Nice thread : ) I had been thinking about these kinds of things more but hadn't had a chance to read through the thread until now. I'll post my thoughts on a few issues here, but there's so much going on that this could really be about five threads.

Regarding my plot cycling question, I think I probably should not have pointed it out. The player cycling the plots was one of the people I was more friendly with at the event, so pointing out the error was mostly an empathetic involuntary response (because I would hate to wait and tell him that he won on an error after the match if it ended up mattering). As a general rule though, I think spectators should not point out errors. Even if it seems like a really obvious error, no one should know what's happening in the game better than the people playing it and it could very well be the case that the spectator is the one overlooking something (eg maybe you see someone defending against Core Set Stannis without a Lord character. What you don't realize is that Stannis' text box was has been blanked until the end of the phase by some other effect. Now not only have you disrupted another match, but you've drawn both players' attention to Stannis' ability which one or both would have been more likely to forget about later when choosing targets for kill effects, deciding which characters to marshal, planning out the challenge phase, etc.).

Regarding scouting, I would prefer if the onus were on the players to ask spectators not to watch, rather than on the players to ask if it were okay to watch, but ultimately I think it's a judgment call and would be okay with whatever the TO decided. When I go to a big tournament, I want to watch the best/most veteran players play and learn some things from them. I think some players' worries about scouting are legitimate though (but in practice it would be pretty difficult to prevent others from getting the jist of your deck even if they were asked to leave after completing their games, at least for tournament settings like at the Cranberry Cafe where matches take place in pretty close confines). I am glad this thread was started because I hadn't realized some players in AGoT cared so much about scouting.

For people who are watching games, I think it is important to remain expressionless and not give anything away to the players (avoiding looking at players' hands as suggested above is a good policy). I also think that spectators should not make comments audible to players. Even innocent comments (eg making a joke about Old Nan turning Maester Aemon into a raven for the Carrion Bird combo) could have an unintended ramifications.

Regarding passive effects, I am with FATMOUSE. If you notice that your opponent is forgetting to resolve a beneficial passive effect and you don't point it out, you're cheating. It's stated very clearly at the end of the FAQ: "Can I ignore a passive ability if I don't like its effect? No. A passive ability must initiate whenever a game occurrence would dictate its initiation." Likewise, you can't ignore passive abilities with negative effects for you and see if your opponent points them out. If the effect uses the word "may" (eg Vigilant), I think it's okay to assume your opponent decided to resolve the ability without choosing any targets/options. Obviously, you don't have to point out when your opponent could trigger responses.

I think intentional draws go against the spirit of good sportsmanship but should be allowed (for the reason LGR mentioned that they are difficult to ban effectively). I don't think there is anything morally wrong about them (if a player wants to win the tournament, it's in his best interest to ensure he makes the elimination round), but they just go against the knightly ideals that characters like Brienne and Dunk aspire for.

rings said:

~Yeah, you may not have had a 5 hour wait at GenCon 2008 without me Ghosting my opponents every turn!

longclaw said:

*sigh*

Kennon said:

Yeah, sorry, painful memories. But ktom had to bring up my match with Adam at ChiCon. (Which I would have been extremely upset if anyone had pointed out something like that mid-game, btw. That would NOT have been cool, and I would have been the beneficiary.)

Scouting sucks. There is only so much that can be done to stop it, but what can be done should be done. If it is not explicitly against the rules it certainly is against the spirit of the rules regarding good sportsmanship. When I talk to my meta-mates I keep my talk focused on my cards and my situation, my clever combos or my epic failures. They may be my friends, but they are also my competitors and my competitors competitors and I don't want them having an unfair advantage over me, and I'm sure he doesn't want them to have an unfair advantage over him.

