Heckler's Tournament

2년 전

OK, I'm going to attempt to "run" a tournament... This will be something a bit different so we'll see how it goes.

For this tournament, all pieces that can attack (melee or magic/ranged Destroy) all 8 spaces around them are banned. Any piece that cannot kill a unit in at least 1 space next to them is OK; EXCEPT the following, which are also banned: Medusa (all tiers), FrostMage++/+++, PoisonMage above base tier, Gnome+++, StoneMage (all tiers), SoulKeeper++/+++, VoidMage above base tier, and Lilith (all tiers).
I will consider banning some or all of Toad, but for now I'm inclined to leave it in (because of its attack mechanics that make its adjacent attacks blockable). I will consider rants for/against inclusion of units if the reasoning seems sound to me.

(Edit 12/5/20):
I have decided to go ahead and ban Swordsman ++/+++, Hoplite (all tiers), and Necromancer (all tiers).

Game play is as normal, except:
1] Whenever a piece moves next to an enemy piece such that it can affect that enemy (including non-lethal actions) but that enemy cannot affect it, the enemy king receives -1 Value (which, obviously, would have to be kept track of manually). If it moves in such a way that this happens to more than 1 piece, each one supplies a penalty. These penalties are only accrued when the piece is moved (after moving to a penalty position, if both pieces remain in that position, no new penalties are accrued), but piece movement can occur from any source (e.g., Wind Magic, Siren's Call, Lust's pull, etc).
However, ending the game by reducing the opponent's morale to 0 by this manner is a draw -- reduction of morale to or below 0 must be done by an attack or Morale Decay in order to count as a win.

2] Morale Decay will "equalize" the kings' Value penalties with morale: for every point of Morale Decay, 1 point of each king's Value penalty is reduced. (Clarification example: A king with -3 augmented Value from positioning penalties (#1, above) will be at -2 Value after a turn of Morale Decay. No other Value penalties are adjusted by Morale Decay (such as losing your king))

(Added 12/4/20):
3] Minions that promote to one of the banned units can still be used and even promoted (if they themselves aren't banned) -- but the promoted (banned) unit cannot perform any action other than moving to an unoccupied location (or swapping with an ally, where applicable). It will not create positional penalties by moving, but can be moved in order to escape danger, block a threat, or just waste a move. It is, in essence, just a morale bank. Please note that if the promoted (banned) unit swaps with an unbanned ally unit, and the movement of the unbanned unit results in a position as stated in Rule #1, a positioning penalty will apply.

I will pair up contestants randomly. Winner must post the export of their game here, loser should verify result by commenting on that post. Hopefully everyone will help me make sure that nothing was incorrectly calculated (e.g., missing or extra king penalty).

Jokes about how convoluted this is are, of course, accepted -- since they're easy enough to ignore. ;)
...But if you're going to do that sort of thing, please do it by responding to the last person that did it so that the rest of this thread is for the tournament players (unless you're the first one, obviously).

I'll give 25 RP to 1st place, 15 RP to 2nd, and 10 RP to 3rd.
As per usual in these things, anyone willing to contribute more is welcome.

Sign ups start now, tournament starts on the 7th and ends on the 14th, midnight PST. Submissions timestamped after that will be disqualified.
Sign up by responding to the last person that signed up (unless you're the first, obviously) to keep this thread as clean as possible. Thanks.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

this may need some clarification:
2] Morale Decay will "equalize" the kings' Value penalties with morale: for every point of Morale Decay, 1 point of each king's Value penalty is reduced.

I think this could refer to move decay or rule #1 / king decay, -25, or both

(My guess is it refers to the -1 value from #1, and acts as a measure for losing a king that has negative value, but there seem to be multiple 'valid' interpretations)

It is maybe a bit convoluted, but should be ok on a turn-by-turn basis. There might be some scenarios where multiple things are being threatened on a single turn that complicates it a little, but using ingame chat to track +/- may help. This would be a good time to have actual time control settings for custom games I suppose.

·

OK, I edited my original post -- I think/hope I clarified what I meant adequately, and yes, you were correct in your interpretation.

I also clarified a bit of #1... or I made it more opaque.

I'll sign up

·

I'm signing up too.

·
·

Since it appears that there are only going to be 2 of you playing, I'm going to allow 2 games with different armies. For the first army, please use the ban list in the original post. For the second, also add Ranger, Lich, FireElemental, Alchemist, and PoisonMage (all tiers for all) to the ban list.

I will then award 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place prizes accordingly (so one of you will end up with 2 prizes).

