I still don't think you guys are making the point that you think you're making. Let's see if we can talk FFG into pulling the championship sanction from Joust and just make it a Sunday morning side event. Let's see what that does to attendance for a joust event.

Hmmm... also, double checked the longer post, and I've gotta say.... if you item #4 is true, then what is the point of having playtesters at all?

As well, if you're personally a fan of rush, why perpetuate the stereotype that melee is some bastard version of the game with your "children's table" comment when it's a format that rush is traditionally stronger in?

Twn2dn said:

I'll agree that you need a valid pool size to really get a good feel for things, but what is the necessary size for this? Now, I don't believe that I have hard numbers in front of me, but I believe the MO melee had more players than the DE joust. Can anyone back me up on that? Dobbler? If that's the case, should we discount the DE joust as being too small of a sample size?

That said, I don't necessary think you have to do an entire issue all about melee to balance things out. Lol, we don't need melee affirmative action just yet. But I think a concerted effort to rid melee of a baseless stigma would be a good thing for the community as a whole.

Kennon said:

When thinking about this type of comparison, you really have to take into account the number of games, rather than the number of participants. In a joust tournament with 30 people, 15 games are going on, yielding 15 sets of results. (In other words, you can say "in those 12 martell vs. lanni games, martell won 80%...that means something.") In a melee tournament, the same number of people are playing in only 7-8 concurrent games, leading to 7-8 different data outcomes. Factor in the fact that joust tournaments tend to have more preliminary games, and we're looking at a joust tourney with 60-75 data sets for the prelim rounds, compared to just 32 for melee. Again, I'm not saying you can't draw conclusions from 32 melee games, but it's a bit harder. Moreover, given the number of extra variables in the melee games, the data is even harder to interpret.

All this aside, the real deciding factor is what I expected readers to find interesting. My impression is that people simply find joust more interesting, for whatever reason, whether they harbor a "baseless stigma" or not. It sounds like you have different preferences, and while I can appreciate those, I don't think it makes you any more right than it makes Rings right about joust being "better."

Joust and melee are very different games...it's a bit like playing two different types of poker. I don't think it's fair to say people are wrong for preferring Texas hold 'em over 5-card stud. My first issue was on Texas hold 'em, and if readers suddenly begin to prefer 5-card stud, I'll likely write more about that.

Mathias Fricot said:

Double Up Plus One!

I think we can keep bandying this topic about, or we can switch the debate over to one solely based on what criteria we're going to use for judging the relative merits of the two formats, historical precedent, and how big a field needs to be to matter. Or not. I agree with Will on the perspective that Melee was "slighted" by comparison to joust, but I think that ignores the fact that there wasn't a huge clamoring for more recognition of the format. Not only was attendance low, but no one was asking for bigger or multiple events. How many people actually ran melee's as a side event at their regionals? There were plenty of drafts, or alternate format jousts, but multiplayer usually happened as pick-up games amongst players that preferred it, or at least enjoyed it in addition to heads up play.

FFG, and the Spaniard in particular, made a considered effort to keep AGOT out of the gaming graveyard with Winter Solstice announcement in 2007. It took me a while to find, but in Christian's words, "Yet, perseverance alone does not make a game grow. Loyalty does not forestall a game’s mortality – new players do!" The three-fold plan to rejuvenate and relaunch the game to attract a new and growing audience, one that would continue supporting production (this makes profit and keeps your rabid fans available and energized so they can help expand the community) included: 1) Fixed Product 2) Multiplayer Championships and 3) A New, Innovative OP system. And they did this without knowing (to my knowledge) that HBO would be coming along to stoke the fire of interest in this property. We can all agree that everyone took to the new release format, even if we lost the ability to draft (I'm surprised we haven't seen anything like the Warhammer: Invasion draft cards implemented). The OP system has been in limp-along mode for the past three years, but there's always hope, right? Most people are going to play because they want to, not for the achievements or pins, though they can be nifty. But the MP-only tourney format had to be amended after player, dare I say, outrage. Had there not be a strong insistence from above, I don't see the player base choosing to move to the combined championship on it's own.

