Darksbane said:

See, I'm a strong proponent of Melee, and I'm opposed to both of these scenarios. Having never attended a non-FLGS AGoT tourney, I wasn't aware that these dynamics existed, and the fact that they do saddens me. I think Melee works sans pre-formed alliances and posses. If you can form an alliance at the table, that's awesome. But showing up with friends and scheming outside the table feels too much like asking a player to throw a game. I love Melee, but (naive though it may be) I'd like each game to occur against the background of a blank slate.

First, great to have you back John! As you've noticed, a lot of new players/posters on this board.

For those of you who don't know, Mathlete is truly one of the nicest guys there is to play against (no offense to Dobbler, Rings, Nate or other past champs) It's a great community in general - but Mathlete always travelled across the country to regional events & was a true ambassador of the game.

I think you know that I've always been more a proponent of casual games (with my Ned "house" theme decks). It'll be great to have you playing in any capacity.

Totally agree on Val (though I've always been an anti-draw guy) & Laughing Storm, as well as the Stark Uniques.

Regarding Melee - like Stag, I've always said that it's really just a different skill set (just as draft was) - and he is correct that I think it is hard for some of the high level joust players to alter their mindset to melee as they have less control (and yeah Rings, Stag's comment can come off as a bit superior; but, really so do the comments of the anti-melee proponents). That said, I'm almost ready to throw in the towell & agree that melee just doesn't work that well. I think that in theory it should be a better measure of a player's ability in that he/she is more often forced to react to unforeseen circumstances (it's much harder to lockdown/control an opponent). However, that doesn't necessarily seem to play out because: it is too easy in tournaments for local meta's to gang up, and in games I've played, it far too often has come down the the action (or inaction) of one player who cannot win deciding if player B or player C will win - not to mention that game length is just too long in general. 5-6 players is too many for a game (with all of the ability text on cards right now - too hard to track all cards/see what's going on) & I really don't think the titles work in the 3 player format.

when john left agot, i felt the game lost a part of its soul. to now have that and one of the nicest and best stewards of the game back, is truly exhilarating. welcome back mathlete. you were sorely missed.

rings said:

I had the pleasure to be from the "targeted" meta at last year's Gencon. Luckily it was my first time coming to a major AGoT tournament and seeing as how I haven't been playing as long as some of you other veterans I wasn't a target that day. I did however sit down at a table with one of my meta buddies and someone from the offending meta and I have to say that at least the culprit tried to be subtle about "taking out" a certain someone who will remain nameless. But it's pretty obvious what is happening when someone bring a Targ Shadows Burn deck to melee. Everyone knows that person is not there to win. Even with all the hate, I still helped my friend get the win. I could have won myself, seeing as how I had a Bara player begging and pleading to initiate an intrigue challenge against him since it would have been UO and I was at 14 power and he would have been second. But I chose to see if my friend could get us 1-2 with him winning instead of 1-3 with me winning. When it comes to your friends you normally are going to do what you can to get all of you guys at the best possible position, regardless of someone at the table you don't know trying to make an alliance. That is what ultimately turns me off from Melee in general. It takes absolutely NO SKILL to be friends with someone before you come to a tournament. Sure, there will be games where everyone is from different metas(which seems thankfully more often than not) and you will do what you have to in order to win. Alliances and what-not. Playing Melee once a year at World's will be fun enough I guess. But when other players are being ****** bags it doesn't make for a fun or enjoyable experience. It just pisses people off. So let's try and keep that to a minimum this year.

Surely the whole point of Melee is to forge alliances, prey on the weak and deflect the aggression to others. You guys have read A Game of Thrones, right? It's You Win or Die, not You Win or Whine

Having said that - in semi-jest, of course - competitive, tournament-style play shouldn't be about who's brought the right number of friends from their local meta to the party. I'd imagine it's pretty unavoidable, though, in a game like this, with so much intrigue, temporary alliance-forging, weakness-preying and aggression-deflecting.

Both Melee and Joust are great fun, with the right people. People make games NPEs, not the game itself.