·
·
·

Here are the replays of our games:
Round 1:
GodOfTomatoes-e3Gewinnt
54,whitename,blackname,2500,2500,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,King,Axeman,,,,,Militia3,Bishop3,Knight3,Axeman,,,,,Duelist2,Fencer4,Angel,Samurai,,,,,Duelist2,Hydromancer4,Fortress,Samurai,,,,,Pikeman2,King,Ranger2,Samurai,,,,,Pikeman2,Demon3,Lust,Samurai,,,,,Duelist2,Hydromancer4,ArchBishop,Militia3,,,,,Duelist2,Fencer4,ArchBishop,Militia3,,,,,Militia3,Bishop3,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,49,35,13,20,50,36,10,19,54,46,4,13,46,39,13,21,36,22,15,22,39,30,22,30,30,22,7,22,35,17,8,17,62,44,1,18,44,30,22,13,30,38,20,27,53,44,11,20,57,43,2,10,44,30,10,11,38,37,11,34,43,44,34,59,60,59,19,28,37,1,18,1,44,8,0,8,8,0,1,0,59,25,3,19,25,19,12,19,61,38,20,29,38,43,21,12,43,29,13,4,29,3,12,30
0-1 morale extra rule
Round 2:
GodOfTomatoes-e3Gewinnt
54,whitename,blackname,2500,2500,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,ArchBishop,Militia3,,,,,Militia3,Gluttony,ArchBishop,Militia3,,,,,Militia3,Gemini2,Knight2,Samurai,,,,,SoulFlare,Harpy3,Lust,Samurai,,,,,Drake2,King,Fortress,Samurai,,,,,Drake2,Demon3,Knight3,Samurai,,,,,SoulFlare,Harpy3,Angel,Axeman,,,,,Militia3,Gemini2,King,Axeman,,,,,Militia3,Gluttony,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,58,50,10,19,48,34,9,17,49,33,0,9,34,25,17,25,33,25,19,26,58,49,2,19,25,17,3,10,49,9,19,9,57,42,26,33,42,25,11,18,25,27,18,25,27,25,10,19,51,35,8,16,25,17,19,26,17,16,26,35,52,36,9,26,16,0,26,36,0,1,4,1,61,43,36,53,59,52,53,63,62,45,6,29,45,35,29,52,43,52,1,2
0-1 morale extra rule
"However, ending the game by reducing the opponent's morale to 0 by this manner is a draw -- reduction of morale to or below 0 must be done by an attack or Morale Decay in order to count as a win." I understand it correct, that the draw rule didn't apply?
We counted every ability for attack deffense. e.g push, when it wouldn't actually work, or SoulFlare vs. Champions, or melee attacks, which could get blocked by armour, is that correct?

·
·
·
·

My analysis of the 2nd game's positioning penalties:

whiteblack
-1(m1)Samurai/SoulFlare...
-1(m2)Militia/SoulFlare...
...-1(m6)Militia/Archbishop (before pull)
...-3(m7)Harpy/Militia+Archbishop+Lust
-1(m9)Samurai/Gemini...
-1(m10)Samurai/Gemini-1(m10)GeminiTwin/Samurai
...-1(m11)GeminiTwin/Samurai
-1(m13)Militia/GeminiTwin-2(m13)GeminiTwin/Militia+Knight
-2(m14)Lust/GeminiTwin+Drake...
-1(m15)Lust/SoulFlare-1(m15)Drake/Lust
...-1(m16)GeminiTwin/Archbishop
...-2(m18)Harpy/Lust+Knight
...-1(m19)King/Knight
-1(m22)Angel/SoulFlare...

white loses due to King loss penalty, which reduces white's morale to -1

As I was watching this, I realized that I actually didn't specify whether loss due to a king loss penalty meant a loss or draw.

My apologies for all of the ambiguities and confusion. I obviously should have thought this through a bit more...

Anyway, if both of you want to consider it black's win, that's fine (that only positioning penalties would be considered for the draw rule was my intention, but by not considering the king loss penalty, the written rules actually indicate that it was a draw by saying that only an attack or Morale Decay reducing morale to 0 counts as a win -- so whichever way you want to take it is fine by me, as long as you both agree).

·
·
·
·
·

I'm fine with counting them as his wins, but I do hope these rules are cleared up in the next version of this tourney that you run

·
·
·
·
·
·

OK, thanks. Sorry about that.

Well, at least I know you'd like me to run another. ;)

On the slightly more positive side, I recently acquired 20 more crowns, so you'll each get an extra 10 RP.

·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·

My analysis of the 1st game's positioning penalties (hopefully I didn't miss anything, but I may have):

whiteblack
...-1(m7)Duelist/Axeman
...-1 (m9)Fencer/Archbishop
-1(m16)Angel/Pikeman...
-1(m17)Samurai/Fencer-1(m17)Fencer/Axeman
...-1(m20) Demon/Axeman
...-2(m21)Demon/Samurai (x2)
...-1(m24)Hydromancer/Samurai
...-2(m25)Hydromancer/Archbishop+Ranger

white loses due to black's Ranger killing white's Duelist

As this is where you stopped, it looks as though our analyses matched, or at least were close. I'll check the other game now.

