tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8450873825742504010.post7844069764699889913..comments2024-03-26T04:25:37.033-06:00Comments on Inferior Babble: Combat and Eggs, the Breakfast of Champions.Darby Keeneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17275817335729404133noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8450873825742504010.post-71323756624463613502012-05-18T13:53:40.190-06:002012-05-18T13:53:40.190-06:00Thank you for the correction. It is indeed possib...Thank you for the correction. It is indeed possible to salmon back-oust to 2-1-1-1. <br /><br />It's also something that I've never seen successfully done, in literally thousands of games over 16+ years). I guess that's why it wasn't on the forefront of my mind as an option :)<br /><br />But still, thanks again for pointing it out - I appreciate people pointing out inaccuracies (no, that wasn't sarcasm - it's genuine gratitude). <br /><br />-D.Darby Keeneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17275817335729404133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8450873825742504010.post-2796650806488626412012-05-18T08:11:23.361-06:002012-05-18T08:11:23.361-06:00FACT: Any deck reaching the 3-player stage without...FACT: Any deck reaching the 3-player stage without a VP <br />needs to achieve a sweep of that mini-game to garner a game win. <br />________<br /><br />I would state that this isn´t true.<br /><br />A pure salmon rush tactic will ideally get into the 3 player table with your original prey and grandprey with the grandprey having 1 vp. Since your predator was ousted first and then your original grandpredator gets ousted with 1 vp. You can then "miss" one vp by letting your prey take one vp and then oust him/her for a 2-1-1-1 table, but you should naturally try to get the three vp:sAbdul alHazredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05527248351909590845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8450873825742504010.post-65201163069105676802012-05-15T19:17:20.988-06:002012-05-15T19:17:20.988-06:00There's more in an upcoming post, not so much ...There's more in an upcoming post, not so much on picking your enemies (which is both hard to do and often counterproductive) but mostly on trying to get around the issues I raised here (crosstable rescues, VP deficits, avoiding the "table cop" role, playing the 3 player in ways that allow you to win, etc.). Expect that post in the next week or so - its proving tough to keep concise (might be 2 posts) and I parts 5/6 of Pool Management are eating time too.<br /><br />IIRC, the folks at Cause and Effect did a show that also touched on this somewhat, using a "tactical wheel" to describe the situation. Their webcast had some of the content you describe (picking a 3 player matchup)Darby Keeneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17275817335729404133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8450873825742504010.post-49898654267506395482012-05-15T18:34:29.300-06:002012-05-15T18:34:29.300-06:00It's very nice to see the "3-Player Theor...It's very nice to see the "3-Player Theory of Combat" getting confirmed by other people. Ours was based entirely from experiences of effective combat deck use.<br /><br />What I actually suspect is a good way for combat decks to ensure a minimum chance of time-out is to basically "Cut out the Deadwood" OR "Pick your Enemies". I think I'll write a post about it now...Juggernaut1981https://www.blogger.com/profile/09770878317522688714noreply@blogger.com