Zjb12 said:

That's the beauty of the week long tournament. Plenty of time to play around and try new options.

New post coming soon.

Recently saw a link to this post to BBG from this site... www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/663646/challenge-accepted-how-i-beat-mirkwood-solo-with-1

This looks like a cool event... solo hero deck vs a quest.... all cards in pool welcome... what you think?

booored said:

Thanks booored. I think something like this would be a great challenge for the next time I run a tournament for Passage through Mirkwood. That one specifically will need some interesting parameters like this to keep it interesting over time and worth the focus of a tournament.

Even a max of 2 Heroes would make replaying that quest more challenging. One hero, with all cards welcome, could make for some very creative deck building choices (including songs and splashing from other spheres). Thanks for the idea. I'll keep it in mind for the next time around with the Core Set quests.

Wouldn´t that hero always be Theodred.......

muemakan said:

Hmmm... good point. Maybe. Though if it's open build one could use Song of Kings and SoG on any hero.

One option could be to allow a participant to rank multiple times in the top ten that week as long as it is with a hero from a different sphere than they already used to rank with. Do you think that would encourage more experimentation? Then again, that could "over value" that particular tournament.

Restricting number of heroes does seem like a good concept to play around with at some point. And PtM seems like a good quest for it.

Maybe using just 2 heroes would be a better place to start. Other thoughts?

Wednesday Announcement: December 21, 2011

(Sorry, got to this week's announcement a little late today...)

The next planned Solo Player Tournament will continue our venture through the Shadows of Mirkwood cycle. Beginning on December 25th, this weeklong tournament will feature:

Quest: Conflict at the Carrock
Deck Parameters: 1-3 Core Sets + HfG & CotC Adventure Packs
Number of Players: Solo Play – 1 Player/1 Deck

Get Ready!

Also, don’t forget about the current active 2 Player Tournament.

As always, thanks for playing,

juicebox.

A child who does not play is not a child, but the man who does not play has lost forever the child who lived in him.
Pablo Neruda
Chilean poet
1904–1973

Hey Juicebox, I just barely became aware of these competitions you are hosting. So far I'm having fun and I think it's a great idea. Here are a couple thoughts I have that might shake things up a bit:

1) Have some kind of rule about how many times a scenario can be played. Now maybe you can run two tourneys at the same time for the same scenario, one can be "play as many times as you want during the week" and the other can be limited. Perhaps each player can only have 3 attempts or something (though I would still keep it a week long so people can mess with decks or whatever). I just think that, though luck is an essential part of card games, being able to play 20 times, for example, increases the chances of getting a run of wicked good luck. This puts the odds in favor of the people with no life but it also takes away a bit of the skill, IMO. I would like to just have a few chances to try to really get something right. I might not always get a great score, but things would even out over several tournaments. Which leads to my next idea...

2) How about a scoring system that carries over from tournament to tournament, like the mariokart model? For example, give the first place finisher 9 points, the second place finisher 6 points, the third place finisher 3 points, and the 4th place finisher 1 point.... or something like that. Then let those points accumulate throughout an entire cycle of scenarios, or whatever, and determine a champion at the end based on points. This would take a bit more of a longt-term commitment in order to be competitive for the final prize, but it wouldn't prevent people from participating that only had time for a quest or two. And it would still allow people to see their name in the top 10 and get some satisfaction for putting together a good game, even if they don't crack the top whatever number of spots get awarded points.

Just some ideas. Thanks for doing this by the way. I think it's awesome. For such a young game, this community is great. There are lots of fun and generous people around.

~Vase

P.S. I also think there needs to be some clarification about mulligans and the starting hand. Technically, I can sit and draw as many times as I want because if I get a second draw that I don't like, I can just "forfeit" and start a new game, repeating the setup process to make it totally legal and honest. But it's still a way to cheat the system and it's lame. Of course, people can always cheat, but I'd like it if I knew that I were following a specific rule and that the people I'm competing against are at least claiming to be doing the same. What do you guys think?

juicebox said:

Already trying to build a deck for it..........this one will be soooo different.

