Snipping ....

FATMOUSE said:

I played at a Magic the Gathering tournament that allowed for that. I forget the exact expansion, but it was when the Slivers first came out. At the time, there were pre-constructed decks out as well. At the tournament, we were allowed to bring any number of decks that used the cards from that expansion exclusively. Those who were new to the game could bring the pre-constructed decks, or borrow them from the store owner.

And I did something pretty tricky: I had the deck boxes for the pre-constructed decks (I think there were 3). And for each of the preconstructed decks, I built a deck that can beat it easily, and stored that "anti-deck" in the box it was designed to defeat. Basically, I put "scissors" in the deckbox for "paper"; I put "paper" in the deckbox for "rock"; and I put "rock" in the deckbox for "scissors"

When I went to the tournament, and my opponent happened to be carrying a pre-con deck in the deck box, I'd take out the "same" box ... grin about "having the same box", and .... surprise, it's not the same deck. So if my opponent had a deckbox showing "rock", I'd take out my "rock" deckbox ... and it would contain "paper".

It worked for a couple of rounds.... and then I met someone who thought one step further. His decks were designed to beat the deck that would beat what his deck box displayed.... so essentially, he predicted what I would do! He had "scissors" in his "rock" deckbox. So when I took out my "rock" deckbox, I was using "paper" ... and he had "scissors".

Apparently Nate said:

"In other situations, (two 3-1 players in the final round, or two players taking a draw before the final round), the players are actually making a sub-optimal decision by sacrificing that point. In either case, though, a draw is a legal result."

I would just like to point out that this statement is not entirely accurate.

One of the major areas I study at University is formal Game Theory and behavioral errors in formal game theory and my undergrad thesis involves formal modeling of decision making theory.

Nate is making an assumption that is NOT always true.

For it to be an accurate statement, it depends entirely on the specific situation. You would have to write out a Game Theory game tree with von Neumann–Morgenstern Payoffs for Nate to prove his statement and it is quite easy to come up with a hypothetical situation where Nate's statement is straight up wrong and two 3-1 players are making perfectly rational Pareto efficient decisions.

I am glad I see an FFG ruling on intentional draws even if that ruling would be illegal if someone actually sued in a US Court of Law.

It would certainly be an interesting case to challenge in US Court for collusion.

I will end by pointing out that nothing in Nate's response actually presents a reason for WHY it *should* be legal to "intentionally draw".

schrecklich said:

Best post I read in the entire thread!

Great suggestion schrecklich.

If ever a card gaming company ever used this rule for their card gaming tournaments I would probably instantly buy product just to support a company that made such a structural disincentive.

What would happen if the points change completely. 5 for a win 1 for a loss and 2 for a draw. The wins are worth significantly more than the draw and the draw only a touch more than a loss. A 4-0-1 record would net 22 points while a 4-1-0 record would be 21 points... would that be close enough to make every intentional draw too risky to contemplate? What if there was no draws for the last round, you played the game out? What if the last round the draw was worth 0 points, same as a loss on their records? If you take a draw early in the rounds you are risking much more, there is always that chance you get a bad hand after a mulligan or happen to face someone whose deck just hits ground running.

Things to mull over.

All interesting points, Dormouse. Changing the point structure in the way you suggest won't help though. As long as a draw is worth a tiny bit more than a loss, it will be in the best interest of 4-0-0 players paired up in the fifth and final round to draw so that they can guarantee that they end up ahead of any of the 3-1-0 players who happen to win in the last round.

schrecklich said:

Which is why I suggested a 0 point draw format towards the beginning of this thread

I also suggested one for the final round...though I think I'd be fine for points only being awarded for a win, and I pretty much only play control or disruptive decks and am not particularly fast as a player.

Why not eliminate draws and the player with the most power at the end of the round is awarded the win and the player with less power is awarded a loss. Thats how we award points in melee.It would also discourage decks that take 2-3 hours to win(I'm looking at you Longclaw). If there is even power at the end of the round, each player gets 0 points since they defeated no one.

kpmccoy21 said:

I don't know if you read the beginning of the thread, but that's exactly what FATMOUSE and Dobbler were supporting (and Longclaw opposing) earlier in the thread (around page 4). I think it's a fine system. I'd prefer to keep the current system and use something like this for just the last round (or last 10% of the tournament, if AGoT ever gets to the point of having huge tournaments) to discourage the strategy of getting ahead in power and then just locking down the game.

It would be a different way of playing he game, but I'd prefer getting ahead in power and locking down the game to not playing the game and agreeing on what your standing is.

Color me totally unsurprised at Nate's statements. That one of the most competitve and succesful players ever has no issue with the intentional draw/cut to finals is far from a shock. His opinion changes nothing, however.

