Staton said:
I generally don't see cards as being over powered. The cards that need to be restricted are, in my mind, just too efficient.
2 Champs and a Chump Episode 76- Pre-GenCon Part 2 Also FAQ And Tourney Rules
Agreed with ktom on that one. What else are you using to measure power level, if not efficiency?
Back to the overall commentary in the thread though, I really do feel that the overall efficiency of cards has gone markedly up in the last year or so. Is commenting on that, and why I believe it's a bad idea to make that the norm (and how it's unsustainable in the long run) something that should be left out of the show?
Also, I'm surprised that no-one else is confused about the term "head to head" as used in the tournament rules.
Kennon said:
Also, I'm surprised that no-one else is confused about the term "head to head" as used in the tournament rules.
No, I agree with you that this is confusing; I just don't expect to do well enough where it will be an issue with me personally.
Ktom, I dragged you in kicking and screaming, mostly because i knew you'd extend and clarify my point in an eloquent and learned fashion. I especially like the way you elucidate the point about separating cards that do nothing and cards that still do something.
As far as the rest of the episode, I enjoyed nine of the ten GenCon tips immensely, and passed them along to a few folks. I was hoping you'd be able to squeeze in something about sleeping, showering and general hygiene, but goodness knows you have to get in your request for free drinks.
Your points about overscheduling and the exhibit hall are particularly good. Other than the tournaments themselves, the most fun I've had at GenCon was definitely wandering around the exhibit hall, demoing new games from small companies, browsing the shinies, and meeting minor nerd celebrities (like Rodney Thompson last year)
So, what's the difference between power and efficiency? Seems to me that, leveraged properly, efficiency is powerful, and power is efficient.
Well, very true. Let's look at Kevan Lannister from the LotR box. He is incredibly efficient, especially if you have a lord in play. He costs 2 gold, has 3 str, 2 icons, a noble crest, and is a lord and a knight. However, he doesn't actually do anything, so his power level is moderate at best. Now let's go back to the Jaqen example. He is also super efficient (even more so than Kevan obviously) but I think we can all agree that his power level is pretty huge. I see a card as having two scales of how good it is (obviously more, but we'll just use these two for the sake of argument) efficiency and power level. The power level of Westeros Bleeds is pretty big, imo. However, its not super efficient, so it seems to be pretty balanced. Now if it was kneel two influence, it would seem to be pretty unbalanced, because its too efficient for its power level. The two scales are tied together, but they are two separate qualities of a card, imo. Hopefully that helped explain my view a bit.
So power level = impact of the effect and efficiency = cost/effect ratio?
Head to head makes total sense except for the "head to head playoff" as the final tie breaker in Melee for making the final table. The way it sounds makes it basically a Joust format playoff match and would be disadvantageous for a deck with "Melee powered" cards. I guess that is better than a coin flip.
Bomb said:
Head to head makes total sense except for the "head to head playoff" as the final tie breaker in Melee for making the final table. The way it sounds makes it basically a Joust format playoff match and would be disadvantageous for a deck with "Melee powered" cards. I guess that is better than a coin flip.
It basically is a coin-flip… It's not like it would really happen with any frequency, though. Especially if there were a 4-way tie. lol
And it's interesting to note that if this decision is based on some sort of theoretical principle, that they are basically advocating that everyone should be bringing turn 1 rush decks to the format, since this is a penalty to delayed-rush and control decks.
HoyaLawya said:
So power level = impact of the effect and efficiency = cost/effect ratio?
A card with a devastating impact that is almost impossible to play is not really all that powerful. By the same token, a card that is easy to play, in many different situations, that you and your opponents forget about almost as soon as it is played is not really all that powerful. But a card that has a significant impact and can easily be played in a number of situations is probably pretty powerful.
Staton's description seems to be about the same as that analysis, but labeling things differently. His analysis seems to be more "Balance = Power * Efficiency," with a card's "power" level not being nearly as concerning to him as the card's balance. Over-powered is fine, so long as it is balanced, instead of strong impact is fine, so long as overall power is reasonable.
AGoT DC Meta said:
And it's interesting to note that if this decision is based on some sort of theoretical principle, that they are basically advocating that everyone should be bringing turn 1 rush decks to the format, since this is a penalty to delayed-rush and control decks.
Although, the control deck might have it easier in a head to head with just 1 opponent to control instead of 3. This would also make all the "if you have more than one opponent" cards FFG is pushing as of late completely useless in the "head to head playoff" if it really is a joust with melee decks.
-Istaril said:
The trouble is that one dude's "dude really" isn't necessarily another's.
Slippery Slope. Present an argument with boundaries that clearly refutes ktom's or establishes what guidelines should be and argue that. It is pointless to argue about people's interpretations and possible interpretations, and possible possible interpretations. The reality is the TO is the only person whose opinion matters when it comes to all rulings. The FAQ and Rulebook are intended to guide them in those decisions. They can choose to rule everything strictly and literally… as they understand it (and don't think that means they will interpret things the way you do as you pointed out) or they can be intelligent and discerning about them. I'll take an intelligent and discerning TO over one which is going to try and enforce a literalist view of the rules every day.