Vase said:

Vase - WELCOME! Super glad you're playing and having fun.

Thanks too for the great ideas. Limiting the amount of times a scenario can be played is quite intriguing to me. At this point, I'll likely keep things consistent with how they have been for the upcoming handful of tournaments (Shadows of Mirkwood Cycle), but then it may be time to shake things up a bit. And your idea has a lot of potential to play with. Perhaps players could be limited to 3 chances per set of heroes? So, if you've used a particular set of heroes 3 times, you have to switch at least one out (and then get another 3 chances with that new combo), and so on. That way, people could continue to deck build and play many times throughout the week, but they would be "forced" to try new things (not just the same powerful combo of heroes over and over until the "perfect" run of cards strikes). Perhaps a strict rule about repeated mulligans could be worked into this way of doing things as well - to make each chance more meaningful. In any case, all this is to say - great idea. I'm going to consider something like it for a future tournament cycle.

[That said, I'd specifically like to welcome other feedback around this particular idea over the coming weeks.]

As to your second idea, have you checked out the Hall of Fame? There's a link to it in my signature. Kind of captures what you're suggesting but will include every Top Ten tournament result over time for every tournament hosted. Should get more and more interesting as time goes on.

Anyway, thanks for the solid feedback. I agree with you about the greatness of this community. Glad to be a part!

muemakan said:

Looking forward to seeing your brilliance showcased once again muemakan.

No pressure.

Wow, that sounded as I was bragging about my new deck. Actually I meant the quest will finally be different.

Cause being to fast will kill you right away.

I am guessing we´ll see more of Denethor and maybe also tactics decks......

muemakan said:

Actually, I was being genuine. You're a great player.

And yes, it's almost Grimbeorn time!

Wednesday Announcement: December 28, 2011

Next week begins the start of not only a new week, but also a new month and a new year! We’re all looking forward to the long anticipated Khazad-dûm release, and this round of Shadows of Mirkwood tournaments continue to rage on. In short, these are exciting times!

With both the 4th Solo Tournament and the 1st 2 Player Tournament coming to a close at the end of this week, January 1st will mark the beginning of two new tournaments. As foreshadowed, January 2012 will see us through the remaining adventures from the Shadows of Mirkwood cycle. Up next…

The next planned Solo Player Tournament will begin on January 1st, and this weeklong tournament will feature:

Quest: Journey to Rhosgobel
Deck Parameters: 1-3 Core Sets + HfG, CotC, & JtR Adventure Packs
Number of Players: Solo Play – 1 Player/1 Deck

The next planned 2 Player Tournament will begin on January 1st, and this month long tournament will feature:

Quest: Return to Mirkwood
Deck Parameters: Each Player may use 1-3 Core Sets + All Shadows of Mirkwood APs
Number of Players: 2 Players

As spelled out in a previous announcement on this thread (December 14th), I wanted to offer a second month long 2 Player Tournament before considering a revision to how long future multiplayer tournaments will run. I’m interested in how much “demand” there is for multiplayer tournaments. I imagine I’ll have a better sense of that after the December and January 2 Player Tournaments.

Also, I just wanted to mention that with it being New Years and all, I may be a little late in posting the close to the current tournaments, updating the Hall of Fame, and posting these forecasted new tournaments. But rest assured. It will happen. It may just be slightly later than usual. Happy New Year to everyone! Have fun and be safe.

As always, thanks for playing,

juicebox.

Play is our brain's favorite way of learning.
Diane Ackerman
Contemporary American author

I like the idea of changing heroes. Why not playing a scenario with two sets of six different heroes who have to cover cover all four spheres?

leptokurt said:

I'm intrigued... can you explain a little more about your idea? I'm not sure I completely follow.

juicebox said:

Players have to play the quest twice. Once with heroes A, B and C. Then with heroes D, E and F. All four spheres must be inluded.

