Hey guys...by pure chance (searching YouTube for CoC videos) - I came across one titled simply , "GenCon 2008"...which happened to be the championship game for the CoC tournament. It's a pretty neat video - and you can see the power of some of the older CCG-era cards.

My questions are twofold....first....is that Mr. Jim Black on the left ? It looks quite a bit like Descendant of Eibon's card face

Secondly...in the details of the video, the guy who posts it says something about "even though this tournament was tainted..."

This is not the first time I've heard this tossed around....can Jim / Hastur - if he's here chime in on the game in general - if he remembers it , how it played, etc - as it would be neat to see the planning behind his deck, etc. - and also - if anyone can explain this whole tainted thing to me. Lastly, who was the guy across from (Jim?) - in the red shirt ? (the opponent)

Thanks to all who can chime in, and I hope the video brings back some memories from the past for all the old timers ...hehe

Yah, perfect example of how the game became zero fun.

Guy on the right is completely prevented from playing his deck due to card combos which cycle.

His domains are drained in sequence every turn, and his charcters eliminated as they show up.

I'm awfully glad for the white-bordered reboot.

Credit goes to the inventor of that deck. It is said that the PA meta first revealed it. It is widely believed that the champion stacked his deck and that he and a friend basically admitted that he had. The officiant, and FFG, considers the win valid and the stacking accusations merely conjecture that was not proven. However, the rebuke was so loud and wide that it was impossible to ignore.

Champion Scott never did get his card made.

And yes, it wasn't just the reducer rituals that sped the game up too fast.

I disagree that the reboot was the best thing ever. Some might say it was imperative. Some might try to invent errata, bans, and new cards to heal the old black borders.

To me, it's a great game gone. LCG is also a great game. But CCG was golden like Mythos.

So....was or was NOT that guy on the left Jim Black ? - If not...was that the Scott guy who won the thing in the end ?

-

Secondly...when you say "stacking the deck" - is the implication he put MORE than 3 (or 4 in CCG era) copies of his key cards in there ? Like 8 or something "important" - or...what exactly was the accusation, and more importantly, what BASIS was the compliant made in the first place ?

-

Thirdly....what exactly was the guy doing to keep the opponent "locked down" - so early in the game ? It looked like that big snowmonster thing/card/character (tough to see on video) was important, as he'd keep Exhausting it to do something to the opponent....or...rather, he'd exhaust it...then play this Yog (?) card from his hand....but he'd keep playing the Yog card over and over again.... ? What "Cycle" is being shown ?

Not, that's not Jim playing on the left - it must be Scott, but I don't know him personally. And it is Tom on the right (Magnus Arcanis).

Magic got in trouble for a shuffling mechanic called the "mana weave" - where basically you sort the deck into two piles (mana and others); shuffle it so that you now have alternating mana/spells. Cutting the deck doesn't change this distribution and it is considered stacking the deck (thus illegal) in official Magic tournaments.

I wasn't there, but it is my understanding that the accusations involved were akin to Mana Weaving - trying to maximize the likelihood of the card combos being drawn in the right order.

No one wants a piece of this topic. It was painful. Revisiting it is painful. Some of our best players split the boards after. Disagreement turned to vicious language. Both "sides" looked bad.

I like when the best of the best go after each other appropriately on the boards. The rest of us learn. But the rift from that game reverberates as an important but dark chapter in the game. It coincided with the switch to LCG, which also was debated with vicious language, and also led to great gamers leaving.

I consider ourselves lucky to still be here.

And that's why I was angry to read accusations of absent governance of the current championship. Thankfully we all agree that the current champ is for real.

Go Jim!

Wow...thanks for the info, Professor. I had never heard of "mana weave" - concept before. I would not think it could be done - to any serious extent - in CoC though, because you don't need "mana" - and any card can BE mana / resourced. As for rigging the deck to get a certain combo....again, I'm not sure how it is done, since you only have 3 (or 4 in CCG) of that card in your deck....and your opponent is going to make you shuffle before the game....so even if you "rig it" - so the 10th card down from the top is your special combo card, how can you "plan for it" to come up, if your opponent shuffles, or does a "cut" of the deck when you are done shuffling ?

-

To Johnny....heck yeah....three cheers for Jim !

I never realized this game was such a big controversy point in the history of CoC.

Just to satisfy my curiosity ...what is that Abominable Snowman-looking card that the guy on the left keeps using as part of his combo ? What is it allowing him to do ...if anyone knows ?

The sting is shared. There is doubt about the cheating. There is certainty that involved parties had very specific damning anecdotal recollections.

Umpires and officiants really aren't created for apology. When that perfect game in baseball was ruined by an ump's bad call last year in Detroit, the world saw the video, the ump apologized to the player in the locker room, and the whole episode had a poignant half-cathartic feel. But that is the extreme exception. There is human error in human tasks, like officiating. Officiants apologizing takes on the feel of the human separating himself from the job. One rescinds one's own verdict, but points at the system and says, "but they have to make it stand." There is no place for this in officiating.

