Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mischiefmaker]

mischiefmaker def. houseofel (eatraister), 4-0, in the 11-22 Chapel division round 2 matchup.

Game 1: http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/05/game-20111205-193511-4aafcb34.html
I opened silver/silver into a straight IGG rush; houseofel opens Remake/Silver and picks up a couple extra Remakes to deal with the Curse onslaught. In the end game, houseofel's Remakes and superior economy allow him to pick up a Province and Harem while trashing away half his Curses, but luck was with me, as I was able to buy a Duchy every turn except one after the IGG's run out en route to a 20-13 victory.

Game 2: http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/05/game-20111205-193914-0662f913.html
I open Workshop/Workshop into a Gardens rush; houseofel opens Monument/Masquerade. To his credit, houseofel realizes almost immediately my intention, and contests Gardens, getting a 4-4 split. The extra Workshops were the difference, I think, as I'm able to get more Workshops and drive the game to a 3-pile ending. Close game, though -- I had 34 cards and he 26; had he managed to get over 30 this might have turned out very differently. 22-17 final score.

Game 3: http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/05/game-20111205-194518-dd63d502.html
I opened JoaT/Silver, houseofel elected JoaT/Lookout. I get a turn 4 gold, which seems pretty lucky; houseofel counters with a turn 5 Province. houseofel then gets 2 Margraves and a Border Village, while I get Gold and Margrave. The end game is pretty tense; I consider breaking PPR but go the safe route, ending the game on a somewhat-lucky Gold-Gold-Silver Margrave'd hand. This was an ultra-fast game that could have been even faster (13 turns) which probably turned on me having slightly better treasure density, but it was also close, 38-30.

Game 4: http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/05/game-20111205-195804-8cddd325.html
This one was a complete clash of styles; I went for a huge engine with attacks to slow him down while he went for a more straightforward deck of money and a few key actions. Identical starting hands was huge here, as we both opened 5/2 on a board where there were no $2s and only one $5, Saboteur.

His deck races out to a quick lead, grabbing his third Province on turn 11 while I have zero, and I have a strong urge to abandon my engine and try to catch up. He makes a nice move picking up a Salvager to speed up the endgame, but my engine starts rolling. Between discarding his Salvagers with my Scrying Pools and hitting a Province with my Saboteur, I manage to catch up, finishing with a double-Province turn to close out the series 34-21.

Thanks to houseofel for some fun games!

[Delseban]

Do you have an explanation, Delseban?

When I agreed to play an 8th game with def, it was because he told me that isotropic had glitched and caused his alchemist to not return to the top of his deck. I had no idea at the time that he was lying. I assumed he was being honest, so after he quit that game, I accepted his offer to play a final game. It seemed only fair at the time, since the reason he gave for quitting that game was that there was a glitch. I didn't realize he hadn't played a potion, or I would have caught on to his lie right away. However, he forfeited the game before I was able to be sure, and he didn't give me the chance to agree.

I had no reason to suspect he was lying, so I thought I'd do the nice thing and play an extra game with him, knowing full well that I could've ended it right there and counted his premature forfeit (before I had a chance to fully examine the situation) as a loss. But I figured it would be fair to play another game, if a glitch really did happen. However, I see now that there was no glitch at all. def claimed that the game was unfairly tainted because isotropic didn't return his alchemist when it should have. "I'm sure I clicked to return my alchemist,"  he told me. Obviously, this was not true. And now he is trying to claim that he made a mistake. Did he? Possibly. But the fact is, he quit the game on his own before I was able to notice that the "glitch" wasn't true. And he happened to do so right after I bought the first possession.

I realized when I looked at the logs that he was trying to take advantage of my kindness.  I really don't understand why he would have tried to pull that sort of trick, but you can understand how shocked I was when I saw that no glitch had taken place at all. And the fact that he is trying to put some of the blame on me makes me feel even more confident that I am right. His argument is that I should have noticed that he hadn't played a potion and called him out on it then, but I had no chance to scroll up and check before he quit the match. I hadn't noticed anything, because I took his word for it. Obviously, I shouldn't have, but it's too late for that now, and the fact is that he forfeit that game for an illegitimate reason, and that is why I think that game should count, rather than the bonus game.

[DStu]

Screen or it didn't happen... [Fortunately I have not to decide what happens if "it" didn't happen...]