Purposeful draws suck. While there is only so much that can be done to prevent it, I feel that a lot of players even if they intend to draw, get to playing the competitive spirit will start to peak out, and both players may suddenly find themselves in the middle of a real game. I really do wish there was a rule against and a way to actively enforce it, because I've been the guy cut out of the big match because of SOS. I can't say it was for an intentional draw, but I play every game to the best of my ability, and if I'm winning the majority of my games getting cut out because of a "gentlemen's understanding" rubs me the wrong way. They may see it as working to ensure they both make the final, but I see them as making a deal to keep me out of it. Perspective. You came to play. Put on your big boy pants and play all the games out.

Hi, at first I have to say that I really like this topic. I can now see some insight from the guys overseas and compare it from what we do here.

Scouting - in our meta we never really got into this issue. In our tournaments we always allow everyone to watch everyones game. I dont know why, i didnt make any rules and our NW neighter. So basicly when players are done they usually walk around and watch other players playing. Now i think this might be a bad thing since you can see other players combos and for exapmle my decks usually run couple of surprices, so when people are watching me i feel a little uncomfort about it but never said anything since it was normal to watch in our metas. Also I think the best benefit of this "scouting" is to know what plots are your opponents running (if the have Valar etc.). I usually try not to "scout" around all the tables, I just like to watch the game my friends play and not to be bored if I finish in 20 min (like last time with my Bara rush deck).

Rules correction - This is a big issue in our meta too. I consider myself an experienced player so when I play and remember that I forgot something like get my Forever back and it is already too late I always leave it and dont go back. So punishing myself for a bad memory I also try to be an example for the new players. Usually we try to point out all the passives that the new players might have forgotten about, but sometimes even I forget about something and we dont know how to resolve it. E.g. my opponent goes first and forgets about his Fury beeing against me, I forget it too and later on I realize that my Fury is against him (it is my turn already) so I use it but feel bad that my opponent (though experienced) didnt have a chance to use his. Generally when I watch a game I never point out any Responces or Any phase things that poeple forgot about. Also I try not to point out passives since I think that players that run them should know about them. But I dont know about the passives like Kingdom of shadows run but the other player than the one that could benefit from it. Did the owner of the card forget to tell the other about it intentionaly or did he forgot too? And what if he wants to use it later in the same round?

This should always be about the sportsmanship. I have a good example here. My friend from my meta made a huge mistake during the Stahleck tournament in Germany last year. He was playing with 16 powers and he didnt know about it (he just took one more out of the box). So as always you just count the power you have left to win not the powers on the House card and character. But sometimes during the game he had only 1 left and they just turned new plot in new round. Somehow they counted all the power and found out that he had already claimed 15 and the one he had left was extra. So he appologiezed and instead of saying Good game and walking off he staying in the game with 1 power left to win. Later in the game his opponent overrun him and my friend lost. In the end the other guy made it in the finals (final 3 - not sure anymore) and won some prices that he shared with my meta-mate This is what I think of good sportsmanship.

I think that intentional draws does not occur in our meta. But that is a unsportsmanshiplike behavior I would not like to see. We have a few draws in our meta but usully they are not intentional, though one lady from our meta seems to play so slow that I am not sure. In the end having 4 draws out of 5 games does not help her to get to final 8

Being new to this fun and exciting world of tournaments I do not have an extremely long view on how things go but I do have a couple of thoughts on watching other games.

1) Never really thought of it as scouting, guess I'm just naive! Just me or others watching the game we love so much.

2) That being said, offering advice or looking at a hand...bad.

3)However now thinking about scouting I differ than the majority. I say suck it up and deal with it. I liken this to the National Championships I played in college for Men's Volleyball. Being the fact that no team had money to scout ahead of time you went to the tournament only knowing the handful of teams you might have played during the year. You had two days of pool play before knock out stages. In that first game noone knew anything about the other teams. But as the tournement moved on and as you finished your games you would watch others. And gain info on their tendencies and what players came of the bench and who was the best etc. And if you had a good game plan maybe you could beat someone in a later round that you couldn't have beaten in the first game without that knowledge. Or the opposite may hold true. That's competition. And as I type this I keep getting more worked up about this. So what if a future opponant knows what you have. The best players, teams whatever have the confidence to say, great you know what I'm going to do, try and stop it. I mean when you see a lanni deck that plays City of Shadows in round one I bet you know what kind of deck they have and what they are going to do. It's just, can you stop it.