I have to agree with Kevin that the majority of people play in the Melee at GenCon in order to compete for the overall title. I suppose we could organize an impromptu poll at GenCon, but I don't see FFG asking each person registering what there motivations are. But in the core of most game's popularity, from organized play and playtesting, it's the competitive players that drive the game and the community. The emphasis on melee was to "de-competitive-ize" the game and move things in a more casual, boardgamer-friendly direction. It does not mean that multiplayer can't be competitive, and you can't hone your deck and playstyle to do so, but it is, like CTP said, more like Poker than Chess, and they are too different animals. I haven't seen, up to this point, anyone from a melee-only meta showing up at GenCon to dominate a tournament, or taking the time to practice joust so they can fair better on that side. Players entering the game from MP tend to me less into the tournament scene.

One point I think I'm differing with Will on is the balance between rush and control in both Joust and Melee. I'd prefer players be able to successfully execute both archetypes in both formats. As I've traveled (and I might have to be ballsy enough to say I've played melee in the greatest number of discrete local metas), one of the strongest differences I saw was the metas focus on rush or control. Having been "raised" in the Wrath-heavy Iowa meta, I was used to the notion that you worried about stopping the leader until you were in a position to win, rather than rushing by abusing the low-man. The first time I was in Boston and was sitting at 4th place at the end of the first round with everyone else flirting with 10 power was an eye-opener. It's easy to diagram the various matchups in joust between Rush & Control (someone else can do the Punnett square), but Melee is another story. Perhaps this is a complement to a couple things that Matt and Mathias have said, but walking into a Melee game with a Control-oriented deck, you don't have much of a chance if 3 of your opponent's rush. Alternatively, 3 control decks will keep a single rush deck from getting any traction. At the GenCon melee last year, I went 1st, 1st, 1st, and 4th at my tables, playing a Viper-centric, but control-laden agenda-less Martell deck. In the first three rounds I had at least one other control-ish deck (Bara/Winter, Martell and Stark/Kill, IIRC) and that was enough "help" to slow anyone rushing. But my final table featured a Bara Rush and two GJ Unopposed decks, and I didn't have much of a chance. This may be another manifestation of that lack-of-control that irritates people who don't alter their perspective, without delving into the issue of king-making. You can argue this is a function of reading the meta-game, but it's nearly an order of magnitude to predict your mix of opponents at a 4-player table, than it is to choose a joust deck that will match up with your expected blend of opponents in 5 rounds of swiss.

I'm struggling with my concluding analogy here, but I suspect we just need to reach that "Can't we all just get along" moment that Mathias was suggesting. One side will not likely convince the other of embracing their opinion, as it's not a case of logic, but one of taste. People can choose to bring their personal enjoyment vector into parallel with FFG's choice of championship determinants, or they can play "The Only Game that Matters*... to Them." I don't expect rings to play Melee anytime soon, but he'll be ecstatic to continue his run of Top 4 joust finishes. I think we'll see not-quite-an-all-time-high in Joust attendance this year (but only b/c I haven't been able to verify what the total was in 2003 when Casey won the first WC, and certainly a new high-water mark for the Melee. And mathlete will make a last minute decision to attend, dethroning Erick as the Overall Champ... though Mr. Butzlaff will be satisfied in winning his first Joust title.

Or the FFG Marketing Department should figure out how to develop a web-article derivative of Frank Herbert's Bene-Gesserit "Voice" to influence people into all being shiny and happy.

Also, I think we should have someone re-title this thread, and let Twn2dn get his accolades for launching this endeavor in a new one.

***Speaking of, I'd love to see that agenda reprinted. > Along with WED Robert Baratheon. Of course, he'd have to cost 5 Gold and be 1 STR. Heck that combination alone would probably get Ser Robb to GenCon.

I'm going to be a bit controversial here. (The depreciative Melee comments are already starting to get on my nerve. The joke got old a while back, and now it's all stinking and full of worms.) Just to warn you. Oh, and a big +1 to Kennon, in general.

Twn2dn said:

Ugh. Sorry, but this paragraph sounded really obnoxious for me. And that's even without the error in facts concerning Power of Blood in Melee decks vs. your own data on say Valar Morghulis (I'm starting to agree with Stag on it being a crutch) in Joust. Oh, and as a complete aside, I'm thinking that the very loud Joust-love/Melee-hate on these forums might lead to 1) Melee players keeping their mouths shut here, 2) getting a very negative image of the whole competitive game and thus 3) lead to them not wanting to show up at events, since they don't want to get ridiculed. Just a thought.

Now, to elaborate on the actual subject. Joust is a building game. What you're driving matters. How well the exact composition of your deck takes into account the currently powerful decks existing in the meta and how well your deck has solutions to each of these. All fine and good. The playing itself is about playing the deck optimally. Still fine and good, but now let's compare to Melee.