[mith]

Gardens Division, Round 2 - (6) mith d. (38) Slurms, 4-3

Game 1: Slurms 5-15 mith
Game 2: Slurms 33-50 mith
Game 3: Slurms 43-40 mith
Game 4: mith 24-36 Slurms
Game 5: mith 41-48 Slurms
Game 6: mith 76-53 Slurms
Game 7: Slurms 8-30 mith

Game 1 had two of the cards I seem to play best... and as much as I love Governor (especially with Militia on board!), IGG-rush wins.

Game 2 was Rabble-heavy; I grabbed more Farming Villages as a defense, and ignored Gold in favor of more Rabbles, and falling behind early wasn't such a big deal as I was able to hit him hard and draw most of my deck every turn.

Game 3 I thought was in the bag as well, as I built a nice Scheme/Scrying Pool/Conspirator engine... only to see it completely crumble when we started greening. I got to 4 Provinces, but fell behind on the Duchies, and he was finally able to buy the last Province to win before I could empty a third pile.

Game 4 was an ugly Ambassador game (on a 5/2 split, even). I made an early mistake of trying to clog him with my early Cellars (ended up slowing down my cycling too much), and he got the better of the Grand Market race (at which point those Cellars really boosted his Province buying power).

Game 5 was a Chapel race, and I had the better early luck with Golds, but his Bazaar/Courtyard combo made for a more even distribution and let him keep pace. I hadn't trashed one of my Estates, and had he risked breaking the PPR on turn 15 I probably would have won by Apprenticing a Gold, but instead he was only able to buy an Estate... at which point I probably could have ensured a draw by going for the Province but instead went for the "likely win" with a Duchy buy. He broke PPR the next turn, but my deck completely stalled, getting stuck on 7 turn 20 and 6 after Apprenticing a Gardens turn 21, and eventually we finished the third pile.

Game 6 had some neat phases for me; I opened Loan/Talisman to trash my Coppers and rush into a Crossroads/Conspirator build, and I was able to Mint later to take my deck down to a single Copper (+5 Conspirators = $11!). Slurms used Native Villages more over Crossroads, and took some Platinums as well, as he was unlucky to get stuck on 10 several times. For once, my early lead held up as the Crossroads combated the clogging.

Game 7 was a nice long Familiar battle. With a 5/2, he opened Tactician while I grabbed the Potion first. We both grabbed some Universities and Walled Villages after an even Curse split, and he went for a Margrave draw deck with money, while I took a second Tactician early and started grabbing Monuments for my points. Soon after he got to Platinum, I hit a quadruple-Monument turn to seal the game with the only Colony buy, and ran out the Estates to finish the series.

Great set of games, thanks again Slurms!

[Qvist]

Is there a way to search for solitaire games in councilroom, or search for games by a specific date/time?  I'm asking because my opponent (bozzball) didn't show up at our agreed-upon time on Sat 8 PM GMT, and I'd like to submit my game as proof that I was waiting on Isotropic at the time.

I didn't see a response to that matter, but in the bracket Dark Force advanced. Can I assume that we can continue and schedule our match?

[def]

@Delseban:
Don't say I was lying when I plausible explained that I didn't. That's a huge accusation.
As I said twice already, you could have noticed that I had no Potion in play.

I have no screen as proof, neither have you. I remember you said "sure" after I asked if it's ok for you to play another game. I didn't force you to play another game by immediately resigning, it was after we mutually agreed to do so. You didn't say "wait a moment" or anything. You had any chance to explain your thoughts, but you didn't.
That is the main point here. You say you didn't had the chance to think about it properly, I say you did and agreed. I say I waited and gave you every time to agree on playing again. There is no way to prove any of this two opposing claims. But there are signs on what may have happened:

See, even if I resigned early on, giving you no chance to check things like you claim, well, you know, you are still in the same screen after I resigned. There is the log available for you to check if everything went right.

Instead, you didn't, saying you had no chance to do so (which is definitely not true. There was every time to check the log!) AND you accepted my proposal of a new game. Nobody forced you to do this.

And of course I was sure I clicked to return the Alchemist. It just turned out that I wasn't clicking to return it, but to clean it up. That was no lie! I just didn't understand the interface there. Second false accusation here.