I mean seriously, our decks are locked once the tournament begins, you can't modify your deck based on scouting. If you could, ok, I could see the ban on scouting. Hell having info about your opponent could hurt you, insted of playing your game and being proactive you are second guessing yourself and not playing your deck how it should be played. Um, um is he going to valar me know, I mean I wouldn't play power of blood now, but he might so um um. And then you change YOUR play style and you lose. So I just don't see the big deal.

OK, that got my blood boiling, time to cool off. I"m sure the anxiety about US-Algeria starting in a half hour didn't help. I didn't mean this as a personal attack against anyone, just more of how I feel. You are all allowed to voice your own opinion. In fact, please tell me how much of an idiot I am for these thoughts and show me the error of my ways. Oh and to show you how serious I am, if, after you've submitted your deck list at GenCon as me to look at my deck. I'll let you flip through the whole thing.

The issue with scouting is that it creates an imbalance. Someone is getting to see your deck and plots while you are not given the same opportunity with them. That is a very real competitive imbalance.

If all decklists were public knowledge before a tournament, then scouting isn't an issue. Everyone knows what is in everyone's decks. But that isn't the case. People have surprises in their decks. They have the ability to bluff. If someone doesn't know I have Valar, they are going to play differently then if they do know. This is an advantage for them any way you look at it. And if they gained this advantage while watching my game (and I haven't been given the same advantage to watch their game) then there is a competitive imbalance.

There is really no good reason to allow scouting. There are many good reasons to disallow it.

longclaw said:

Nothing was as bad as that one Samwell Tarly though...I mentioned his text should have been "add 10 minutes to every game".

Dobbler said:

You mean other than the fact that it is impossible to stop? That it rewards people who happen to live in larger metas? That trying to stop it would create WAY more problems and bad feelings (how do you define it? Who makes that call that you are scouting and didn't just let your eyes wander to the table next to you while your opponent was deciding what to do?) than watching could ever do?

Seriously. Someone show me ANY way to stop scouting, and I will move over to that side. Unluckily no game company (Wizards, Decipher, FFG) has ever been able to come up with one, so good luck

I agree with all the points that it is bad. And, to be honest, I agree with all the points that it isn't that bad (who wants to play, and then run off with blinders on instead of watching people you enjoy playing a game you enjoy?). The kicker to me will be that it is impossible to stop.

On taking draws, that is also pretty much impossible to stop, but it is harder to cover up

rings said:

I was specifically talking about the scouting that happens when people are watching games that aren't their own games, specifically when the people watching the game are not eliminated from the tourney.

Dobbler said:

Again, doesn't stop the problem.

1. I watch the games next to me while playing. Still scouting.

2. I have a meta of 10-12 players at Worlds. They talk between rounds. I basically have built-in scouting that can't be stopped other than a bunch of TO's following every player around between rounds.

Sorry, I would rather level the playing field by allowing everyone to scout, than give a certain segment of the players a benefit by outlawing scouting for some instances but not others. *shrug*

rings said:

Nothing will stop the problem of scouting. But I think it is not only reasonable but also fair to not let people sit over your shoulder in a game. Allowing someone that sort of advantage doesn't level the playing field at all. It gives someone a distinct advantage.

Dobbler said:

Not if everyone can scout, right? Then everyone IS on a level playing field (other than slow players or decks, which is within someone's own control). Or am I missing something?

Barring individual scouting, but allowing (i.e. not being able to stop) meta's from discussing the decks they just played against certainly gives a distinct advantage to those with a meta...~say, those darn Missouri people.

Allowing scouting of all sorts levels the playing field much more than stopping it solo but not being able to stop it with groups...

