Ok just a little background information....Our flgs Allthingsfun has started Agot tourneys since May. We have them about once a month. We have had showings ranging from 6 people to 14 people. The joust has been fairly competitive builds. So in preparing for this tourney, I built a Greyjoy choke (Greyjoy is also my favorite deck).

I show up on the 27th and we have only 4 players (1 of which is new). In the first round I get paired up with a new player who is playing Stark Siege Wolves. I knew he was new so I was trying to go easy. But the deck, just really choked him out. He wasnt having fun and was really showing it by the way he was acting and I felt bad. Rd 2 I got paired up with another competitive player and he is playing BArathenon Maester Rush. He beats me on turn 2.

We go onto the melee and its the same 4 players. I play my greyjoy holy deck. The new guy plays the same deck, the other competitibe guy plays Stark Siege. The Stark Siege gets out Bear Island, Black Fish, and Robb. I have a board that just h ave saves and that is it. So the Stark Siege gets out to an early lead. I try reining in the Stark Siege by going for a power. Im winning the challenge and for some reason the new player decides to lower my strength twice through his attachments. At that time, I had 1 power and the competitive stark siege player had 7 power. I asked the New Guy why he wanted the other guy to win that challenge. He said, "Im not going to win anway." Well that ticks me off so I go and hit him with intrigue and military. And for the rest of the game I made sure the new guy never had a board.

My question: Should I have brought 2 decks to the joust just in case of the low turn out? Was there any way to make the joust more enjoyable for the new player?

I like winning and I like Greyjoy but I feel that everybody hates it when I and Scott bring out our Greyjoy decks.

Why is the greyjoy choke considered cheese, when the other player runs a power rush that wins on turn 2?

Ugh, Im just venting. The whole tourney left a bad taste in my mouth.

So for December 11th (Allthingsfun next Joust and Melee), should I change up decks?

Thanks

Steve

I'll offer my feedback to you, Steve.

First of all, just a bit of background on myself. I play in tournaments, but don't consider myself to have a "competitive personality". I like to win, but it isn't my driving force to play this or any other game. I play it for the subject matter first and foremost (I love Mr. Martin's world and characters) with secondary considerations going to the folks I mostly play with. They are good people, and enjoyable to play with. Those who know me consider me a good player, but I don't have the cut-throat mentality of "win at all costs". That said, I restrict myself from "cheesy" mechanics or play, even when I know I would have a better chance at winning if I employ them.

On the subject of "cheese" and what constitutes it, I think it's fair to say we probably all have different definitions of what's "cheesy" and what isn't. Using your example, I'd consider the Baratheon Maester/Rush to be cheesier than your chosen Greyjoy build. Why? Because as I alluded to above, I'm more for the themes of the houses than the game mechanics. For Greyjoy to focus on winter and resource denial makes sense to me from a thematic standpoint. Maesters driving the Stags to victory just seems cheesy to me. That said, it's a legitimate game strategy at the moment and there is nothing illegal about it. I personally don't like most of the maester shenanigans that go on (and many I know feel the same), but it's out there and it's competitive, so folks are going to play it.

The new guy and his frustration is quite common with new folks to this game in my experience. I always try to be a steward of the game and try not to go too hard on new folks. But in a tournament, the object of the game is to win. Since your example cited the fact you were participating in a tournament, then I see no problem with how you handled it. Was it a NPE for the new guy? Absolutely. But that's one of the big differences between tournament play and casual play. I have separate decks for each. In casual play, I never play one of my tournament decks unless I need to test something for an upcoming tournament, and when I do so, I let my opponent know that's what I'm doing in advance. Otherwise, I just play my casual decks. Granted, some think even my casual decks are "very strong", but I've been playing the game for a while now, so even my casual decks have good synergy and/or efficiency, especially above and beyond what a less experienced player may come up with.

Melee has provided me with almost all of my rare negative experiences with this game. It's a big reason I don't play it competitively. More than in joust, I've seen it lead to bad and bitter feelings between folks, which sometimes even permeates into real life and relationships. Some folks just take this game very seriously. This is not a bash at the format for those who enjoy it, so please don't take it that way. I enjoy it casually from time to time myself.

In the end, as I like to tell folks, games are played to be fun. If it's not fun, it's not worth playing in my opinion. Granted, some people only play to "win", but I can honestly say I've had more fun in some of my losses than many of my victories over the years. Try to find the fun in the game. And if it's not fun, then maybe it's time to change the game, or those you play it with (sometimes it's not the game, it's the people).