Conversely, Nate clearly backed the winner after the accusations.

We can discuss forever what that means, except for one element. Scott was champ.

My memory is fading. But of all the details from that championship, only now do I read of a Scott / Nate connection. Not sure how I feel about this late ingredient to the pile-on.

Add to that the two-years-gone speculation that another round played by another player who may have been related but had some connection to Scott may or may not also have involved stacking.

What do you get? More bad blood, more dirty pool, more dirt heaping. I have to let that one completely go and leave the bitterness to the vanquished.

Ah but it's nice to reminisce.

I confirm that the player to the left of camera is not Jim Black but is yes indeed Scott.

The Yog card is Ithaqua, Ancient One, Exhaust to bring a character from a discard to play with

fewer Arcane than Ithaqua ? That's just from memory so it may be flawed.

The game became 'zero fun' for whom? Say specifically what you mean. Zero fun for you ?

Zero fun for competitive players ? Speaking for myself and our local meta this deck type reduced

our 'fun' not one iota.

Some very bad things did occur during Worlds '08. There's no 'white washing' it or offering of

revisionist history which in the end will only add fuel to the fire. For me, it's in the past and I've moved on.

I can understand why others have not yet 'buried the axe'.

Someone said Champion Scott 'never' got his card made.

Jim Black's '07 Champ card was the last made and we have yet to see the '09 Champ card.

It's a little early for 'never'.

Hybrid wrote: "Speaking for myself and our local meta this deck type reduced our 'fun' not one iota."

Glad to hear it, Hybrid.

Chick

The name was no fun for casual players who wanted to play a broad number of cards. Massive numbers of playgroups stopped flipping cards. The will of capitalism spoke in the form of less people buying product. The ccg died. Long live the LCG!

At this point I am holding back on more contentious stuff because I treasure what is now. There is no reason to call up that which has already been put down from that mortal cardboard into the spheres beyond...

I hadn't looked at the video before, but if that game was an example of the problems the CCG had, then I dare say things haven't improved a lot with the LCG.

In the CCG days every faction had a 'Messenger' card like the 'Teller of Tales' that allows moving a drain token. In the LCG only the 'Itinerant Scholar' is left.

There are plenty of effects that allow the readying of cards, both 'Y'Golonac' and 'Ancient Guardian' still exist.

So the only link that is missing is a character like 'Ithaqua' who only needs to exhaust to put a discarded character back into play.

There _are_ plenty of effects to return cards from the discard back into play, though. So it's not inconceivable that a similar, albeit somewhat less straightforward combo of the same kind already exists in the LCG. And if it doesn't exist right now, it's probably only a matter of time, until it returns.

Currently, I'd take a close look at Miskatonic / Yog-Sothoth if I wanted to recreate the combo in the LCG.

Regarding the shuffling issue: If I understood the issue right, then we'd still be confronted with it in the LCG, If it wasn't for the following FAQ entry:

(v1.0) Searching the Deck
If a card effect allows a player to search
his deck, he must shuffle his deck
afterwards.

If I didn't miss anything, there's curerntly four cards in the LCG that allow a player to search his deck without mentioning he has to shuffle it afterwards.

I disagree with Tokhuah, though. None of these issues matter the tiniest bit for casual players. All of them are purely a problem that stems from competitive gaming and is restricted to competitive play. Look at the current problem cards in the LCG: Magah Birds, Seventy Steps, Endless Interrogation, and the slightly older cards 'Sledge Dogs', and 'Descendant of Eibon'. For casual players it's no problem to simply agree not to use them.

jhaelen said:

Something must be really really wrong if it happens that I and jhaelen agree on something! This was the basis for my arguments for about 1,5 years: casual metas aren't affected at all by broken competitive choices, otherwise they are not casual meta, but competitive wannabes.

Glad to read someone agree with me.

So...the idea was (if I understand it right) .... you played some card that when sacrificed, allowed you to choose and drain an opponents domain ?

THEN...you had Ithaqua the Snowmonster "exhaust" to put that character right back into play again....Sac him again....and drain a second domain....

....but how do you refresh Ithaqua (again) to allow him to "exhaust" again and take care of the 3rd Domain ?

(and why can't the opponent just play a Shotgun Blast - or whatever - right after you bring the card that drains your Domains into play.....to kill that guy before he is allowed to sac - or whatever - to drain your Domains ?)

Related - what story does this Ithaqua guy get mentioned in (in Lovecraft stories I mean) ... ? And what was his actual card info...cost....icons...skill...ability...etc ?

Rosh87 said:

You ready Ithaqua with either Y'golonac or Ancient Guardian.