While I usually try to stay away from these endless forums debates, :-), it seems there might be value to presenting the case for the affirmative side of the intentional draw debate.

I think the following argumentation is best prefaced with a description of my frame of mind. I don't think it's any secret that I'm a hyper-competitive human being; I prefer to engage in activities at which I can compete, and I work pretty hard within time constraints to rise to the top of every competition. I'm a collegiate debater; I did math competitions throughout high school and undergrad; I've run for various offices in university-wide elections; I've played CCGs competitively since middle school. (I probably wouldn't even have gone to grad school had it not been at a top-ranked program.) While I enjoy each activity for the sake of the activity itself, to be sure, I get a hell of a lout out of winning (there's no other explanation as to why anyone would seek election to a body for university governance), and the more public the win the better the jollies. I don't know what went wrong in my childhood to give me the internal drive to make a life out of kicking the crap out of others intellectually, beyond the usual personal satisfaction one takes in doing well at things, but there it is. :-)

So when it comes to competing in and winning AGOT tournaments, my view, like many other hyper-competitive CCG players, is two-dimensional. I'm looking to win each and every game I play, and I fret over being able to do so to the point where the DC meta as a whole is way overworked in the weeks leading up to a tournament. (This in part has resulted in a meta in which the average player skill is ridiculously high; the other part being that Corey Faherty is a world-class CCG deck builder, and always figures out for us exactly what to play. See, for example, last weekend, before which Corey told us to play his Stark/NOBLE/Direwolf deck. Dan built Corey's deck; I didn't.) That said, my primary objective is winning the overall tournament; it's by far more enjoyable than winning, losing, or drawing in any particular game. And I view it as a simple matter of course to use all legal and kosher methods available to do so. This includes being very well prepared and trying not to make mistakes during games; it also means not playing a game and taking a draw with an opponent in a situation in which it's tournament-optimal for both of us to do so. I see it as nothing but sportsmanlike in that we're both in the tournament to win, and to me it seems silly that someone *wouldn't* want to do so simply because I don't understand the point of entering a tournament -- a by-definition competitive venture -- if you're not going to do your best to win the whole thing. (I could understand if a player showed up to a tournament just for the sake of playing a bunch of games of AGOT, but it seems that that player wouldn't care about intentional draws going on between players at the top of the Swiss anyway.) In my head, intentional draws are another part of the strategy to winning a competition which consists of a sequence of constituent games, and nothing more. There's a parallel with manipulating an opponent in a melee game to go for the win when I'm sitting in a solid second place, and know that a second-place finish will be enough to propel me to the final table. The difference, of course, is that most of you guys view a joust tournament game-by-game; I, along with other hyper-competitive CCG players, do not.

I haven't really seen any effective argumentation here as to *why* it's unsportsmanlike; it just seems that most of you find it shady for reasons which, when broken down, don't make much sense logically. There have been two arguments made in the thread:

(1) "It sucks to be on the lower end of it" (Rings), or "the problem is that someone always loses out" (Shenanigans); that is, implication that a player might be kept out of the top x cut of a tournament due to two players higher in the Swiss rankings intentionally drawing.

I think the easiest refutation to this is pretty obvious: A tournament is just a sequences of wins, losses, and draws on the part of players; no matter how things shake out, there are people who get screwed out of the top four by legal mechanisms (usually by people winning more than they do, but intentional draws included). That's just the nature of competition. The fact that others are competing to win the whole tournament, and thus take the legal actions available to them to do so, should be expected. Indeed, I think a person goes into a competitive venture like a CCG tournament with a reasonable expectation of not making the final cut. If you go 4-1 in a tournament and end up in the top four ahead of someone who went 3-2, but who really wanted to be in the top four and thus is disappointed, how is it at all logical to weigh the disappointment that person feels from participating in a fundamentally competitive venture as more legitimate if instead you went 3-1-1?