For what it's worth, these are my thoughts on your post. Good luck to you.

I've been in positions where I new I couldn't win a melee and have tried to end the game at a specific to point to ensure i finish second rather than last. (competitive play, not casual)

Equally, if there's a really annoying character who i find hard to deal with, I'll intervene in other people's challenges, to try to get rid of them, if that gives me a better opportunity than doing it in my own challenge.

But beating a guy for the sake of it, nah. Guess the new guy was just really annoyed.

I know what you mean about the bad experiences in Melee tho. Joust is a much more straightforward beast in terms of everyone's intentions. Round here tho, I'll take whatever format I can find opponents for.

Just to add my thoughts as well:

I am new. I just started playing a few weeks ago, and that has only been against my wife. I downloaded OCTGN and build my first deck a few days ago. I finally got an opponent on OCTGN who I informed I was a new player, and brought out the deck I built. He played Stark siege, and a first turn Fear of Winter (which is not a fun card IMO, but I don't design them... I never liked Stasis decks in M:tG either) coupled with a few epic phases, and he had 9 power on his house card, four characters, I had 0, and I had to pick my next plot at random. Do I need to learn how to beat this deck someday? Yes. Do I want to be eviscerated on turn two my second time opening OCTGN? Not really. Maybe I should have been prepared for this eventuality, but it certainly left a bitter taste in my mouth regarding my future in this game.

DieMyDarling said:

Well stuff like this happens in every game. You just had bad luck in here.

michaelius said:

For new players who are just getting into the game, I think the best thing to do is use the decks that emphasize the various challenges...in other words, more Bara rush, Stark Boltons, Targ dothraki, and Lanni clansmen, but less GJ choke, Targ burn, etc. Even if you prefer "control" or choke decks, surely you can take a break to play something a bit more interactive every once in awhile. The are times when Siege (and other) decks *are* more fun, but playing against a new player is going to be such a one-sided crushing it actually becomes an NPE for both players.

@DieMyDarling: My advice is look for players who you see post more frequently on these FFG forums, and who seem like nice people to meet. If you'd like the person in real life, then chances are playing cards with them is going to be fun. If not...well as MIchaelius says, there are people like that who play every game.

Sorry for the double post...

You know what would be *very* useful, is if Agotcards.org or CardGameDB had a list of "intro-level" deck lists posted on their sites that could be easily downloaded as OCTGN files. This might include the original Core Set decks, expansion decks (deck lists provided with house boxes), and other slightly more advanced deck lists. Would make it easier for newer players and experienced players alike to grab a couple decks of the same skill level.

If I have a moment at some point in the next few weeks, I may try to create a list of these and post them on the articles sections of those two websites.

IIRC octgn files for agot already come with core set decks.

This weekend, I was at a regional, playing Stark Siege (no Fear of Winter in the deck, it bit me in uncomfortable places too many times, and so did the random plot epic battle). Round 2, I get a Northern Cavalry Flank at setup, another in the refill and 3 epic battles (out of 4 in the deck). I chose to exploit this (2 non kneeling characters and 4 military challenges), which led to a very short and one-sided game. I have no regrets or remorse about that (I would have felt a little bad in a casual game, I think). The game probably wasn't much fun for my opponent, but she didn't seem to hold any grudge.

At non-super-competative tourneys I always bring a second deck, to have a fun game afterwards.

I also do try to shy away from non-interactive decks at those events (GJ choke, Stark epics plots, etc.). But in anything mroe competative, it should all be good!

What does NPE stand for in this context?

Negative Play Experience NPE. Like playing against Rings no matter what deck he's playing, heck, he doesn't even have to be playing...

GJ Choke isn't cheese. Its a valid deck.

GJ Choke does create an NPE, though. At least against rush, you can play some cards. It can be very frustrating to get choked.

What is the definition of "cheese"? Just super-competitive, right? If you are playing in a tournament, shouldn't you expect cheese?

I get it if a new player is frustrated. But to hold it over into the melee game is kind of stupid. I hate stuff like that. This is why we play melee first. In a Worlds setting, tournament environment, I enjoy melee a lot. If I'm playing for fun, it's so dependent upon the group.

Who goes to tournaments to lose? If you're competing, regardless of turnout, you should play your best deck. If someone is there, new or not, they should expect to play against decks designed to win, not give them a fair chance. Besides, if you want to get better at the game, playing against top decks is useful, playing against fun decks won't make you a better player. I actually love getting rolled by a top tier machine because it gives me ideas and teaches me what to do.