Agreed on the melee vs. joust. Again, I don't think this is an inherent weakness...or at least not one that can't be overcome.

We need more in-game effects that encourage alliances in melee.

Starblayde said:

You win or you whine...classic! I just think your intrigue, temporary alliance-forging, weakness-preying and aggression-deflecting shouldn't be decided on the car ride to Indy. But I digress...

Let me address the aspect of Melee and meta-alliances:

Many of you know that the Missouri brought 8-10 people to Gencon last year, and we had 4 at Days of Ice and Fire in November.

The funny this is, even when we decide internally that as friends we shouldn't attack each other, it never quite works out that way. I've been involved in three different Melee games at tournaments (Gencon '09, Gencon '10 and Days of Ice and Fire '10) with a metamate where there were hurt feelings after the game between metamates because we attacked each other and prevented someone from the meta from winning. I heard stories of many more after Gencon of last year. I remember many comments like "Joe Blow (metamate) kept attacking me and I fell to 4th" or "John Doe (metamate) really screwed me over!"

Its interesting that when someone can smell victory, or they get spurned, or they forge new alliances, those old or pre-made alliances just get thrown out the window. At Days of Ice and Fire I was playing with a metamate named Paul in a Melee game. He was in first and I was in second and I was sure one of us would win that round. But I used a Crown regent to redirect one of his challenges (hopefully at me so I could defend with renown and Khal drogo and kill an OPPs character). Paul thought I was trying to prevent him from winning (which has a small merit of truth as I was hoping I would get first instead of second). So then Paul opened up and directed everything at me which left me vulnerable to Bradley Ring who directed all his challenges my way and killed my Thoros with 7 power on him. By the end of that round Paul and I had fallen to 3rd and 4th. We try and laugh about it now, but I know he secretly hates me

Granted, we don't form any "hard and fast" alliances. Its more just a large meta with lots of friendships. Yet, so very often in the heat of battle, those friendships are still forgotten. Its almost like an added layer of intrigue, an added layer of betrayal.

I can sympathize with the idea that pre-formed alliances in Melee would destroy the desire for anyone not in a pre-formed alliance to participate. Imagine the extreme where every melee game you played, two of your opponents agreed to ally together before the game started to the point that one player was strictly playing to help the other win with no thought to their own success, and nothing you could say or do would change their mind. I think most people would stop playing melee if that was a regular circumstance, and balk at any talk of skill by the winning allied player. Of course there is a lot of grey area in between the total king maker ally who will never attack his friend, and only is trying to make sure his friend wins, and the friend who temporarily allies and then plans to stab you in the back to if it will get him victory. Friends are the most natural allies if all the rest of the players are strangers because you have a measure of how much you can trust them, and if a player finds himself out of the running and has to choose between making his buddy win or a stranger, he will probably assist his friend. I suspect it is the more unbreakable pre-game alliances that most rub players the wrong way.

Winning Melee because you happened to have enough friends in attendance who will help you to fix the results seems rather hollow though. Considering that these "world championships" represent a vast minority of the total player base, any "fame" from winning is going to be most relevant among the other participants. If the participants outside of the alliance all feel the winner was determined by fixing the melee then that hardly seems like something to be proud of. Ultimately the tournament should be about having fun and testing yourself and your deck against other players, both friends and strangers. There is no big Pro Circuit money prize at stake, and no one outside of other serious tournament players is going to know or care who wins in the long run.

BTW I meant to also say that I LOVED watching the final table at GenCon. When it truly is time to put up or go home, I think the melee rules work very well. THAT truly is probably the best multi-player element you can find, and one of the coolest games I have seen. It is getting to the final table that is an issue (in a competative environment).

I still find it funny that people keep saying that all the 'out-of'game' stuff (bringing people especially just to get other people to lose) is like the books so is okay. Again, if we want the books, let's all just bring daggers and poison this year What I found especially funny, is the people with targets on them are the people who were historically good in Joust.

Okay, I will shut up, since I will never play Melee even if FFG tries to make it the ONLY competative format again. ~That went over well last time...