Melee is more difficult. To play. Yup, I said it. Melee is a competition that places more emphasis on drivers, not cars. The simple fact that there's twice the amount of cards on the table, three times the number of unknown cards per player (opponents hands) plus more choices leading to limiting structures (titles) makes it more difficult to keep everything in your mind at the same time, while simultaneously juggling social behaviour patterns (detecting bluffs, bluffing yourself, making deals, figuring who would be open for a deal, breaking deals at the exact right moment etc.). It's almost impossible to play a Melee deck optimally, you just can't count everything out. Instead you have to be really good reactively. Surprising situations, and stuff you haven't counted on will happen 50% of the time, you just have to find a loophole and quick (Melee games don't have the leisure of waiting as much).

This would equate Joust winners with either being or knowing superb mechanics and complementing this with solid (minimal errors) driving skills. And Melee players would then be people with superb driving skills (knack for timing and catching your opponent off guard, less emphasis on minimizing errors) combined with people skills. Different skills, different game.

There is only one argument concerning Melee not being as viable as a 'competitive' card-game as Joust, and that's simply game length. It's hard to be able to organize tournaments with enough starting rounds and a suitably large qualifier.

Deck-building in the two formats naturally reflect the differences in the games. In Melee decks you concentrate on 1) having solutions that have a wide range of applicability (Kennon's Fishing Net for character control), but don't draw too much hate from other players, 2) your solutions need to have a good ability to be timed correctly since you don't get retrys and finally 3) You REALLY need a win-condition.

What I think I'm aiming at here is that you have some merit in saying that Melee decks are less exactly 'built', but you're missing out on Melee tactics and timing being much more important. Maybe someone from Kennon's meta would be happy to supply this kind of material for the letter?

Completely off-topic:

Now what strikes me as odd in Joust nowadays is that there really AREN'T many top decks with any emphasis on win-conditions. Most competitive Joust decks consist purely of different kinds of control cards, without any win-conditions. This I think is actually wrong with the environment currently. The game needs more combo-decks that you cannot shut-down just by kneeling or cancelling challenges, so that control decks would also have some kind of ticking-clock problem, instead of just squeezing the victory out leisurely. Just a thought. Or maybe just stricter time-limits in tournaments, and a crackdown on people 'giving' timed wins as real ones.

Excellent posts from both drakey and LUke (who's pen has been on fire lately!)

I wnat to strongly echo luke's pijt that both rush and control shoudl be viable archetypes in BOTH formats, and i find the dismissive attitude I have seen simmering aletly that certain houses are "melee Houses only' a bit off putting. That being said, I do find it hard to get geared up for competitive melee anymore, mostly becuase of team mate collusion before and during rounds. I doubt I'll ever attend a "competitive" melee event - though I still LOVE the format for League night and casual meetups. Which is why I can't get behind Kennon's call to embrace disucssing and olaying teh format wholly - even though Baratheon represents better in the current melee environment than ti does in the current Joust environment.

Thanks to LUke and drakey for some very insightful comments.

All good thoughts.

#1 - I LOVE what FFG has done with Melee. Christian did it to help improve the sales (as his job as CEO) and it worked. As Dobbs said, it has gotten whole metas into the game (not seriously competative metas, but still). And it is sneaky-smart to make the overall champion HAVE to play both, very few people have the ability to say no at that point. Melee has never gotten as many people as Joust, and that is with quite a few people who play Melee feeling like they have to (I am there every GenCon, I hear it repeatedly).

#2 - MOST people like competative Joust more than Melee. It is just a fact. Kennon, seriously. Seriously. I don't know one person who JUST plays competative Melee, no matter what the prizes are. That isn't to say it sucks. People enjoy it. Some people. Just not as many.

#3 - so therefore, someone made a newsletter and only did it on Joust. Using limited resources to reach out to the most people. *shrug* You guys in your podcast made you decision to include Melee (at least a little - even you guys spend WAY more time on competative Joust). Good fo you. Then a population of your listeners see the title and most likely either don't listen in, or fast forward through that part. All fine, all logical decisions all around. You guys are weekly, and I can't beleive how good you are about finding material.

I was just defending the original post and decision since that is how I would do it (Kennon first asked about why no Melee), so sorry if I got carried away I still love ya, K-dog!