An example: Consider the player who isn't usually successful, but he's gone 4-0 in a five game tournament and sits down across from Dobbler. Odds are, the player is about to take his first loss of the day. If that player asks Dobbler for an intentional draw, and Dobbler doesn't accept, proceeds to roll the player over, and the player is the last of the 4-1's and doesn't make the cut to top four, Dobbler, knowing that he likely had the advantage coming into that game just based on relative play skill, effectively screwed that player out of the top four when instead he had a chance to let that individual in at no real cost to his own tournament record. The player feels disappointment at not making the top four (we can't reasonably expect anyone to walk away completely satisfied with having done well that day just based on a good overall record). How is this situation to be weighed "morally" as any different from the situation in which Dobbler draws with the player, thus screwing someone else out of the cut and causing disappointment in some other player? Because the two situations seem to be morally equivalent when you view a tournament as a sequence of competitive games, with the option to draw being legal as per the rules of the tournament, this argument just sort of rolls over and dies. The fact that this situation can be seen in two ways (from the standpoint of someone getting screwed out by the draw, it's as if the players are conspiring to keep them out; and to the two players taking a draw, it's a conspiracy to stay in the tournament when they have the legal means of doing so), it seems that this argument is a wash at worst even if you don't think people should be "so competitive" even when we're talking about participating venture of a fundamentally competitive nature.

Another particular case: *Not* taking an intentional draw with a meta-mate in the last round of a tournament when it's legal and optimal for both players to do so can generate the same sort of ill will that a player might experience when they're excluded from the cut due to an intentional draw between two players above them. If I sit down across from Steve in the last or second-to-last game of a tournament, odds are he's about to take a loss (this, i'm proud to report, is becoming less true by the day). Obviously, I care more if Steve bears a grudge against me for excluding him from the top four when I had the legal means to do so, rather than if some non-meta member bears a similar grudge for me taking an intentional draw, thus shutting them out instead.

(2) "You came here to play, right? So play, for cryin' out loud" (ktom), or "As a player, I enjoy playing too much and get too few opportunities to play to want to pass up on a game" (LetsGoRed), or "You came to play. Put on your big boy pants and play all the games out" (Dormouse).

This is simply refuted by the fact that when I draw with an opponent, I often proceed to play a game with them (whether its with our tournament decks, or with other decks). In fact, because there's less on the line in a relaxing game post-draw, and thus less need to strain over the more difficult play decisions, I sometimes get multiple games in instead of just one. There are other reasons I'd rather do something else than playing out a strategically important game, too. If I draw with Dan or Corey, part of it is that I just don't want to play against either of them. When we show up to a tournament together, we know each others' decks card for card, and have played each of the match-ups many times over during preparation; it makes for painfully boring tournament games. Instead, because a tournament usually lasts close to eight hours, I'd rather sit around and chat with people and/or get something to eat. ~After all, I need time to wander around, scouting other players' decks, and pointing out to everyone with a Blackfish on the table that their deckbuilding skills are nothing short of superb, right? ;-)

The rest of the comments are just stuff along the lines of "I hate when people do this", or "it's not noble", or "against knightly ideals," or "it's unsportsmanlike" with no reasoning to any of it. Thus, if my goal is to win a tournament, I've seen nothing in this thread that would cause me to think twice before taking an intentional draw if it helps me to do so.

finitesquarewell said:

BTW, my quote was out-of-context a little, so hopefully I am through saying you have to allow the darn things. You just can't police it correctly.

That being said, there IS reasoning behind the "I hate when people do this" or "against knightly ideals" or the such.

There is nothing in the rules that says I can't take my opponent's deck and throw it across the room after we play (that I can remember). However, that is certainly against a lot of social rules. Plus...you can police it correctly (the TO can say, 'that doesn't happen' and it has a pretty easy litmus test to see).

So...there IS a level of unsportsmanlike conduct that is reasonable. The trick is where the line is drawn, which is the subject of this thread. Personally, if it is unsportsmanlike or creates an unfair advantage AND easily and fairly policed, I am for it. If it isn't, then thems the breaks.