Karazax - never underestimate the power of some people just wanting to win. 99% of the games I have played have been great, but we have caught cheaters and seen some pretty suspect stuff as well. Yes, I HOPE it makes the win hollow...but for many it doesn't.

Back on topic...

Mathlete is a ninny!!!

rings said:

I think your leap in the analogy is a bit much ~but I would be happy to knife you next time you double dupe a Val against me at Gencon!

People prepare for a Joust tournament long before they ever sit a table. Its why it is called the metagame. I know I try and anticipate what the popular decks will be, who will be at the tournament and their playstyles, what the commonly used power cards are and how to deal with them, etc, etc. I've also known people who during a joust single elimination tournament take extra long bathroom breaks or dinner breaks to try and psyche out the opponent. There are many aspects of the Joust game that happen long before sitting at a table. Heck, for the longest time I had a mental block about being able to beat Mathlete. It took me a long time to finally beat him in a game. And trust me, he knew he held a psychological edge on me and he wasn't afraid of using it. And I have no problem with any of these things, it is part of competitive gaming in my mind.

So since Melee is a more social game, I have no problem with people who create a "social metagame" before ever sitting at a table. Even when metas might create "gunners" who have their sites set on me, I have no problem with this (as long as real guns aren't involved ). The Melee game is about alliances, betrayals, deals, timing, friendships and hatreds, etc etc...within a social gaming concept. So for me personally, I don't see a moral difference between this happening at a table or before you sit down at a table.

I actually have no problem with pre-formed alliances. Usually, both players are trying to place as high as possible, and there's a 4th player you can team up with. If you sit down at a table with 3 other players from the same meta, your luck just sucks.

What I have a major problem with is gunners who aren't terribly concerned with placing high, because their buddy (who isn't even sitting at the table) told them to go after certain people. Very rarely is there an in game solution for this.

Dobbler said:

Stated like a guy with a huge meta to bring with him!

As usual I was taking a leap on the basic logic...which was 'if it is more like the books, then it is automatically better'. ~I swear we need a debate coach every once in awhile up in here!

Preparing against a meta-game is different entirely. No one ever made a deck specifically to beat me (hint: take out the location removal and stuff that hits non-uniques). No one told their friends to build decks to specifically beat me in case they play me. Yes, you might put in traitors or the such which is valid (I don't like it, but whatever).

I see it more like 25% of the participants get handed an ace they can use repeatedly during a poker match. Is that kind of like Game of Thrones in that some people have more resources than others? For sure! Is it fun and fair? Not even close! (actually I am scared of using the poker analogy considering you CAN gang up on people...a little. But in a totally randomized game with a higher # of participants, the benefit is much lower)

Stag Lord said:

The social aspect is a HUGE part of Melee gameplay just as much as deck building and strategy in game. For me Melee reminds me of the old Avalon HIll board game called Diplomacy where the social interaction (and that often means lying and backstabbing) is a huge part of the path to victory. It adds a whole new element to the game which is why I personally really like Melee a lot but I can see others point of view especially those coming from a more competitive CCG 1v1 type of background.

Hmm, I guess I should have read the long debate on melee before typing that but I can see things from both sides. It does seem a bit shady-NPE for someone to play a non-competitive melee deck just to eliminate dangerous players for his meta-mate but I guess thats part of the "social metagame". Maybe one year we will have a huge posse of Californians come to GenCon.

And speaking of melee, Mathlete, I still consider my greatest Melee moment eliminating you from CaliCon melee tourney with that old Highgarden army =)

John! This is Tom Ryan

Wendy and I are back too!

you may remember wendy as that girl that taught you thr game

She invented the littlefinger format too (though she used chocolate gold coins...)

we are trying to get a group together in Boston/Eastern Mass if anyone os in our neck of the woods

Hidatom said:

Hey Tom! Of course I remember you and Wendy and playing at Pasadena! Who knew almost 10 years ago when I learned to play the game at one of Wendy tourneys that I'd actually have some success at this game? LOL Hit me up through e-mail. I'd love to catch up with you guys!

[email protected]

rings said:

You trying to taunt me into attending Kubla and kicking our ass? LOL It just may work.....