We already knew that itentional draws are legal under the current tournament structure. For those of us disgusted and contempous of their use - legality has never been the question.

I would probably quit playing competatively if they did the 'switch decks between rounds'.

Too many games could be over when you flipped the house cards. Between traitors and other meta cards, it would take my dislike for the Fury plots and compound it times 1,000.

Maybe if the card pool was different and there were not so many 'silver bullet' cards, but as it stands, it wouldn't reward playing and consistent deckbuilding as much as guessing what house/strategy your opponent is playing...not that I don't LOVE rock/paper/scissors.

Doubt it will ever happen, but IMHO it would not be good for the environment. However, I never minded when we changed decks between days (when it was a two day event)...you still have to play multiple people.

dormouse said:

I guess I would too. I would worry about slow play becoming an issue if one player had an incentive for the game state not to change, but I guess that is always somewhat of an issue (since the losing player would always rather have a draw than a loss).

I've never been nor seen an AGoT tournament; but I was under the impression that all AGoT tournaments are in melee-style now which would mean having at least 3 players at every game. And wouldn't that further minimize the case of taking an intentional (3-way) draw?

Again, here's another segue into a different game, but perhaps those who have played it can vouch for the format: Babylon 5 CCG is a multiplayer game.

And the tournaments that I used to attend actually required at least 3 of the factions to be represented at every table the main factions being Human, Minbari, Centauri, Narn (and the later expansions added more factions).

The final round of the tournament is typically a single table with the best player at each faction. So those who are playing the Human faction actually rarely compete against each other at a table ... but they're still competing for that single spot at the final round.

Tournaments for Thrones are often joust in a lot of places, with the bigger cons having both joust and melee.

I like the concept of each house being represented in the final table for a six player melee, but I don't think most people would.

rings said:

Oh yeah - QFT BTW.

Typical Nate nuttiness. I'll never sit for an event like that. Ever.

Even if players don't know what the other player is going to use until house cards are revealed? What is different about this sort of tournament than sitting down the first round of swiss- you don't know what your opponent is playing, and they don't know what you're playing. Really, it would just be an expansion of the concept of you and your opponent choosing and revealing a plot each round. Honestly, I see more that such a format would foster decks that are more well rounded and able to handle a variety of foes rather than encouraging RPS. Really, I think it sounds like an exceptionally fun tournament.

If you were forced to register your four decks and state which round they would be played in so no one could swap decks around, the format sounds very fun. Especially if you had to have each deck of a different house.

Sounds like a fun side tourney to do at a larger event like Gencon if you ask me.

Yeah, I wouldn't want this "multiple deck" format replacing the current system for major tourneys (i.e. Regional, GenCon, etc.). It think it could be fun as a side event or for a local tourney.

Well, I agree with Rings that it probably wouldn't work for a regional or other similarly (ultra) competitive tourney...just too many ways that it could open a can of worms. (I actually think the problems will arise with people "feeling" something unfair happened rather than actual anti-house tech, which doesn't seem like it would work anyway if people revealed their house cards at the same time.)

That said, I think it'd be a blast for a normal or metagame tournament, and it's something that I would definitely like to try. Though I try to build decks that don't have a lot of weaknesses to "silver bullets" (and I actually think that most of the silver bullets that exist in the current environment are pretty ineffective anyway, excluding traitors and possibly anti-seasons tech), if someone really wants to tech against all four of my decks, good luck to them. Each one of my decks should be able to handle a variety of decks; my opponent better guess correctly, or my well-rounded deck will roll their anti-X tech, and then they'll have the added feeling of failure to go along with the cheese they attempted.

If we were going all-out "fun/casual" tournament, you could even require that people bring decks for 3-4 different houses and then have them choose which they'd play at random each game. If anything is a test of skill, I think it's whether or not a player can build and play several competitive decks for a single tourney, not knowing which they'll actually play until they begin the game.

Have fun! Make sure you post the results here so those of us who will NEVER EVER play in this format can glance at them quickly.

Just like the super cool Hosue special rules tourney from two summers ago. Remember - where the Starks could search every turn, the Greyjoy players could mill you every turn and other fun and different gimmicks? Gee - this sounds just as neat-o!

What about Petals of the Rose, Circle of Spies or Wildling Assault? Those are all different takes on tournaments that many players found quite enjoyable. Also, don't forget Littlefinger, Civil War, and Melee in general.

Kennon said:

~Just ignore Stag, he's an old curmudgeon.

I don't think a tilde is required for that sentence.

Kennon said:

Apples, please meet oranges...

j/k, for special tournies it wouldn't be bad (although, like Stag said, the house specific rules were not all that fun). Just not in a competative tourney.