Killing the messenger is the wrong tactic here: you'd have to kill Ithaqua to stop the combo, in the first two turns and having your big domain likely drained: the fact that the two - three most likely counters (Sacrificials Offerings, HPL, Forgotten Island) were almost absent in that year top performing players' decks due to meta considerations made that deck (which was probably one of the top decks in the game anyway) even more successfull.

But yes, the combo could have been delayed annihilating a tough-less char point blank.

Ithaqua is fully referenced in Nyarlazorbec's deckbuilder: it's an awesome program to check cards text. If you have the chance, try it.

Anyway:

Rosh87 said:

Use Ancient Guardian or Y'Golonac to ready Ithaqua. Written in the Sky, Lavinia Whateley and the Stars are Right help get the combo out first turn and Glimpse of the Void gives you an extra turn if you don't.

In the Bay Area casual players saw what sort of foo was coming out of decks and stopped playing, new players did not return, so my statement stands as correct in regards to my local group. Maybe the Bay Area is a strange place in this regard but it happened... By the release of Masks only 3 competative players remained buying cards. The rest stopped before Forgotten Cities becasue we were playtesters and could see the ridiculousness of the set, particularly since design refused to look at anything we had problems with, like the stupid jank being discussed in this thread.

This all brings back a dark side I prefer not to visit. I will not click into this thread again...

Carioz said:

Yep, this can only happen if the stars are right...

... but wouldn't this mean...?

... oh, dear!

Tokhuah said:

Nice (?) to see we weren't the only playtesters that were ignored.

So...I understand Ithaqua, now....but what was the chosen card he kept taking out of the discard pile that was able to shut down his opponents Domains ?

Also...if Ithaqua's "Take the thing out of the Discard Pile" is an Action......then as soon as he does it...the opposing player should have a chance to play an Action. Also...if Ithaqua (as the earlier poster wrote him up) has NO Toughness or Invulnerability (odd that an Ancient One has NONE of those....)....then why can't the opponent play a simple Shotgun Blast, Sac Offerings, etc - or one of many "wounding effect cards" to kill him off...that way he cannot keep repeating the cycle ?

I guess I'm failing to see how once this "thing" is out it's "unstoppable" ... ?

Rosh87 asked: "....then why can't the opponent play a simple Shotgun Blast, Sac Offerings, etc - or one of many "wounding effect cards" to kill him off...that way he cannot keep repeating the cycle ?"

Seems pretty straightforward to me why the opponent can't - - - every one of his domains is kept drained.

Or maybe I'm the one who is misunderstanding.

I actually do not remember if Scott was draining with either Teller of Tales or Black Wind.

========== Yog-Sothoth ==========

Teller of Tales
-
Type : Character
Cost : 3
Skill : 2
Icons : AA
Subtype : Messenger.
Game Text : Action: sacrifice Teller of Tales to move a drain token from one of your domains to an undrained domain.
Flavor text :
Illustrator : Henning Ludvigsen
Collector's Info : MN U98

========== Shub-Niggurath ==========

Black Wind

Type : Character
Cost : 3
Skill : 2
Icons : T
Subtype : Messenger.
Game Text : Toughness +1. Action: sacrifice Black Wind to move a drain token from one of your domains to an undrained domain.
Flavor text :
Illustrator : Frank Walls
Collector's Info : MN U111

As said before, it is possible to remove Ithaqua as the first or second action the active player takes after refreshing domains, but that year tournament had very little "standard" decks, so removal was pretty rare (I might be making an error recalling but the only top player who carried -abundant- removals that year was Jim). Also, removals were dead cards against the other dominant deck type, the jump deck.

Not to mention the fact that even if you remove one Ithaqua, messenger had about 20-ish cards that search you another copy or recycle him. At that time the most removal dense decks carried 16 removals, 8 of whom were unappliable as they were "operation phase only".

In short, was it an "hard lock"? No, it was escapable. Did it put the player in a winning situation? Yes, because, in the long run, the opponent would have lost the action/cards economic war.

Aha....thanks for explaining it like that Carioz.

That was what I was missing - the history behind what decks were being played in that tourney (overall) - if very few of them had any solid removal (which is something I love in my own personal decks - and one of the reasons I have neglected putting any Miskatonic stuff together yet ...lol) ....then I can see how this kind of combo would be devastating.

I understood the draining of the domains concept - but since each player is going to have at least 3-domains needed to drain...it seemed obvious that after the first is drained, that they would have a chance to play an Action with the last 2 (domains), ideally stopping Ithaqua, if possible.

If players didn't have a deck designed to kill off characters, however, and came up against this combo - then I can see how it would be an issue.

It just seems, overall, like the CCG-era must have had a lot more of these "killer combo" - decks, whereas the LCG (barring Hastur / Agency - which still isn't really a "combo" - per se) - seems more able to make a deck - any deck - and play without worrying "oh, if I don't do X-by turn-Y, then the opponent will activate the Super Combo of Death and win the game no matter what I do...!"

This is for the better (LCG), it would seem.