LaughingTree said:

I remember Jim. This just validated my point even more....~ANYONE can win at Melee! Are you tempting me to go to Kubla too?

Whoh...I just read you signature line or whatever for the first time.

~Oh, its on like Donkey Kong now! j/k...I loved First Snow (mainly the picture of you getting sweet, sweet Wight loving).

and I miss the "guns" on the Ghost of High Heart - the first..."I'm gonna make my champion card unaffected by your champion card!" LOL

mathlete said:

Hahahaha, I didnt even win though I just kept you out of the finals which probably allowed Syd to eventually win with that crazy House Arryn reset.

And yes I am tempting you to Kubla. We don't want Rings to be the only Champ there!

On a side note, I'll be staying with parents in LA from middle of April to middle of May so if you want to get some practice in (which I need as well) I can drive down to that Game Store in Norwalk (?) whenever you want to get some practice on

Going back to the OP...Wow! We've never met, but old man Stag always has something great to say about you whenever he talks about the earlier CCG days at our meet-ups. It's great news to hear such a beloved individual make a comeback (big or small; hint - bigger is better ) to the game. IMO, it's still not as good as the ITE to 5KE (I guess you could tack on the CoA cycle too) days, but there's a lot of potential for improvement and it's still AGoT!

~Now for the important discussion.

I think there is merit to both sides of the Melee issue. There definitely is a strong element of skill (more than I think some are willing to admit), but there's no doubt that you're much more susceptible (in terms of winning and losing) to your opponent's actions. Certain things are just out of your hands sometimes and that can definitely be a turn off for many. The worst is when someone just makes a *bad* play and costs you a huge opportunity (or even the game). The game often comes down to a kingmaker too, which can frustrating as well, "You can't win, but if you don't do X, player A will win; however if you do X, player B will win. So who do you want to win?"

I also really dislike the extent to which external subterfuge sometimes takes place. Having players enter to simply serve as kingmakers and kingslayers is extremely distasteful. I'd even go as far to say it's unsportsmanlike and grounds for expulsion from the tournament, but that's my personal opinion. I do think that more people would be interested in Melee if you could ensure that the game was more centered around in-game mechanics/decisions rather than out-of-game factors (i.e. metamates, kingslayers, etc.).

I think a change in the structure of Melee tournaments could go a long way in achieving that. For example, only rewarding points to the player that won the game (you win or you die), would create a much more "final table" atmosphere in the preliminary rounds. The first four players in the tournament to get X wins, makes the final table. You'd have to work out a few kinks in terms of how to pair players after the first round (winners with winners? losers with losers?) and probably make some use of strength of schedule if more than four people reach X wins in the same number of rounds, but I believe it can be done.

Very good post. Can't say I really disagreed with anything that was said but I always agree with anyone who wants better Starks!

This is coming from probably the most casual player ever, who has never experienced the large scale tournament atmosphere, but isn't it all about the mindset?

When you go into a Joust tournament, you know its your deck and skill against their deck and skill. Thats it. Done.

When you go into a Melee tournament with the idea that because you build the best multiplayer deck, and you have the most skill so you will win, your forgetting the rest of format. If you expect people to make deals and lie and backstab and throw you under the bus for their own gain, even if it seals their own loss and someone else's victory, when that happens (because it will happen) you were prepared for it . Its the game your playing, pretending like that isn't going to happen will just make you feel bad about when it does. The best solution is to just return the sentiment in kind. People just don't like having tournament champions based on this format, and I understand that position. If you recognize that the titles are for different formats because the formats are different, how can you still object to it's legitimacy?

The Overall champion is another story. Yes, sometimes you get someone who places 6th in Joust and 12th in Melee who wins the Overall title, and your like "HOODDDORRRRR!!!!!" but then other times you get people like eric who won the overall title this past year. I've never met him or played against him (infact the only player here I've played against is Alexfrombeyondthewall), but from what I have read here his opponents consider him the best player in the game. So isn't the overall title doing its job?

sooo welcome back Mathlete. . .. . . sorry about hijacking your thread. . . . .. .