If someone is new and wants to play games for fun ie. ones where they have a chance of winning without tuning their deck to play top level, then they should do casual get togethers, not expect the field to ease up during a tourney. People are always willing to get together for fun games where they can try out theme based and weird builds. We've had our share of bitter players in this meta who refused to take criticism or advice, and just expected to show up with their 80 card insane person's deck and roll everyone. It doesn't happen, and they end up quitting in frustration. Unfortunately the game doesn't adapt to the player.

I would've done exactly what the OP did and gunned for him all melee especially since I hate melee and its inclination to favor social bias over technical play as the determinant of victory makes it the card game version of Olympic figure skating.

Davy Back Fight said:

which is more technically impressive beating 1 opponent to gain victory or beating 3 opponents to gain victory? im no mathmatician but i would say having 2 whole other opponents on the table when you win a game makes the win a little harder to come by, especially when you include bias.

jack merridew said:

Right, but for someone like me who is interested only in card interactions and mechanics, the sociopolitical element has no weight because of its nature. So that bias is specifically what invalidates melee for me in terms of what I want from a technical gaming experience. Sure the win is harder to come by, but because it's more reliant on mistakes creating opportunities that you didn't make and can't capitalize on respectively, friendships, and petty grudges, there's too much of a random element that determines the game. If you rematch a table of four with the same decks consecutively and your opponents will let you win again, and again, sure, it's impressive.

I realize some people love it, and that's cool, but I play ccgs for the deckbuilding and piloting aspects, not for the ability for some guy to wreck my performance because even though he/she isn't winning, they get to decide who they want to screw over.

But more on topic, that guy shouldn't expect that at a tourney, his opponents are there to give him the best chance at winning.

Just to derail this topic a bit (man there really isn't enough of this anymore!) I have taken a completely troll deck that had no reason to ever be built and won melees before. I take a deck that I've worked on for months and play it perfectly, get god draws and still lose in melee. Melee, imo, has a skillset requirement more suited for a board game rather than a competitive card game. I still generally enjoy melee games, but I'll never take them seriously like I would a joust game.

longclaw said:

Choke is an NPE to you . Greyjoy choke is not to me . I hate playing super rush, because playing a coupe cards but still not being able to do anything at all to stop it before the game is over (turn 2, not always even making to let alone through the challenges phase). Choke as with most forms of control I always have the belief that I may be able to draw into something that breaks the lock. Sometimes that is purely fantasy, but NPE is all about psychology. There is not absolute about what creates an NPE because we are all different in our make-ups.

Davy Back Fight said:

Blah-blah-bias.

Melee doesn't favor social bias, it favors manipulation of players as well as cards. You must be equally skilled in social manipulation as you are in card play to win in melee. I've seen people use this skill in joust as they convince opponents to conceded or take draws where there is a chance they could have won outright and secured victory for themselves. It is less talked about these days but it happens.

The reason that I think Greyjoy Choke gets singled out is that it directly hinders your ability to take actions. Against rush you can take actions, they just generally don't matter. Against kneel or kill or trait manipulation, you still get to take actions. Greyjoy choke can literally stop you from being able to do anything other than draw two cards and say, "I pass." So say you do actually draw that one card you need, and then you can't actually play it. It just sits in your hand mocking you.

Staton said:

If you played it perfectly you wouldn't have lost

When you play a game, you get a certain set of cards and the other three people at the table also get a certain amount of cards. You can make the best decisions given the cards you have and the information you have on what cards the other people have, or could have. However, since Melee is about more than just playing cards, the best decision based on the cards alone is not going to guarantee you a win. If there is one person at the table doing everything in his power to stop you from winning, you will lose. This is through no incorrect decision of yours, but by a decision of someone else at the table.

Staton said:

the incorrect decision on your part is not turning his aggression in your favor, making him the target early by losing challenges so he gets his power count up, or making an alliance to negate his aggression or punishing his aggression by turning the rest of the table against him, or ect ect ect

Im not trying to be abrasive but in Melee playing the deck perfectly includes the player interactions and manipulating aggression

This is where I have a problem with your logic. Playing a deck should have nothing to do with player interaction on a social level. What you are referring to is playing the GAME. If I play the melee GAME perfectly then I win. However, I can play a DECK perfectly and still lose.