@Joe From Cincinnati made a report of his games at GenCon, which can be read in his Wardens of the Midwest blog, for all of you interested.

There’s a lot of good things in the article, but I’ll just remark this bit:

”We were openly talking about our decks before the game because we just assumed we were doing deck sharing. And then we found out that…nope. FFG decided not to do that because the event wasn’t being streamed so, apparently, there’s no concerns of scouting. Right guys? No danger of being scouted. I definitely didn’t tell my friends that I played against a Lion with Curry Favor in his deck or anything. So I’m sure that was a huge surprise for his opponents all day! Scouting = impossible without a stream. You can quote me and FFG on that.”

Imperial Advisor had a long talk about this and I agree with them. The policies should be consistent. Ether always deck share or never deck share. Pick one regardless of these sorts of variable because you need to set an expectation down for the players. Also clearly outline these policies for other TO's so they know how to plan their events.

In my opinion it should just always be open decks in high level tournaments to completely curb the concerns about scouting. I know that has a big impact of deck building strategies and play styles, but I think given the choice between the two routes it's better just to have open deck lists and no scouting concerns.

(1) With no concept of a sideboard, what makes scouting so problematic? (This coming from a total casual scrub.)

(2) I am disproportionately upset that there were no streams. I was so looking forward to watching some high-caliber play, and I feel robbed.

I wonder which came first... Is it that they expected less scouting because they weren't streaming, or did they make the decision not to stream because they were concerned about scouting? Either way, boooooooooo.

1 minute ago, twinstarbmc said:

(1) With no concept of a sideboard, what makes scouting so problematic? (This coming from a total casual scrub.)

If one player has info on the opponent's deck, but the other player doesn't, that leads to an unfair situation.

Each deck should, in theory, be equally as likely to surprise it's opponent. Scouting disrupts that.

Consider the situation where one player scouted and found out that a deck doesn't include assassination. That player now knows he can freely dump fate on 2 cost characters. A person who didn't do that scouting will fear assassination and not overcommit to their 2 cost characters even though that might be a suboptimal play.

Another example consider the cards backhanded compliment or way of the chrysanthemum. They sort of rely on surprise to really facilitate their main function. Having hidden deck lists makes them way more valuable. If you can hide that information your chance of honoring or dishonoring to a win with those cards goes up way higher. Someone who didn't scout might play sub optimally to work around those sorts of cards while someone who scouted can act more freely knowing they do or do not exist in the deck.

It's not only a matter of unfair advantage during the tournament due to scouting. It also has an effect on preparation for the tournament. It could definitely influence your deckbuilding decisions if the decks are open or hidden during the tournament. Consider a Crab player who doesn't want to play Way of The Crab. If deck lists are open they still might feel compelled to include 1x to ensure their opponent respects that's possible threat (even though it isn't part of the deck's strategy). If decks are hidden information they could remove it completely and the opponent would still need to respect that threat since they don't know you cut it. You are still getting the value of that threat without taking up that card slot.

I can never resist a good BM here and there

It's a problem.

16 hours ago, phillos said:

Consider the situation where one player scouted and found out that a deck doesn't include assassination. That player now knows he can freely dump fate on 2 cost characters. A person who didn't do that scouting will fear assassination and not overcommit to their 2 cost characters even though that might be a suboptimal play.

Another example consider the cards backhanded compliment or way of the chrysanthemum. They sort of rely on surprise to really facilitate their main function. Having hidden deck lists makes them way more valuable. If you can hide that information your chance of honoring or dishonoring to a win with those cards goes up way higher. Someone who didn't scout might play sub optimally to work around those sorts of cards while someone who scouted can act more freely knowing they do or do not exist in the deck.

It's not only a matter of unfair advantage during the tournament due to scouting. It also has an effect on preparation for the tournament. It could definitely influence your deckbuilding decisions if the decks are open or hidden during the tournament. Consider a Crab player who doesn't want to play Way of The Crab. If deck lists are open they still might feel compelled to include 1x to ensure their opponent respects that's possible threat (even though it isn't part of the deck's strategy). If decks are hidden information they could remove it completely and the opponent would still need to respect that threat since they don't know you cut it. You are still getting the value of that threat without taking up that card slot.

Exactly. I always run at least assassination, assuming that the information will be open. I have no desire to use it, but the threat has to be maintained.