Forfeiting AFTER asking the opponent whether it is ok do so and play a new game is no illegitimate reason, either. I didn't hypnotize you. You had every chance to create your own opinion, to check the gamelog for the Potion, to not immediately accept the new game, and so on. You just didn't. And now you blame me that you didn't. It's not my task to think for you, every of your decision was yours.

The fact that you just bought a Possession is not making things better, but like I said, the game was nowhere over yet. Maybe 60-40 for you.

Man, you could have sent me a personal message before posting here, asking what's going on. We could have explained things and maybe find a solution. It's just bad to post here that you won here without doing so before, saying I was lying and letting me believe everything is alright.

Now we have a problem. That's a tournament for fun with nothing big to win, so no reason for both of us to cheat here. But still both of us think the other one acted horribly wrong, and like I tried to explain, both of us made mistakes and both are wrong a bit. That's not the intent of a tournament I participated in to have fun, which I already lost here. I could say now "hey, take your win, I've lost all the fun of playing already", but I won't do so, since it sounds like a confession of guilt.
I carefully avoided ad hominem arguments in my first post and you just go "def was lying here and there" without solid proof, based on assumptions that are wrong due to what I already explained in earlier posts. I won't accept that.

That's the one thing. The other thing is, what should happen with the tournament. What do you think, theory?

[Qvist]

It's just bad, that there is this problem with def and Delseban.
IMHO you should replay the 7th game again.

[Thisisnotasmile]

I think you both made mistakes in the way you acted to handle the situation. I think the best way to move forward would be to have a rematch. Best of 1, 3, 7, whatever. Just have a new match to erase that one from history. It's not up to me though, that's just my thoughts on the situation.

Edit: And if a rematch is chosen as the correct next step, it should be done with you both agreeing to accept it's result in this thread before the match begins. That way, there can be no doubt whether it's results should stand or not.

[theory]

In this last game, there was a bug. Now that I see the log, I played no Potion turn 9, but isotropic offered me to put back Alchemist, two Treasuries, Herbalist (what the?) and Treasure. I was very confused about the Herbalist there and thought that I could put Alchemist back, not noticing I didn't play a Potion. I chose to put an Alchemist back and totally didn't understand why it didn't appear in my next hand. We both didn't notice that I didn't play a Potion. Long story short, thinking it was a bug that changed the game (instead of only a bug in what is displayed), both of us agreed to not end this game, which I was very thankful for, especially since Delseban got a Possession next turn. I would have played on otherwise, instead of resigning. If Delseban would have reminded me that I didn't play a Potion or wouldn't have agreed on replaying the last match, this wouldn't have happened, I would have played on and maybe lost, maybe won (I felt my deck was tighter there so I could grab Possession soon, too, and play it more regularly, but that's speculating. But it was no way near a lost game. And even if, see, I ended the other games where I noticed early on that I would lose instead of resigning.)

So if you guys talked about the problem before you resigned, why weren't you able to look in the log and realize that you played no Potion?  You didn't actually suffer a harm, you just thought you did.  But shouldn't the previous turn log have indicated to you that you shouldn't have gotten your Alchemists back?

I'm inclined to believe that this is one of those situations where both sides should keep in mind the maxim "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence."  But I would like this little puzzler cleared up.

[GendoIkari]

Man I know that my opinion shouldn't count for much in regards to this, but it seems to me what matters the most is the 7 of those 8 games that were actually fully played out. Game #7 was ended early, and it was ended at a time that either player could have easily had the victory. Indeed it was def's misreading of iso that caused the whole problem, but I think what's important is that def didn't really gain any advantage from playing an 8th game, instead of just finishing the 7th. Purchasing a Possession is hardly indication that the game is over. If Delseban did agree to cancel the current game and play an 8th instead, it seems irrelevant which of the two players actually resigned.

I mean, in my round 1, my opponent had to resign 3 games up front because of technical difficulties early on. I certainly wouldn't have thought to declare those victories on my part. Once it was agreed to start a new game, I didn't care which of us resigned.

[theory]

It was disingenuous for Delseban to post the logs and claim victory without any mention of what happened in game 7.

It was disingenuous for def to resign when there was no actual glitch, there was no harm to him, he should have known there was no glitch, and he was slightly behind.

