I'd love, and I mean LOVE it if somebody could post the full results of the Gen Con NA Championships. Who has that information? Ktom maybe? I'd write them a very nice message and ask them politely if I knew whom to turn to. Because I'd love to see a full ranking. Rank/Name/House/Agenda. That kind of stuff. If anybody has that info, could you please post it? Pretty, pretty please? I'd be so grateful.

FFG has all the information. I don't know when, if, or how they might post it.

At the beginning of the Melee and Joust events, we recorded everyone's name and deck (House, agenda, restricted) as part of sign-ins. FFG has the sign-in sheet, but you will probably be seeing that information soon (at least in terms of deck stats - though probably not by player name) from Kennon in his podcast.

The results of the preliminary rounds I still have access to in computer memory. That's not the same as full standings (since the Top 16 changes as the elimination rounds progress). I could potentially put that information together and post it, but it's not going to be in the next few days since time is currently at a premium.

What I can tell you off the top of my head is that for the Joust:

Top 16 decks:

• 3x Lanni (1x PRtT, 1x City of Shadows, 1x Maester)
• 5x Martell (3x Maester, 1x Alliance, 1x no agenda)
• 2x Greyjoy (1x Kings of Winter, 1x no agenda)
• 4x Stark (1x Wildlings-3, 2x Kings of Winter, 1x Knights)
• 2x Targ (1x KotHH, 1x Maester)

Top 4 decks (interestingly enough, no Martell and no Maesters made it to the Top 4, despite each making up roughly 1/3 of the Top 16):

• Stark - KoW (defeated) Stark - Knights
• Greyjoy - KoW (defeated) Targ - KotHH

And, of course, the Stark - KoW deck won the event.

And no where a bara was found.

Did you not play in the Joust Ktom ?

Ktom graciously TO'd both events.

Bara was unsurprisingly absent. I don't even remember seeing a Bara player in joust, though I suspect there were a few lurking in the shadows. I'm inclined to say that this was more a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Bara players rather than Bara lacking competitive decks. The late errata to Threat from the East likely pushed the many possible Bara Wildling players to go with a different deck. Honestly, I was very surprised that I didn't see many Wildlings either, though that could have just been how my pairings fell. Given the new anti-scouting rules, I think most players avoided walking around checking out decks like what you would normally see at a tournament (in other words, not scouting but just looking around out of curiosity), so it's possibly my own experience was somewhat different from the "average" experience.

Actually, I was also surprised by the low number of Lanni and Targ decks I saw more generally. I'm just going by anecdotal numbers, and it'll be interesting when we finally see the full results, but I don't remember many Targ or Lanni decks, even though they seem to have done well enough in securing the top 16.

The joust at GenCon to me felt more like Martell vs. anti-Martell than anything else. Some of the Stark and Greyjoy decks, in particular, seemed well-equipped to deal with Martell maesters. Most of the decks in the top 16 seemed to be able to pull the Martell maester decks into a long game, and then ultimately wear them down. My Targ deck (the Targ maesters that made top-16) was so-so against Martell…played Martell 4 times (I think) and lost two of the games. I can't say whether most of the Martell decks were similar or not, but my guess is that they were. My losses to Martell revolved around the critical Game of Cyvasse, He Calls It Thinking, or flooding of the board by maesters (especially the Conclave). In other words, very few new tricks. The only real surprise of the day from Martell was when Mathlete played Hand's Judgement against me after already playing 2x He Calls It Thinking.

All in all, I'm very happy that Martell players were squeezed out of top 2 in joust and top 4 in melee. I find it ironic, and frankly somewhat disappointing, that some players began their games by revealing the Martell maesters house/agenda and remarking something to the effect of "I know it's lame to play Martell maesters, but I think it's the best deck." (I had that happen in 1-2 of my games.) I always feel like you should truly enjoy playing what you bring to a tourney. If you want to play Martell maesters, then great…but you should really *love* to play martell maesters, or bring something different. I LOVE my Targ maesters. I like the way chains combo in Targ, I like how they fuel my Targ mechanics, I just like that deck. I know I'm in the minority. But what I hate is for people to show up with decks they don't like and mechanics they are tired of, simply because they suspect this is *the* competitive build. It's much more fun to play against someone who genuinely loves their deck, whether or not that deck is on top, than to play against someone who netdecked the *top* build and plays it the same way everyone else does.