Example:

First game you play with Beravor, Bilbo and Éowyn.

For the second game you have to use three different heroes and have to include leadership and tactics

Second game: Legolas, Théodred and Glorfindel

Game results would be added to a total score. You can even make it harder by naming some heroes that have to be used (or may not be used - yes, I'm looking at you, Éowyn!)

leptokurt said:

Mmmm... this has a very nice epic quality to it and would encourage people to break out of possible deck-building ruts they may have gotten stuck in along the way. I could imagine both decks having to be pre-constructed, so you're forced to use at least 100 cards (i.e. can't pull from your first deck to compliment your second deck). This has all kinds of potential.

juicebox said:

I would go even further and say that in all single player tournaments, only one core set may be used. Some of us only have one and there could be a disadvantage to that.

Zjb12 said:

I only have one core set but I printed out cards and put them in the sleeves of cards I won't use. Yes it is a little more time consuming but instead of going out and buying a new core set for just a few cards this is much better.

I don't think you have to limit the game to one coreset. They only card that IMO should be limited is Sneak Attack. The Hill Troll told me he's quite angry that they don't have such a card in the encounter deck. Heard him muttering something like "Sauron sucks...".

Question on the Top Ten List. Guess I should have been paying attention but I didn't think the ultimate Top Ten list would include both the solo and the multiplayer options. I figured they'd be seperate entities. Some of us just can't make the 2 player thing happened (I got a second player twice in December to try the 1st multiplayer tournament and each time we lost.) Also based on the numbers participating in the multiplayer I think there isn't going to be a whole lot of participants. Would this be the place to dicuss how we want to top ten list to reflect multiplayer tournaments vs. solo tournaments. Maybe seperate lists. Maybe seperate lists with a grand list?

Thoughts,

Wraith428

wraith428 said:

Hi Wraith428 and anyone else who may be asking a similar question...

It's a good question. It's one I wrestled with myself for a while. I made some posts on the topic early in the month of December and weighed options, soliciting feedback at that time for about two weeks before coming to a final decision. In the end, I decided to go with one overall compilation ranking system for the Top Ten Hall of Fame. For players currently like you and me (I'm in the same boat... only got in about four 2 player games during the entire month of December - just fortunate enough to have won one of them) it puts us at a disadvantage. On the other hand, it also motivates me to teach my friends this game and to seek out more opportunities to enjoy this game in a face to face social context (which in the long run will hopefully be good, both in general and for tournament play). Anyway, my decision landed with the compiled version of the Top Ten in order to purposefully advantage those who play the game in both its solo and multiplayer forms. Since the game was designed for both, I wanted to honor that. It's a cool part of the game design. Plus, I may want to start hosting 3 and 4 player tournaments at some point, and then I could imagine needing to create 4 separate Top Tens to follow the same line of thinking. Also, in general, it's less work for me to organize one overall Top Ten listing, and I want to make sure that I plan all this in a way that will help to keep it enjoyable for me (minimizing the tedious aspects of hosting) so that I can continue to host for a long time - to set it up to be more sustainable.

That said, there is nothing keeping someone (yourself or anyone else that would like to) from creating a thread that would feature multiple overall Top Ten rankings for Solo Player, Multiplayer, and whatever other ways of ranking that people dream up. Really, I've considered that it would be cool to have a ranking based on points per tournament (reflecting percentages or something) to give players newer to my tournament system the satisfaction of achieving a high rank even though it will take them a while to catch up (on the current ranking) with those of us who have been playing every tournament possible from the beginning. Anyway, I think that's a fun idea too. I just don't have the energy for it right now. But, if someone wanted to create that, all the data lies in the various tournament threads. It's just up to whether someone wants to take the initiative. They (you, if you want to do it) would have my blessing.