Knowing what is in an opponent's plot deck can make a big difference so I can understand the desire to eliminate scouting. I am still in the camp of rings and goshdarnstud of "just deal with it" but I bet at competitive tournaments (like Gencon or Stahleck where people travel signifiicant distances to compete) we are probably the minority.

To me though, it's a bit inconsistent to make rules discouraging scouting but to allow intentional draws. To me, intentional draws go against the spirit of the game. If you're going to make people avert their eyes and leave the room after they finish their games to prevent scouting, I think you should force people to play out all matches. One of the upsides of the intentional draw is that you get a free hour to rest, go get food, scout ; ), etc. Forcing players to play out the round makes them think twice about the draw, incentivizes them to play out the match so they won't be stuck at the table for the full hour, and just generally makes drawing a lot more of a pain if you ban "intentional" draws by threatening players with some kind of penalty if they discuss the draw openly. Would this prevent all intentional draws? No, but neither would any set of rules prevent players from scouting unless you sequestered them between rounds and had separate rooms for each match.

Honestly, neither of these issues riles me up too much. I am much more worried that some people think they can pick and choose when to follow the rules of the game (regarding passives).

EDIT: since I'm still the last post, I'll add a couple comments after reading finite's post (which was posted while I typed the above). When I refer to intentional draws as "going against the spirit of good sportsmanship," I don't mean to imply that they represent bad sportsmanship. For me, intentionally drawing is a more or less morally neutral action. I do think that the main reason that they are allowed is that they are difficult to prevent and that if it were easy to ban them they would be banned (eg if the game used a chess clock, so that there was a built in answer to players trying to draw out the game - I mean this only as a hypothetical; it would be ridiculous in practice). Intentionally drawing effectively shortens the length of the tournament, making (in the long run) tournaments more luck-based in the process. To me, the spirit behind a tournament is to honor the best player as determined by in game play, and to that end the more games played the better.

rings said:

If there is, I haven't seen it anywhere in this thread. Two attempts were made, as I quoted above, but both hold no water when scrutinized.

rings said:

This is, of course, untrue; straight from the AGOT tournament rules:

Players are expected to behave in a mature and considerate manner, and to play within the rules and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally stalling a game for time, abusing an infinite combo, inap- propriate behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy or respect, etc. The TO, at his or her sole discretion, may remove players from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

This example stands in opposition to the fact that there is a legal mechanism by which players are allowed to intentionally draw (namely, the fact that TOs accept intentional draws to save the time on just playing a game out to a timed draw, whether based on the fact that you can't stop it through policing players making intentionally bad plays that result in not gaining power while still moving the game forward at a reasonable pace in accordance with the timing rules).

Part of my post is that I don't even see effective reasoning here as to why intentional draws should be considered negative socially -- all I've seen is seemingly arbitrarily negative sentiment on the social level, as I addressed in my post.

rings said:

Actually, I can't find anything in this thread concerning that constitutes a debate as to why the behavior behind unintentional drawing is even unsportsmanlike in the first place; see the whole of my post above. . There's definitely been a good discussion on scouting and game interference, though. This actually is a topic on which my opinion could be changed if sufficiently broad and effective argumentation was made for disallowing intentional draws, even aside from the practicality of policing the situation.

Some people will always try to find ways to take advantage of situations, and there will never be enough rules written to keep up with them. I'll just follow my own moral code, and continue to admire the people in this community who's moral codes are equal to, if not better than, mine. For me it all boils down to this: If I feel something is unsportsmanlike, I personally just won't do it. But, I can't expect others to act/think the same way. If the rules allow for it, and the TO accepts it, then so be it.

As for intentional draws, I don't like them, but I could care less. I think most intentional draws are more about 2 people who are affraid to loose, and less about 1 person doing everything they can to win the overall tourney. If one was so worried about winning the overall tourney, then winning that last match and possibly getting a higher seed would make more sense to me. Now, if the 2 players are good buddies, and are just trying to make sure they both get in, I think that's even worse. I would compare that to one player throwing a game so his buddy could have a better record. In this case, both buddies are throwing the game to help eachother out. Are intentional draws showing good sportsmanship, or not? I don't know. Does it change my oppinion about somebody when I suspect them of doing so? It most certainly does.