Good posts! I don't FEEL like I am stinking and full of worms (which seems WAY more negative than anything I have said), but maybe I am My only issue is that people like Drakey say all you need is people skills, when I have SEEN people who come from bigger metas (or have different thoughts on ethics in a game) have an advantage in large events...that isn't people skills to me *shrug*

(and Luke HAS been on fire, he went through about 6 months it seems w/o a post, and now we get long, well-thought ones regularly...what was different...?)

This past regional season, I feel I got an extremely strong sense for the meta-game by going to three different regionals, each quite far from each other. Not only that, but they were three of the four most attended regionals in the states. And I heard something I had never heard before from several different players:

"We only play Melee in our meta"

Anyone who knows me knows that I have never been a big melee player. For years I avoided the casual melee pickup games in SW MO, and I have a tendency to hold a grudge when someone breaks a deal with me (see Kennon and Scurvy Cutthroat) in a melee game. But when the LCG launched and the Melee format was incorporated into the championship format, I knew I would have to start playing. As I played more and more, I began to enjoy it more and more and I also began to learn what wins and what doesn't in Melee. At Kublacon I chose to play in the melee tournament even though it didn't count towards the over championship and I knew I would have to leave before the final table if I would happen to make it to the final table (which I didn't, freakin' 2x Pulled Under on my Beric ). I just played for the sake of playing and enjoying it. So clearly my bias against Melee has dissolved over the years.

When A Game of Thrones CCG first started in 2002, even though it was advertised as being both a head to head and multiplayer game, the only format supported by FFG in the competitive scene was the head to head format. So clearly, on a competitive level, for the first 5-6 years of its life, the types of gamers that the game would attract would be those seeking the head to head format. And there are still alot of us around that played this game during its CCG life. And I can guarantee you that I never, ever heard someone say during the CCG era that they were part of a multiplayer-only meta. They pretty much didn't exist (although people did play multiplayer). So in /2007/2008, when the switch to the LCG was announced, and the emphasis on Melee was announced, there was a large revolt by players who didn't care for the format. And you know what? That makes sense. If Dr. Pepper announced tomorrow that they were going to change their ingredients and formula to taste more like Pepsi, then a bunch of people would be upset! The original competitive player base for Thrones came for the Joust format, not the Melee format.

However, we are now 4 years or so into that announcement, and we are nearing the three year anniversary of the release of the Core set and the "true" shift to LCG. (Summer of 2008 was the last Gencon where CCG sets were legal). As such the player base looks quite different. And accordingly, we have people, and even whole metas, that are more melee focused. So even in jest, the comments of "melee sucks", or "Melee is talentless" or "The melee game isn't diverse", are going to rub a large group of people the wrong way. Not only that, but if feels very draconian, particularly when it primarily comes from the CCG "old guard" players. The "old guard" played this game for the Joust format, we get that, but making people who play Melee feel like they are not as good, or not as talented, even if in jest, just isn't going to sit well, especially when it is repeated over and over and over.

All true - but to get back to the OP: Twn2dn is a limited broadsheet on the game. The melee community is still smaller than the joust community - especially at the competitive level (Just look at the number of posts and posters here). I'm certainly skipping any issues focused on competitive melee - and I'm certain he'll reach more readers and stir up more discussion by keeping the brunt of the emphasisi on Joust data and tactics.

Dobbler said:

True Story^ Chico, CA has a meta of about 12 people and they play exclusively melee.

Kennon said:

Item 4 is not about playtesting the product before it sees print. It's about shaping the environment after the cards have gone through R&D through errata's and restrictions. I don't want to go into specifics for fear of violating NDA's. Dobbler has my cell. Call me if you want specifics. If the card has gone through R&D and seen print, then I think it should be played with, even if a mistake has been made. It will become clear relatively quickly whether or not the curent Metagame can adapt.

I disagree about support creating the preference for Joust. I think you can thank Magic and the vast majority of other CCG, TCG, and LCG games creating an environment where most card games of this type are primarily 2 player games and the tournament structures and player expectations have evolved to reflect it. I don't think Prize support from FFG or sanctioning of Melee as "the official format" will change 20 years of CCG mindset.