Unless dougz has some kind of chat log, however, there's not enough evidence to award victory to either side.  So I would advise playing a best-of-3 to settle this (you can make it a best-of-7 if both of you agree), with a warning that if either of you pull these kinds of shenanigans again, either now or later in the tournament, you're both kicked out.

[def]

Many who know a bit of psychology know the phenomenon of selective perception, demonstrated in an experiment where people are told to count the number of basketballs passed by some players. Then, suddenly, a gorilla walks through the scenery. Some/many/most people don't notice. This seems ridiculous if you know about it and watch the video, but test other people if they fall for it.
Equally ridiculous seems the fact that I didn't check for the Potion, too. I was so sure about it, because I thought I was offered to put the Alchemist back, that I didn't consider any other possible explanation, which is rationally seen stupid, but no big surprise in the heat of the moment.
That's why I didn't notice that things went right even if I should have.

It was still a mistake, and I don't neglect that.

[Delseban]

@theory:
I admit it was a bit silly of me to just post the logs and act like nothing happened. To be honest, I guess I was just sort of surprised, and it made me rush to post the result. I saw the log and just thought "Wait? What? Seriously? I accepted a loss because you claimed there was a glitch, when in reality, absolutely nothing happened? No way I am letting you get away with that!" and I guess I just tried to post what I thought should be the real result and hope it was accepted. I didn't really think about the issue that def would bring up. And I wasn't sure what to say, anyway. I didn't really know how to explain it, I was just confident that I deserved the victory, so I posted.

@def:
Okay, you are right, I did have the opportunity to look at the game log during the results screen, but I didn't think of it at that moment, I just exited back to the lobby. And what difference does it make? If I had seen it right then, I would have called you out on it right away and denied you an extra game. But, I never saw the log, and that is why I took your word for it and played another game. I don't like how you try and make me look bad just because I took your word instead of looking into it. Maybe I should have looked, but I don't really fault myself just for being trusting. And I don't understand why you are saying that I had enough time to agree to your proposal. As soon as your next turn started (After I had bought the possession), you started talking about how there was a glitch, and that it was only fair to do another match, and you forfeited.

Anyway, if the only way to resolve this is to play another set of matches, then I suppose that's what has to be done. I just hate knowing that I had the advantage and could have won, but was denied the chance. Anyway, this tournament certainly is about having fun, and I can't say I especially want to play def again or continue further, but I guess I'll do it, since there's no reason not to. So...if you are up for another match, then we can do that. I am fine with best of 3, or best of 5, or 7. It's up to you. Let me know via PM.

[Rabid]

Not sure how relevant it is but the wrong player went first in game 8.
Def won game 6, resigned game 7, then got to go first in the replacement game 8.

[ackack]

Not sure how relevant it is but the wrong player went first in game 8.
Def won game 6, resigned game 7, then got to go first in the replacement game 8.

To me this is probably the decisive argument for some sort of replay.

[theory]

Good point.  Delseban ought to be first player in the next match.

[timchen]

What theory says counts, but I am with def.

There are facts. Hiding from the facts is just wrongdoing. If I were Delseban, and I have discovered this issue before his own posting, I would certainly have discussed with def before I posted my own victory. At the very least I will state fairly that we have played the eighth game and why I think I deserved the win.

Right now, even though this is just speculation, it looks more like that Delseban actually discovered the issue from this particular discussion, which could only happen after his own post. If I were def this is enough reason for me not to play any more.

[theory]

There are facts. Hiding from the facts is just wrongdoing. If I were Delseban, and I have discovered this issue before his own posting, I would certainly have discussed with def before I posted my own victory. At the very least I will state fairly that we have played the eighth game and why I think I deserved the win.

Agreed.  On the other hand, ending a game while slightly behind because of an alleged glitch that even if it existed, did not harm you, is at best gross negligence and at worst plain gamesmanship. 

Maybe the philosophers can debate about which one is more objectively culpable, but to me, they're both culpable enough to warrant a rematch.

[olneyce]

olneyce (8 seed) vs. Arvidsson (40 seed) in the Chapel division

olneyce wins 4-3.  Five of the games were extremely close and this thing really could have gone either way.  We played with random cards, no point counter, and without identical starting hands.  The first player won 6 of the 7 games, I think.

I only remembered to grab four of the logs.  I’ll post the rest tomorrow when they’re up on Council Room.