·
·
·
·

No, if it can't work, you can't do it, therefore it doesn't apply (it has to be able to affect the enemy unit in some manner -- note that breaking armour does affect the enemy unit, so an armoured unit that can block an attack with its armour does not count as being able to affect the enemy unit without repercussion (depending on the situation, of course)). Sorry if this was ambiguous.

I'll go ahead and accept the results for these based on how you understood the rules (unless you both want to replay them), but any subsequent games should not count any abilities toward positional penalties if they cannot be performed.

I haven't watched the games yet -- I'll look them over tonight.

·

Since it appears that there are only going to be 2 of you playing, I'm going to allow 2 games with different armies. For the first army, please use the ban list in the original post. For the second, also add Ranger, Lich, FireElemental, Alchemist, and PoisonMage (all tiers for all) to the ban list.

I will then award 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place prizes accordingly (so one of you will end up with 2 prizes).

You might ban swordsman+++, since it's the forward only alternative for a King move minion.
Notice that you kept some broken destroy pieces like base Necro.

·

OK, swordsman+++ is on the short list for being banned. I will decide over the weekend.

Is base Necro broken? It never seemed that bad to me (though I think I've only ever played against it with the AI)... but I'll consider it. It will help if others post an agreement with your position.

·
·

Imo freekills (e.g. Range 2 destroy) is broken in general, since it defeats the idea of a minion structure.
Necromancer also gives the discounted Skelleton+++ as a bonus.

In Ryans guide Necromancer0 has an excellent rating along with stall pieces like Dryad and other free kill pieces like Ranger (In common and rare only Dryad0/+, Ranger+ and Millitia0 are rated excellent too in the guide, iirc, but some legendaries like pride would pretty sure be on a simmilar powerlevel and VM++/+++ ofc OP).

But notice, if you ban all free kill pieces, then Lich+ and base, while being much weaker than Lich+++, will get pretty uncounterable, so they would need a ban too.

·
·
·

Uh... So how many/which pieces would I be banning (apart from the fairly large list of already banned units) if I did this?

·
·
·
·

You would Ban Necromancer0,+, Ranger+, Lich0,+, FireElemental0, Ranger0 and VoidMage0: 5 Units/ 8 tiers and probally additionally usable Range2 poison: (Alchemist0-+++ and PoisonMage0): 7 Units/ 13 tiers

I think you should ban hoplites- they will make everyone use a bunch of hoplite nuance and with a lot of that nuance banned they will be very difficult to beat actually I would advise banning all rush decks due to a lot of nuance being gone.

·

I hereby decree that I shall ignore all arguments using the word "nuance", unless its use actually matches the dictionary definition ("a subtle distinction"). Either that, or I'm going to start using a random word in a way that doesn't actually make waffles.

Also, generalities will be far less helpful (and thus likely to get a result) than specifics. Define what makes an army layout a "rush deck".

·
·

Nuance is just meant as an ironic synonym for rps in CEO.
A rush deck is a deck which tries to create an advantage or win at the very start of the game, typically by fast development.
I agree on banning hoplites. Hoplites are quite good rn and rush games really create rps instead of skill based games. Imo there aren't other viable rush tactics with ceo pieces rn tho, especially here, since Dovewall uses Sk++, so I wouldn't concern banning other rush pieces than hoplites.

·
·
·

Hoplites are now on the short list for being banned. I will decide this weekend.

I've also added rule #3 to neutralize banned units that enter the game via promotion.

·
·
·

I have banned Swordsman ++/+++, Hoplite (all tiers), and Necromancer (all tiers).

·
·

unknown.png

"nuance" has more than one definition, the developer of the game created this new terminology

·
·
·

Yeah yeah, and "literally" now means "figuratively" as well (literally the exact opposite definition) due to people that don't make waffles.

·
·
·
·

are you disrespecting the definition championed by the grand designer grandestine

·
·
·
·
·

It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘are’ is. If ‘are’ means is and never has been, that is one thing. If it means there is none, that is a completely true statement. … Now, if someone asks me on this day, are you having any kind of waffle relations with TheGrandestine, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have to say no. And it would be completely true.

·
·

Any army designed to win by breaking though a predetermined side in order to win is a rush deck. Hoplites are very difficult to beat without using destroy due to how well they trade and it will be even harder to beat them without king attackers. Hoplite rush also creates a large number phalanxs which would be nearly impossible to beat as almost all pieces with unblockable attacks at close range are banned due to being king attackers. This will just force everyone to run 2 necromancers in their army in order to have any hope of winning v. hoplites.

·
·
·

OK, I will put Hoplite on the short list. I will decide this weekend.

I have added a rule to neutralize banned units that enter the game via promotion (#3, in the original post) as well.

·
·
·

I have banned Swordsman ++/+++, Hoplite (all tiers), and Necromancer (all tiers).

·
·
·

Were you signing up, or just discussing?

·
·
·
·

Undecided- I don't have much time and still have to finish making units for Elias's tourney