So far, the AGoT community has been one full of people I look up to and admire.

finitesquarewell said:

Dude - come on. You know full well the intent of the word "play" here means "compete". If you are taking a draw, you are (by defintion) nto competing in one, critical round. Thereby gaming the system, crossing sportsmanship lines, and irritating a signifcaint majority of the tourney attending community for this game.

That being said - I did get a pretty good chuckle out of most of your post. Thanks for sharing.

The only clean fix for eliminating intentional draws that I see is to make any draw equal to a loss, that is, give no points for a draw. That can be rough treatment for those who don't intentionally play to a draw (we had one draw in round one of the 'Moot, clearly not intentional) and might bias against playing slow/control decks if the fear of timing out is great enough.

It's been a while since I've been on the competitive scene, so I'm a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure you generally go to a tournament to play the game, not play the tournament . As Fatmouse is probably about to say a lot more eloquently then I am, the purpose of the tournament is to see who is the best player of the game. Colluding with other players to alter results outside of straight gameplay does not do this.

HOWEVER, if you're playing by the rules (in game or otherwise), you're in the clear. It may suck that people are boosting their scores outside of playing, but they're not technically doing anything wrong, even if it is against the spirit of the game.

Unfortunately, the onus is on the tournament organizers to change the tournament rules to make the environment more of a test of skill and less of a test of "how we can game the system".

Overall, Erick is right. There is nothing unsportsmanlike about taking an intentional draw in an effort to increase your chances of winning a tournament. An intentional draw is a legal tournament action. How can using the design/rules of tournament to win a tournament be unsportsmanlike? It's the equivalent of saying that using the design/rules of AGoT to win an AGoT game is unsportsmanlike. For example, many people think Fear of Winter is bad for the game. Many people thought Lannister was too strong for too long with it's gold, draw, and kneel. Yet, has anyone ever considered it to unsportsmanlike to run Fear of Winter or a Lannister hyper-kneel deck to win an AGoT game or tournament? No, because running Fear of Winter and Lannister hyper-kneel is not illegal. Some may consider it "lame," "copping out," or whatever, but there's nothing unsportsmanlike about it.

Now before most of you start yelling to throw me into a Sky Cell, I must let you know that I believe the Joust or one-on-one card game variant of the Swiss Format (which is what AgoT, MtG, etc. use) would be MUCH better served by eliminating the possibility of ending a match in a draw. Before stating why, I'd like to remind everyone what the primary purpose of a tournament is - to create a champion amongst the competitors competing in the tournament. That's it. For something to be called a tournament, it must have an algorithmic process that ensures a field of X competitors ends with a field of only one competitor, a champion. As long as it's algorithmic, how or why it does this does not matter.

As human beings, we are interested in there being some sort of significance of being a champion in a tournament. We could all participate in a single elimination tournament where in the first match you played a game of chess, the second match (if you made it) a game of pool, the third match a bike race, the fourth match a no-blinking contest, so on and so forth. The tournament would guarantee a champion but of what significance? A better designed tournament would be a single elimination tournament where each round you play the same game, but now instead of the winner advancing, the loser advances instead. The "champion" is more significant now as we know he or she is really bad at that game (to provide incentive to not purposefully lose, let's imagine that the champion experiences a negative outcome, such as having to lose a copious amount of money or experience intense pain for a long duration of time). However, we usually aren't interested in determining who is the worst at something; instead, we want to know who is the best at something. This leads us to try and design tournaments where the most skilled competitor in the game-type will win or have the greatest chance of winning. It's the reason why it's common to say at the beginning of a tourney, "May the best player win!" A good tournament design will have the most skilled competitor winning most, if not all of the time, when the tournament is ran over and over again.