Game 1: Arvidsson 54 – olneyce 56
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-091121-e2532066.html
Dukes and Silk Roads on the board.  I think I started greening too early, but it did help me get a 6/2 Duchy split, which ended up being the difference.  I totally lost track of the count by the end, so I just gambled and bought up the last estate, hoping that my Dukes would beat his Silk Roads.  Which they (barely) did.

Game 2: Arvidsson wins
This was an ambassador slog.  He got Stables relatively early, while I focused on buying up a bunch of Schemes and a couple Conspirators.  However, I couldn’t manage to get my deck tight enough to trigger the Conspirators regularly.  By the time my buying power kicked in, I was down a couple Provinces.

Game 3: olneyce wins
He had a 5-2 start on a board with Hunting Parties and Crossroads.  I thought that was going to kill me, but I managed to claw my way back.  He got some unlucky draws in the middle that really helped me out.  At the end I had a bunch of decision points.  Should I break the PPR down by 4, when there’s some chance he might be able to buy both of the last Provinces?  I decided not to, and then next turn had $15, one short of what I needed to close things out.  On the final turn I drew my entire deck and got the extra copper necessary to buy the last two Provinces.  He also had a turn toward the end where he was $1 short of being able to buy the penultimate Provinces + a Duchy, which would have put him permanently out of reach.

Game 4: Arvidsson 41 – olneyce 31
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-100844-be8220a1.html
Kings Court and Margrave were the key cards here.  I’m always a bit lost in King’s Court games, and it was no exception here.  I got one but literally never played it, while Arvidsson bought like 8 of them and played them repeatedly.  My thought was to just buy golds and speed my way to 5 Provinces, but (obviously) that didn’t work out.

Game 5: olneyce 63 – 17 Arvidsson
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-102336-e8cbaaa1.html
I constructed a double Goons/Caravan/Chapel engine that drew my whole deck every turn.  He didn’t buy a Chapel, and it really made a difference.  I was a bit worried about the Torturer, but I trimmed my deck so quickly that I could just take on the curses and them immediately Chapel them.  Partway through the game I also realized that Crossroads (the only +actions on the board) synergized nicely with Harems – bumping up my buying power without hurting my ability to draw my whole deck every turn.

Game 6: Arvidsson wins
This was a Governor game.  I had bad luck using it to draw toward mega-turns – and probably starting using it to draw cards way too early.  I also miscounted and broke the PPR in a circumstance where he only had to get a Province and Gardens to beat me, which he promptly did.

Game 7: olneyce 31 – 9 Arvidsson
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-104952-24392781.html
I’m proud of this one.  It’s probably the best I’ve ever played with Develop.  I opened Spice Merchant/Develop and immediately developed it into an IGG and another Develop, which I then used to develop the IGG into a gold.  There was also Expand on the board, which meant I could develop gold into an Expand and another IGG.  And it meant that I could develop Expand into a Province and Gold.   I think Develop is a pretty bad card most of the time but in circumstances like this it is just a killer.  Develop+IGG struck me as so good that it might deserve being called a combo.  It’s just a beast when you can happily destroy a $4 card, give your opponent a curse, and then get your $4 card back AND get a gold.

[Turambar]

Gardens Division, Turambar beats Robz888 4-3.

Game 1: Turambar 59 Robz888 36
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-113415-90a8cc41.html

Game 2: Turambar 45 Robz888 26
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-114302-d429250a.html

Game 3: Turambar 30 Robz888 42
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-115231-f8917d3f.html

Game 4: Turambar 34 Robz888 36
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-115936-88c5ee4c.html

Game 5: Turambar 33 Robz888 30
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-120440-5c90de22.html

Game 6: Turambar 33 Robz888 35
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-120926-bde99de6.html

Game 7: Turambar 43 Robz888 29
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-121651-a2d58776.html

Thx for the games, some really close ones!

[Robz888]

Gardens Division, Turambar beats Robz888 4-3.

Game 1: Turambar 59 Robz888 36
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-113415-90a8cc41.html

Game 2: Turambar 45 Robz888 26
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-114302-d429250a.html

Game 3: Turambar 30 Robz888 42
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-115231-f8917d3f.html

Game 4: Turambar 34 Robz888 36
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-115936-88c5ee4c.html

Game 5: Turambar 33 Robz888 30
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-120440-5c90de22.html

Game 6: Turambar 33 Robz888 35
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-120926-bde99de6.html

Game 7: Turambar 43 Robz888 29
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-121651-a2d58776.html

Thx for the games, some really close ones!