Kennon said:
Glad to see some discussion, guys. In a hurry, so I'll be back at a later point, to post further, but one of the more salient points to things overall is, as brought up by others, that "the squeaky wheel gets the oil." Calvary may have been missed because it hasn't received enough press in the months leading up to this FAQ, and thus was missed. By the time the next FAQ comes out, I don't think that anyone could make that argument any more. One way or the other, we'll have done our job.
Of course, that isn't to say that I really believe that a TO wouldn't rule it as "Cavalry" and other such interpretations as they come up, but that doesn't mean, however, that we should just let these things slide. We have to bring them up so that they are addressed in the official manner by FAQ entries and errata. , Why would we acknowledge the FAQ at all If we, as a community, don't expect and to some extent, demand such updates from the company making the game? We could convene a Player's Council or the like as many dead games have done in order to institute and codify such things as an entirely community based effort. No need for FFG to do anything but print cards, in that case.
Lol, and for the record, manufacturing controversy is an ages old, tried and true journalistic strategy.
It is… and it is precisely why I don't watch Fox News or any pundit or talking head, or read any website or newspaper that regularly engages in it to drum up viewership rather than doing a competent to excellent job.
And perhaps an email to FFG would have accomplished the same thing as this… but then you would have had to fill up those 10 more minutes on something else. May I suggest discussions of Archer or Dobbler's dating life. Something funny and interesting would do nicely. If you wanted to get a groundswell of support, how about an email writing campaign where you beseech your listeners to write in asking for a correction? USe your audience for something positive rather than negativity.
Perhaps I've just gotten to the point where I expect more from you guys than you want or are capable of delivering. It wouldn't be the first time I've discovered my expectations were too high.
"I would tend to agree that Power = Impact * Efficiency." - ktom
Say, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
C'mon now! A guy that can power clean 600 lbs is powerful! A guy that can swim a mile in world record time is efficient!
Valar is powerful. Hodor is efficient.
C'mon! Effectiveness is probably more where you guys are looking at with that equation.
And to end all discussion about what is overpowered… Overpowered is a scanner reading over 9000… Sheesh… How does anyone not know that by now…?
mdc273 said:
"I would tend to agree that Power = Impact * Efficiency." - ktom
Say, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
mdc273 said:
C'mon now! A guy that can power clean 600 lbs is powerful! A guy that can swim a mile in world record time is efficient!
Generally speaking, "power" is not simply defined as the magnitude of force that one can apply; it is also defined as the ability to act and/or apply said force. A small force applied in just the right way can be as "powerful," even over-powered, when compared to a large, but unused, force.
Penfold said:
-Istaril said:
The trouble is that one dude's "dude really" isn't necessarily another's.
Slippery Slope. Present an argument with boundaries that clearly refutes ktom's or establishes what guidelines should be and argue that. It is pointless to argue about people's interpretations and possible interpretations, and possible possible interpretations. The reality is the TO is the only person whose opinion matters when it comes to all rulings. The FAQ and Rulebook are intended to guide them in those decisions. They can choose to rule everything strictly and literally… as they understand it (and don't think that means they will interpret things the way you do as you pointed out) or they can be intelligent and discerning about them. I'll take an intelligent and discerning TO over one which is going to try and enforce a literalist view of the rules every day.
-Istaril said:
Like I said - if someone plays Thundering Calvary, I won't bat an eye. But I wouldn't play it myself without clearing it with the TO beforehand, because I feel the "it doesn't work" argument is legitimate.
Dude, really?
I think that there is an intangible attached to the "efficiency" in the "equation" that kind of revolves around the current state of the meta. Perhaps some dynamic variable if you will.
For lack of a good example(plus I don't know if this is true or not), Tin Link invades the environment and attachments have reduced in popularity quite a bit. Some are fantastic to add to a character(to make them more "powerful"), but because of the ease in handling attachments in today's environment, it directly affects their efficiency rating.
Let's pretend that Tin Link becomes less, and less used over time(because no one is using attachments anymore so it almost becomes a dead card), now the efficiency rating of attachments in general has increased a little bit because one of their primary threats has descended a little bit.
Imagine if FFG released 2 new neutral ways to discard Knight characters. They would then have a stigma that is similar to characters with the Ally trait as a reduction in efficiency because of the current environment.
Bomb said:
Let's pretend that Tin Link becomes less, and less used over time(because no one is using attachments anymore so it almost becomes a dead card), now the efficiency rating of attachments in general has increased a little bit because one of their primary threats has descended a little bit.
I think the problem with Tin Link is that its incapable of being a dead card in a TMP deck even if the opponent has no attachments. It always thins the deck and it increases the power level of some of the other chains. So why not throw it in? This makes it even more efficient than comparable removal cards.