AGoT tournaments are run with spirit in mind. We want the most skilled player/deck-builder to win the tournament. My criticism of the current Joust tournament format is that it can better uphold this spirit by eliminating draws or simply equating them to losses. There are several reasons why I feel this way:

1) AGoT does not naturally end in draws. Sooner or later someone will reach 15 power. Even if you don't want to go to 15 power, eventually someone will end the round with more power than the other player. Whoever has the most power at the end of the last round (assuming no one got to 15 power) should be the winner. This is how Melee is ran and I don't see why Joust can't be the same. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty certain in Joust if no one gets 15 power in the last round, no one wins. If for some reason there were a tie in power at the end of that last round the TO can grant an additional round if time permits it. If time doesn't permit another round, then neither player wins and neither player receives points.

2) Using tournament design to win a tournament is less preferable than using design of the game that the tournament is running. The purpose of a tournament is to have a champion, but we're interested in having a champion that is the most skilled in something. AGoT tourneys aim to determine who in the field of competitors is the most skilled at playing and deck-building in AGoT. The card game Swiss variant has a funny side effect in the last round and second to last round before cuts are made. I'm going to use the NYC Regional of 22 players as an example. Let's say in round three of four before the cut to the final eight, the top six players (2-0) decided to all intentionally draw. Due to the Swiss format pairing system (players with top scores play each other), four of those players will be paired with someone else from that group of six in the final round. If those four players agree to intentionally draw the last round, assuming no one drew a match in the first round, AT LEAST three of those four players are GUARANTEED to make the cut. The 4th player will make the cut if one of the two players sent to the "lower" bracket loses his or her last match (the lower bracket players wouldn't intentionally draw with the top two players sent to their bracket since it would be forfeiting any chance of making the cut). The two players sent to the lower bracket have to win their last match to make the cut. The fact that 4 of the 6 players can do NOTHING for two rounds and at least 3 of them WILL make the final cut is extermely silly, in my opinion. It doesn't get much better if in the 4th round the three 3-0 players agree to intentionally draw before cuts. Not only will all 3 players make the cut, but more disturbingly the 2-1 player that intentionally drew with one of the 3-0 players will also make the cut; somethinng that may not happen if he loses the match.

3) Tournaments are suppose to assess your level of skill in a certain area, not how lucky you are. If draws were worth 0 points, like losses are, then it would not be possible to "win by doing nothing." If you're positioned well enough by the last round before cuts that you can take a loss and still make the cut, then good for you. If losing the last round before cuts will keep you out of the cut, you better play your best to win. Sneaking by through random luck of draw shows no testament of skill whatsoever.

4) Eliminating draws will create stronger and more balanced final cuts. Not only will you have to have proven yourself throughout the entire tournament to make the cut, but players will be better assigned to one another after the cuts. The quarterfinals will have the strongest (#1 - undefeated) player face the weakest (#8 - worst record) player, #2 vs. # 7, #3 vs. #6, and #4 vs. #5. This gives incentive for players to play their best throughout the entire tournament pre-cut as it will presumably give them an edge post-cut.

I think this is what people may have been trying to get at by saying things like "being on the wrong end" or being "unnoble." By circumventing the actual mechanics of the game to help you win the tournaments you are undermining the true purpose of the tournament. If nothing is changed about the tourney format I expect and will so no problem with intentional draws. I sincerely believe it's bad for the game, but that doesn't make it unsporstmanlike or innappropriate behavior.

Some very good replies here on both sides. Thanks for the thoughtful input everyone, it really has made me think a little differently about intentional draws at least (not the impossibility of stopping scouting though!).

~I still say we put Fatmouse in the Sky Cell.

Your defintion of "sportsmanlike" seems to be" do everything in the framework of the rules, not specifically excluded, in order to win".

Mine is far different.

Just becuase you are in the "framework of the tourney structure" by taking an intentional draw doesn't make it any less unsportsmanlike.