Lastly, I personally love melee. I played at the only Melee-only Regional in NYC last year. I have played at every single GenCon Melee event except last year, where I only played 2 side events. But as Stag and Rings have alluded to, GenCon is moving away from an individual performance event to a team event, especially Melee. The possibility that I could sit down at a table with 2 or 3 members of "team Missouri" or "team Tennessee" or "team Butzlaff" and those people will never attack each other based solely on what team they are on, not the state of the game board, makes me rather spend that 6-8 hours playing something elso or wandering the exhibit hall. Melee is fine when all 3-6 players are playing the same game, but the social dynamics make it a strong NPE when you are in the minority at the table, playing a different game than your opponent. And, no, I don't believe forming "team Claymont" to be on an equal footing is a good solution.

When I state that Melee is at the kiddie table with Hand of the King, Civil War, Classic Highlander, etc I am merely stating what I perceive to be the mindset of the boards, not necessarily my personal views on the matter.

Dobbler said:

I see your point. And I truly am not trying to hit people over the head and make them feel bad.

But, this is the internets!

I guess I am not seeing what you are. I went to Kubla, and met some VERY nice people who play only Melee. It is great. I am very happy that the melee format bring more people in. But they would even say themselves that they are not competative players really. Did they make the final table @ melee (seriously, I have no idea), even when many of the known competative players (not only in Joust, but in other games, etc.) didn't play?

I guess I am not seeing these 'competative melee' players you are discussing. I DO know a lot of competative players that would drop melee if it wasn't part of the overall point system, or don't play at all. *shrug* Is that because I am 'old guard'? Maybe...but I know a ton of newer players as well (Z for one, from your own meta), and I bet even the defending melee champion (from the US, yes, I know) would choose Joust if you MADE him choose? The newsletter decided to choose as well *shrug*

I will change my tune a bit if this year there is no collusion. I know people will say 'that is part of the melee experience' or something, but it just seems too 'my meta is bigger/more willing to be obvious about it' for me. Some people will like that, but it doesn't seem very 'sporting' (read: competative) IMHO.

Last sidenote and I will stay away from this thread (again, GREAT newsletter!!!) - the whole transition, espeically the focus on melee (ESPECIALLY at the beginning of the transition), also LOST the game a decent amount of members, some of which are now coming back which is great, but some of which are not. I am sure national sales are higher (again, great), but turnout to competative tourneys took a HUGE hit that it is now starting to recover from (four years and an HBO series later). It wasn't only the melee part, but that was a decent piece of it, espeically how it was handled.

rings said:

I have no problem with the newsletter focusing on Joust. That was never my issue. And on 2 Champs and 1 Chump we definitely discuss cards/metagame and such with a Joust bent more often than a Melee bent. And I won't apologize for that. I simply want to make sure we don't demean the melee players or deprive them of opportunities. If these "melee only " players are showing up to tournaments (which I know they did at Kublacon and Missouri), then it is irrelevant if they are "competitive" or not. The creation of tournaments is for the play experience of all involved, not just for the people who win them.

First off, a hearty congratulations to Twn for the excellent newsletter. Seriously, this is exactly the kind of thing the AGoT community needs with its mix of general reporting, meta analysis, the rules corner, and opinion. It's perfect for the semi-casual/semi-competitive player such as myself.

As far as the joust/melee separation, I enjoy both immensely, and for me the differences between the two only add more value to the game.

For example, the two times I've played in both types of events the same weekend, I've always really enjoyed seeing how the same players approach the different challenges. For example, I always run very different decks, but at the Iowa Regional, I played against a fellow named Josh (not sure if he's on the boards) who played variants on Baratheon Knights for both days, which was both surprising and highly intriguing to me.

I see the points on both sides of this discussion, but I think as opposed to calling one format more difficult than the other, I'll say that they present different challenges. The social aspect of Melee is probably the best example of this, and one I find both frustrating and satisfying, depending on how it affects me, but that's what makes it fun!

Is Joust more popular in the competitive environment? Sure. Are the results of Melee sometimes/often affected by effects outside of game mechanics (i.e. how many times have you heard "it came down to X choosing whether Y or Z won")? Yes, but I don't think either of those makes melee less viable; it's a different game with different strategies.

That said, you do see a lot of the same people winning a lot in both environments, which should be expected. Yes the formats are different, but not shockingly so. You still have the same basic rules and a lot of the same skills and strategies apply. The fact that Melee is often won by very good Joust players doesn't indicate much other than that a good player in one environment is often a good player in the other.

rings said:

I assure you that Erick gets plenty of enjoyment out of any talk that is centered around him...positive or negative.