Baratheon was well represented in the Top 16 of Melee. And there were 4-2 Baratheon decks in Joust that didn't make the Top 16 cut, I believe.

Twn2dn said:

Once the field gets above 20 or so in organized play, I personally think it is better for the TO not to play. Too many players with too many questions. Dividing your attention between your game and those questions short-changes someone. The only events over 20-24 people I have ever TO'd and played in were ChiCON events, which - as anyone who has been can attest - is a WHOLE different kind of play experience.

Twn2dn said:

Totally agree. Plus, there is the psychology of it. People are generally more successful in events playing decks they enjoy than playing decks simply because they think they are strong. There is a subconscious feeling that the deck will do the work for you, so your head isn't as in the game as it could be, if you are playing because the deck is the "best" instead of the "best for you."

The best I ever did in a Regional-level event (2008 SoCal Regional, I think?) was with a totally off-the-wall deck that should have fallen flat on its face. I almost didn't play it because it had been getting totally shelled in casual play. But the tricks it used were well suited for my play-style and I had a blast playing it, so things just clicked.

Twn2dn said:

Thanks for that detailed post. I really enjoyed it!

Just to play the devil's advocate, what if I had brought an anti-Maester(or anti-current top perceived competitive deck) deck and said something like "I don't even like my deck, but this is the only way to fend off those Maester builds."? :-)

ktom said:

I for one would deeply appreciate it if you could post that information, at your own leisure of course.

The total absence of Bara in the Top16 surprises me the most about these results. I thought they were ready to take the next step. The small hit they took with the TftE erratum was offset by additions like Wildling Bard or Red Queen's Faithful, IMHO.

I also expected Targ to have a stronger showing. So many strong cards coming out recently. Looks like it's hard forging all those great effects into a solid whole. I'm guessing people built decks with Burn in mind.

That's probably an explanation for the weaker than expected results of Martell/Maesters. People were very aware of them, and prepared accordingly.

Twn2dn,

For those of us who also love Targ Maesters, can you provide a listing of your deck? I would be interested in seeing what new cards, if any, you have included from the latest Chapter Packs.

Ratatoskr said:

Well Ben Terpstra did make top 4 with a KOTHH Burn deck which was just wickedly good and piloted exceptionally well by him. I played him round 2 (with another burn deck, no less; yeah, characters didn't last very long) and even though I see Ben play and play against him reasonably often, it was impressive to see him at work.

I think Dan has the right of it and Ben is a great example. I know Ben's been playing that deck, or at least a version thereof, for months, tweaking and testing all the while. He clearly loves his deck and made some excellent (and unexpected) card choices. Even losing to him was a real blast.

I think Dan is also right (he usually is) about the anti-Martell/anti-Maester feel of the field. Even though some did very well, there was a lot of hate out there.

As a Stark/Targaryen loyalist (in both the fiction and game) I enjoyed seeing them have three of the top four spots and Martell and Lannister having none of them. I've heard some people refer to the "decline of control" in the game, but I feel it's more along the lines of good control options now being available to more houses.

