
Edited by WWDrakey
Props for performance and write-up, Drakey. Cheers!
Fantastic write up. It's great to see a true icon manipulation deck perform so well.
Nice write-up. On a side note, one of the reasons murder is less NPE is because it doesn't overstay it's welcome.
One of the complaints that I've started getting consensus on in NYC is that the reason control builds are so NPE is less because of the control and more about the fact that control doesn't just win once they've got the lock in. You play a 50 minute game where the non-control player really only did anything of significance in the first 20 minutes. Then it's just sitting there waiting for the slow-as-hell control deck to win.
I personally am all for conceding against control. I don't think anyone enjoys it when I concede, but I'm not going to waste 30 minutes of my time waiting for you to win.
Is conceding still frowned upon in this game? I always encourage people to do it since it's far more fun to just start another game once you think you've lost. It actually increases the fun you'll have cause you won't sit there for 30 minutes going "******* control..."
Is conceding still frowned upon in this game? I always encourage people to do it since it's far more fun to just start another game once you think you've lost. It actually increases the fun you'll have cause you won't sit there for 30 minutes going "******* control..."
This is completely my opinion, but in tournaments games people shouldn't be conceding.
T he most obvious reason would be the "comeback" where the player gets grip back to the game and ends the control players lock, this can happen when the control player does a fatal mistake while he is doing his learned pattern or if the locked down players draw is just better than control players (not the amount, but quality).
The other reason to not concede is a bigger one and it affects several players - timed wins.
If you are against a lockdown deck which cannot win in the tournament time you shouldn't let them win. Most likely if you start to play the game for power a deck like this will not win and in some cases you might even get a timed win out of it. This is something people did in the 6 agenda wildling meta, if your opponent was unable to win in time why give them full win?
Most importantly the opponent can only get a timed win in a situation like this, which currently can effect his score a lot especially if he gets several of these.
So the results of conceding can affect several players, maybe someone would have made the cut had not the control player gotten a full win from the concede, or perhaps people got different pairings because the player got a win out of the game. Since not all control decks are like this it doesn't happen too often. The more common concede against control which I have seen is the "oh they are about to call time, I think you have beaten me, I'll concede here so that you can get a full win" which for me is even more of a no-no. It sounds sportsmanship like at first, but again it is altering scores of a player in a bigger field and so it has an effect on the cut and pairings. It is giving the opponent advantage against the other field just because they played against a player who would more gladly concede before the time is called than let the game go to time.
Conceding is also a grey area thanks to the "throwing a game" addition to the tournament rules.
Also, while I can't see this really happening in a tourney... it is possible someone built a zero character deck that can't actually win, but can stop other players from winning.
I suppose Westeros Bleeds AND that targ location being on the restricted list does make this harder now.
Granted the ultimate troll would be a zero charachter greyjoy deck that just milled your deck until it was all gone.
NPE is a cop out IMO. There are several card interactions that present a far more NPE than a slow Bloodthirst build. I have a friend that plays a Stark Epic Seige deck that will consistantly amass 9-12 power first turn using epic battles and direwolves with At Night They Howl. While I was bemoaning the restrict-o-rama that hamstrung two of my most competetive decks compared to the sheer unfairness of facing a rush deck that plays several Epics on turn one, the eesponse was, "Well FFG wants to diminish the NPE." To which I replied, "Yes because loosing second turn is so much fun." The point is that there seems to be an anti-combo tricks culture at FFG that favors the face beating over the more tricksey decks. The reason it takes so long for control decks to win is because they made the really vicious combos inaccessible.
Anti-combo is inherent in all card games. It has nothing to do with design focusing on breaking combo and everything to do with the simple fact that combos aren't reliable. It is almost always more effective to play cards that are independently good with synergy than cards that are not independently good. A card that is not independently good must rely on another card. A card that is independently good, but becomes even better with card synergy is one that will almost always see play.
An example of a card that is combo based that doesn't see much play is core set Robb Stark. Now anyone who has played against a deck using him knows just how much of a pain in the ass he is. The card is very good in the right situation, but if you look at the greater meta he rarely sees play because he is not independently good. You could have played Northern Cavalry Flank in that slot or any number of other cards that are independently good with synergy when played with other cards in your deck.
The flip side is a card like River Blockade (the GJ cancel location one). It is independently good, it outright disrupts your opponent for free. It also has huge synergy with Naval Escort and elevates it to a card that will always be playable in your deck as it doesn't require another card to be good, but becomes an incredible card with that other card.
It's a part of all card games. Independent cards are almost always superior to combo cards.
NPE has nothing to do with combos, and more to do with how long a player must sit and wait for that combo to go off with little to no ability to interact.
Or on the other side of the fence a deck that wins on turn 1 is an NPE because again: little to no player interaction.