have I misunderstood the idea? Doesn't that just minimise Brendan's gimmick?

I ended up just alternating, myself, I think? But, either way, it'd be a shame to only try an interesting idea once before moving on.

[phil78]

I assume the suggestion is that instead of using both lists 3 times you could use one list twice and the other 4 times.
So potentially in round 6 there is still a choice to make rather than being forced to play 2nd team's 3rd game.

I'd vote keep it the same, so hopefully I can make it next year and have a try

[Purplegoo]

Ah, right.

If that is what Ruth and JT-Y are getting at, is that not less strategic depth, not more?

If you have the extra safety net of potentially not exhausting one of your two choices until you make your game six decision, isn’t that just having your cake and eating it too? I quite liked the scenario of knowing if you used your bigger gun to progress now, then you’d be stuck with something else later. I played Paul game four on (iirc) his last Woodie use to ensure passage to the sharp end (Woodies being the biggest guns in the rules, to my mind), but Joe had two in the bank for the last two games because he’d kept them back for the business end of the tournament. I thought that kind of decision as to how you utilise your teams was the fun of the gimmick, it would seem allowing 4 and 2 dilutes that a bit?

All just words, anyway.

[Pipey]

Discussed this with Ruth, Jon and Gav on Friday night.

4 and 2 (or 2 and 4, or 3 and 3) does make the card play go down to round 6, which would be cool.

Though as I argued at the time (as Phil also says) you are still making a choice for round 6 by what you leave yourself.

I wonder whether people would just err on the side of the power team they feel most comfortable with and make that their '4' choice. Would only know if we tried it.

I'm erring on the side of keeping it as it is, just for the sake of testing it some more before tweaking.

[JT-Y]

No, not 4 and 2.

You must use each list a minimum of twice over the course of 6 rounds.

But when and how? That is the choice the player must make, and it makes for a few tricky decisions on the way to the top tables, yet has little impact towards the bottom.

Do you go 2 and 4, 3 and 3, or 4 and 2?
Do you use one team in the first 4 rounds because it gives you the best match ups for those games and risk the draw in the last 2 games, or do you force yourself to play a bad match up or two during the first 5 games so that both teams are available to be used in the final round? After all, your opponent could have the choice, and if you don't you could wind up having your flings bummed by his dwarfs for example.

When you have an insistence upon 3 and 3 over 6 rounds then the final round forces both players to use the team they have left. This takes away all potential for a very important choice to be left at the end and can result in the final round boiling down to a couple of very one sided match-ups which can eff up the whole final standings.
If we're playing purely for shits and giggles then that's fine, but I do know that a few of you care about how you finish at the larger tourneys

[Purplegoo]

I understand, I just think that having 4 sets of Woodies (or whatever you have as 'best' up your sleeve) and fewer important decisions to make about what you use now and what you will have left makes it less tactical and less, well, fun. There's no sense of danger there, nor any advantage for intelligent planning. I get your view, I just think it accomplishes the very opposite of what you're attempting.

Allowing 4 and 2 isn't he same as it being a one team tournament, but a competitive coach might well take the view, on a favourable round one draw, that he gets a '2' out of the way quick, and then it's essentially a one team run in.

Anyway, anyway. Enough from me.

[Sizzler]

I really enjoyed this format and would welcome more of the same next year.

I think 3 and 3 is the way to go. Having one team 'in the bank' significantly minimises the risks of playing your best team early. I like the theorum that playing all of your best cards early leaves you with a weak hand later in the tournament. It adds an element of strategy that Blood Bowl seems to be missing nowadays.

[robsoma]

Yeah I vote for keeping things mostly the same. Only thing I would possibly change is not being able to take 2 teams from the same tier maybe? Other than that I thought it was a great alternative gimmick!

[Leipziger]

+1 to doing the same next year, Bren.

[Pipey]

Regarding tiers and your suggestion Matt...

I'd rather not force people to take races of any tier, but it could be incentivised thus:

-Tiebreak #1 is highest combined tier score so Barney would've scored 8 (goblins+flings =4+4) and Mattrobson, Manj, Podfrey, Winkle_Picka et al would've scored 2 i.e. 1+1.

-Tiebreak #2 Opponents Scores

-Tiebreak #3 tn+cn (net TD + net casualties)

Thoughts?