KLT said:

My deck was pretty similar to the earlier Targ maester version with the following changes: I removed all 0-1 gold characters, except for Shadow Seers, and then added in 2x Illyrio, 2x Young Griff, 1x Pyat Pree, 3x Advisor to the Crown (think I only had 2x before) and 2x Archmaester Marwyn. I also added First Snow of Winter, Rule by Decree, and 3x Pyrophobia + 3x Harried by Dragons. I cut the Narrow Escapes and Hatchling's Feast. The logic is that if my opponent has to discard all his/her lesser important card to RBD, then there will be SIGNIFICANTLY fewer cards I need to burn. With more maesters in my deck (7 or 8 in total) and less influence requirement (no Hatchlings), I could afford to wait on a round-3 At the Gates. Lastly, I swapped in 3x Sorrowful Man, which were incredibly when they hit an opponent's maester or army that came into play as the result of a city plot; otherwise they were just cheap power icons with deadly.

I admit this sounds like complete ridiculousness. In playtesting, however, I found that the traditional Targ maesters deck just can't consistently beat Martell maesters or Stark knights/winter without gaining quick card advantage. Against Martell, it's the same stuff you'd expect that creates trouble…lots of little characters that are hard to kill, lots of events, etc. Against Stark, it's basically the same, except that Stark is likely to kill your maester with an early No Quarter. I was expecting to see a lot of both houses. So the question became, what can I do to get all of those tricks/small characters out of the picture early in the game? First Snow + RBD accomplished this, but required me to rebuild my deck quite a bit to be able to consistently play First Snow on round 1 without hurting myself.

The Pyrophobia + Harried by Dragons were incredible in most of my games. I chose Pyrophobia because they allowed me to remove characters that were otherwise out of burn range. Combined with a Meereen Tourney Grounds or Flame-Kissed, I could remove 4-5 STR characters without stacking a lot of burn. Since I was playing RBD on round 2, bouncing to hand was almost as good a form of removal as outright killing the character; against Narrow Escape, which I expected to see a lot of (but didn't), bounce is much superior to killing. Finally, Pyrophobia had the added advantage of returning my own attachments to hand, so that my Flame-Kissed performed double duty. I chose Harried because they combined very well with Pyrophobia and also gave me card advantage early (with their search response).

I think I played a round-1 First Snow every game, and a round-2 RBD in 5 of my 7 games. Typically this left 1-3 characters on the opponent's board. In games where I had an early Pyrophobia, I could usually bounce one of those characters, forcing the opponent to discard an additional card to RBD. My record for RBD for the day was forcing my opponent (tragically, a metamate playing Martell summer) to discard 12 cards in hand on round 2…I think I had 3x Pyrophobia and a Harried in hand during the first marshalling phase.

I'm very satisfied with how the deck ran, and I ultimately went 4-3. My wins were all relatively smooth, if not easy. My first loss was round 1 against Mallesh, who was running a Lannister shadows deck that simply rolled me. My deck comes out a little slower, and he had a Black Cells on round 1 that kept my maester from kneeling. He didn't play many characters early game, so there wasn't much for me to burn and I mostly just attacked his hand/claimed power. Around mid-game he dropped a Tunnels of the Red Keep, which spelled doom for me, especially after the Valar reset. If there were ever a deck type designed specifically to counter Targ burn, a Lanni shadows deck that runs Tunnels is it.

My second loss was against one of the California (San Diego, I think) guys who ran a Martell deck. That was one of the best games I've played, in terms of how back and forth it went. He bounced both of my maesters I had in play on round 1, I ambushed some stuff in, bounced his character with pyrophobia, and still ultimately got the the round-2 RBD off. We almost ran to time, and while trying to rush through the last round I made a massive misplay that allowed him to win a free claim-2 power challenge with Ser Arys that swung the power distribution and ultimately gave him the win. I think had I not misplayed, I would have gotten the modified win, or at the very least a modified lost.

My loss to John Bruno in the top 16 I think primarily swung on his numerous cancels. We both had a slow start, but mine was exceptionally bad with only two cards on setup and very little burn in hand. He dropped a Conclave and had a duplicate Viper on round 1 (with a second dupe in hand that he played on round 2 or 3). He also played Art of Seduction on round 1, then blanked my First Snow with a Forgotten Plans on round 2. I was mostly able to control his board, except for the viper, which ultimately got him the win. (He burned through 2-3x He Calls It thinking and a Hand's Judgement to keep my Pyrophobia and Dragon Thiefs from doing their jobs.)