In Game 7, I lose the Tournament race, and thus lose the tournament. Fitting!

Very bummed to be out, but it was a lot of fun! Congrats, Turambar, and a hearty thanks to the people who set this up.

[Thaddeas]

The Gardens Division
adf : Thaddeas
2 : 4

game 1
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-141216-6950d538.html
0:1

game 2
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-142857-cd9680e8.html
0:2

game 3
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-143548-fd563075.html
1:2

game 4
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-144113-860bcee2.html
1:3

game 5
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-144941-7d16e844.html
2:3

game 6
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-145453-8092ed26.html
2:4

[Captain_Frisk]

*Edit: Thief Division*

The Thief Division
rakovsky : Captain_Frisk
1 : 4

game 1: Captain_Frisk 42 : 36 Rakovsky
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-153123-89e25008.html
I have a suspicion that we both would have been better off playing envoy - money.  Rakovsky's final duchy buy that activated my cities had no effect.

game 2: Captain_Frisk 18 : 14 Rakovsky
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-153927-410a2d7d.html

Rakovsky is a good player, but this wasn't as close as the score indicated... I built a DISGUSTING university / apprentice / peddler engine, and ended it early with a slick buy out of the last 2 curses.  This was one of those games where you were gaining cards and playing them on the same turn.  One of the RARE times where university shined.

game 3: Rakovsky 44 : 36 Captain_Frisk
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-154902-c81611d4.html
I hit the jackpot with my develop / smithy opening, but still managed to lose this one.  I didn't get to do as much of the crazy Develop 5cost -> Border Village + Smithy and put them both on my deck as I had expected.  I had a "Wharf Whiff" on turn 14, where I didn't draw any wharfs to keep going crazy, and knew the game was over.

game 4:  Captain_Frisk 57 : 43 Rakovsky
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-155558-279d3846.html
In colony games, trashing is key.  I'm confident that buying the trading post over the vault was the decider in this match.  Don't be fooled by the final deck composition, that trading post was mine for 75% of the game, and I gave it to Rakovsky when it was no longer useful.

game 5: Captain_Frisk 46 : 29 Rakovsky
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201112/06/game-20111206-160559-4c3a4415.html
Equal splits gave us both 5/2 on a board with Cartographer, Explorer, and Horn of Plenty.... Rakovsky decided to downbuy a Salvager, while I went with explorer / cellar.  I'm pretty confident that I made the right call, but this could have gone either way.

[Fabian]

I'm up 3-1 for now against Young Nick in the Thief division. Here are the game logs so far, with no commentary because the games are so awkward and.. suboptimally played by both of us

Fabian 29 - 41 Young Nick
Fabian 53 - 52 Young Nick
Fabian 38 - 16 Young Nick
Fabian 47 - 40 Young Nick

[jonts26]

Chapel Division - Round 2
jonts26 4-1 serishmus

Game 1: jonts26 24-15 serishmus
Game 2: jonts26 38-29 serishmus
Game 3: jonts26 58-55 serishmus
Game 4: jonts26 37-48 serishmus
Game 5: jonts26 9-3 serishmus

Thanks to serishmus for a fun series. Quick thoughts:

Game 1: Envoy/BM mirror. This game actually didn't finish due to serishmus losing his connection. He let me decide what to do with it and I decided to just take it because I was already at a significant advantage.

Game 2: Bad board for a 5/2, but that's what identical starting hands is for. I opted for Ghost Ship/nothing open and he bought down for monument. I'm not really sure if a mandarin/mint opening is viable, but Ghost ship seems like a card which makes it even worse.

Game 3: Mountebank/Colony game. Black market was promising. He got an early ambassador, I got an less early chapel. He got out to a huge early lead, but stalled too soon and I was able to come back.

Game 4: Smithy/BM mirror. Nothing too exciting. Serishmus takes it.

Game 5: My favorite board of the series. Border Village/Wharf is strong here. I buy Governors earlier and use my extra turn and great final draw to end the game prematurely on piles.