Thanks for your thoughts and for playing in and enjoying the tournaments. Your enjoyment shows, and it makes this game more fun for all of us.

Wednesday Announcement: January 4, 2012

The next planned Solo Player Tournament will continue our venture through the Shadows of Mirkwood cycle. Beginning on January 8th, this weeklong tournament will feature:

Quest: The Hills of Emyn Muil
Deck Parameters: 1-3 Core Sets + HfG, CotC, JtR, & HoEM Adventure Packs
Number of Players: Solo Play – 1 Player/1 Deck

Get Ready!

Also, be sure to enjoy the current active Solo Player Tournament and 2 Player Tournament (the ultimate capstone for this cycle through SoM).

As always, thanks for playing,

juicebox.

Just play. Have fun. Enjoy the game.
Michael Jordan
American basketball player

Yo Juicebox,

Thanks again for running these tourneys. I am having a blast competing with other players.

Unfortunately, this week's tourney has rewarded luck and repetition more than all else. Sure, the guys who came up with the creative deck-building solutions to beating this quest deserve to be rewarded for it. But I, like so many others, spent most of my time shuffling, drawing new starting hands, and then getting destroyed by the "unlucky" encounters. Unfortunately, after A LOT of tries, I never had that perfect storm come around so I didn't even get to post a score. But I was planning on writing a post on this thread even if I had managed to get a good score.

There is too much riding on repetition and luck, and not enough on initial deck build and creative game play. If number of tries were limited, we would all have to think a lot more carefully about our deck build, and then we would be forced to play through the hands we drew, which would in turn force us to make good in-game plays in order to salvage the best score possible, even when there is bad luck. In my opinion, this would be a better representation of who the better players are because, even though some will still get those lucky runs, the odds will even things out in the long run.

It might be too late to implement some type of rule like this for the remainder of the Mirkwood Cycle, but perhaps after that something could change. May I suggest you raise awareness of this idea to see if anyone else feels as I do. If it turns out that I'm not the only one who would like a change, perhaps there can be some good discussion and maybe even some voting on rules. I certainly don't claim to have the best solution for this situation, but I'm sure that as a community we can come up with a good compromise that can keep most everybody happy and having fun.

~Vase

Vase, et.al.,

So, in reading your note, I both agree and disagree.

I was one of those guys with a sub-30 score, but if you read the whole tournement log, you'll note I started out at 92. Then 65, 52, 37, 33, 31, and finally 28. I did play a ton of games and the perfect storm certainly has to brew to a point. However, this week I learned a lot about some cards I never fully understood, (PoL in particular). Before Wraith's 23, I thought the best score I could get was a 25 and that was getting 6 particular cards out of 11, (using 1x Sneak Attack on Gandalf to get an extra 3 cards during the game), and when that was managed, it just didn't work out. Then he goes and throws Bilbo instead of Glorfindel and I think, Bilbo? Really? So I keep my whole deck, except make this one switch and all of a sudden my possibilities open up a little more. Finally, a 28. Bilbo is more useful than I thought.

All this to say, I have really learned a lot through the tournaments, but in order to keep up with everyone else who understands the game a lot better and has played longer, I have had to play a lot, and really hard at times to keep in the fray! If I was limited to how many games I could play for the tournament, I am not sure if my overall gameplay would have improved as much as it has as well as deck building skills. For example, the same deck I used this past week for JtR, I also used with another person in a 2 player tournement for Mirkwood, and we took it out 2 games out of 3 and had the lowest score until yesterday. (Not that there are that many scores posted mind you!)

On the other hand, I do agree with you that limiting the amount of games one can play to post a score would level the playing field a bit because it would make us think more and force us to play through as you said.

Overall though, if we were to do that, I think you would want to start out that rule change with something like, "In this tournament you are limited to 25 game attempts." And then maybe start to decrease it from there over time.

Hope that all makes sense!