Ironically, I didn't play against any Stark decks. That was a match up I was looking forward to, as I had playtested a lot against it. I played Martell 4 times, and was 2-2 to them, though both wins were fairly definitive and losses relatively close (i.e. swung on a single card effect and might have gone either way).

Hi Dan. I was the martell summer game in the fourth round that was so close. That was one of the most fun and tense games ive ever played. I can't wait for our second game! Grats on clawing your way back from 2-2 to make the top 16. Sadly, I got 17th lol, but there's always next year

I seem to recall having a super close match with dan at the DC regional, unfortunately the drunk draft afterwards seems to have scrambled the details.

Twn2dn

Excellent overview of your logic, thank you. How much slower did the deck run after taking out the 0 and 1 cost characters? How many cards were in your typical flop?

Dan, great read about your Targ deck. I can't believe someone found a reliable use for Pyrophobia! Still, seeing the reasoning behind it, I can totally follow along. Wish I'd had the opportunity to see this in action. Interestingly, I spent the entire day in fear of Rule By Decree, and only ever ran into it in my top 16 game against Mallesh. I really expected it to be quite popular this year.

I'll echo KLT's question though. I'm curious whether you feel the loss of those cheap characters impacted the deck much.

KLT said:

Setups were definitely a little slower than my Black Friday deck, which I think averaged about 4-cards but frequently setup as many as 5-6 at times. This version (mostly) consistently hit 3-4 cards, though card-for-card this year's deck's characters are a little better (more 3-STR tricons, fewer 2-STR bicons, etc). Since I knew I was playing First Snow on round 1, I wasn't typically worried with a slightly slower start.

In playtesting I sometimes I would take 2-card setups if I had a Sorrowful Man + Advisor to the Crown in hand, for example against a maester deck (to kill their maester when they search with At the Gates) or to kill a big army if I thought they might reveal Manning the City Walls. The deck had a 1 in 5 chance of setting up Sorrowful Man + 2 influence. In practice, I think both GenCon games I setup a Sorrowful Man I had 3-4 card setups. The deck played a lot of low-cost locations (3x summer sea, 3x shivering sea, 3x fiefdoms, 2x Khal's tent) for cheap influence to fuel ambush, 2x Incinerate (forgot to mention that in my original post), and Sorrowful Man. I was expecting to see a lot of location control this year (but didn't, maybe b/c I didn't play much against Stark), so low-cost locations were expected to be decent mid- and late-game.

Despite the slower starts, the deck has a decent amount of speed early game. Against John in the octifinals, he round-1 marshalled a Conclave and a Viper, plus one other character that didn't bounce to First Snow (I think). Despite my slower 2-card setup, I had 7-8 characters (Pyat Pree, Jhogo, King's Landing Assassin, Dragon Thief, Advisor to the Crown, Core Set Khal and Horseback Archers, plus maybe one more?) on the board by round 2 challenges, vs. 4-5 characters for John (I think). Unfortunately for me one of his characters was the duped Viper + Lost Oasis (if I remember correctly), which put me in a tough spot and ultimately won him the game. I had the burn to deal with his Viper, but couldn't get the attached He Calls It Thinking that was boosting the Viper's STR. (He canceled my Dragon Thief responses, and I wasn't lucky enough to draw into my third Dragon Thief on round 4.)

Thanks so much for taking us through your choices! I can see the advantage of Harried + Pyrophobia; did you also run Forever Burning for similar repeatable burn? Seems like probably not…..

I recently wrote some blogs for Team Covenant about the various burn cards and put Pyrophobia fourth tier. I'll have to re-evaluate it based on this discussion. I can see its use in bouncing large characters. It was also especially brassy not to run Hatchling's Feast. It sounds like an awesomely creative deck. Glad you made top 16.