Three of the four players at the world’s melee table were disqualified for collusion last night. After watching the recorded video of the game (kudos to FFG), I have a complex and very negative reaction to the ruling. No doubt those who look for signs of collusion will find some. But for those attempting to understand the ruling within the context of past precedent and existing community understanding, the ruling raises series concerns and fundamental questions about the future of the competitive melee format.

The Anti-Collusion Rule & The 2012 World Melee Finals Ruling
For full transparency, I am working with the following understanding of the anti-collusion rule, based primarily on past precedent (application at GenCon) and what I think is the common community understanding, as represented through FFG forum threads and on the varies fan sites. Collusion may apply when players decide in advance of the game that they will help each other, or potentially during in-game situations when players explicitly work against their own selfish motivations to help a friend. It is worth pointing out that while a strong case may be made for disqualifying someone who selflessly assists a friend to win, in reality such circumstances are difficult to identify, since the ruling has also previously been interpreted (at GenCon) that assisting someone so that they may win is not necessarily collusion if in doing so you increase your own competitive tourney score—so that you may advance to the next round or have an increased likelihood of winning overall tourney champion.

Fast forward to yesterday’s Melee World Championship. The explanation provided upon disqualifying three of the four players was that the fourth player was “locked out” from challenging the remaining three players. Though no further explanation is provided via the recording, the rationale is presumably that the fourth player was unable to overcome the various card effects—most notably The Scourge and Shadows and Spiders—to successfully make challenges. In addition, one may deduce from the timing of the disqualification that the conversation in the final round of the melee about who would take first, second and third played a role.

Unfortunately for the participants and for the community as a whole, past precedent and common understanding do not perfectly align with yesterday’s practice. There is no clear evidence that the players colluded in advance of the game. The video documents how the three disqualified players actually worked against one another for hours, removing icons, attacking and negotiating the whole time. Frankly, it’s a tedious video to watch—quite unlike the 2011 World Melee Finals, in which collusion resulted in a somewhat brief game.

This is, of course, not to say that all rules are set in stone. Nor do I mean to imply that FFG cannot make minor adjustments along the way or even mid-game. But such changes should at a minimum reflect the spirit of past interpretations. They should also be preceded by warnings, if such behavior is detected.

FFG is at a Crossroads – and Risks Failing its Players
After two consecutive melee world championships were affected by collusion—one admittedly so by participants, and another by the anti-collusion rules—it seems important to take a moment and reflect on whether the structure, rather than the players, are to blame. In my opinion, there is a fundamental problem with competitive melee that FFG’s anti-collusion rule fails to address.

The source of this problem is the conceptual conflict between yesterday’s interpretation of the anti-collusion rule and the structure of the melee format. When FFG CEO Christian Petersen announced on December 21, 2007 that the multiplayer format would take a more prominent role in competitive play, he observed that: “In addition to the solid mechanics, you have the politics, backstabbing, hyperbole. Some multiplayer sessions seem as a page ripped out of the novels themselves.” In other words, the difference between melee and joust is that melee openly encourages in-game alliances and relishes in the moments when they crumble unexpectedly.

In more concrete terms, these alliances are frequently expressed through short-term exchanges, such as “trading” plot effects or agreeing not to attack an opponent who offered a favor in a previous round. Not only are such alliances commonplace, the game mechanics actually encourage such arrangements. And since these games are not considered collusion, one is left wondering why a series of these trades between several players in a position to negotiate was considered collusion on November 9.

A Vague Line
The problem with yesterday’s ruling was that it left much to personal interpretation. Is a negotiation in which two players coordinate so that they play Valar Morghulis in consecutive turns rather than on the same round collusion? If so, such an event is rarely if ever enforced. What if two opponents both have a copy of The Scourge in play and agree not to use that effect against each other? When this happens once, it is collusion? If this agreement is made two rounds in a row, is that collusion? What about three? What if three players control The Scourge? Is it collusion if those three players agree with each other not to use the location against one another?

It is important to note that in last night’s World Melees Final, the three players each had a copy of The Scourge, but they used it as much on each other, if not more so, than on the fourth player who by default won the event. There appears to be an unexplained rule on how players may use their card effects in game.

An Inherent Bias against Control Effects in Melee
Up until this year, melee winners typically played aggro “rush” deck types. Baratheon power grab, Targaryen dragons, and Stark Siege all remain popular variants. This year, however, the three players who were disqualified were apparently disqualified for using control effects too effectively to “lock out” the fourth player.

The decision leaves me confounded. It suggests that one may use control effects in melee, but if these prove too efficient, or if an opponent who plays the stale “rush” build is unable to effectively counter-offer or protect their own board position, then by default the control players are somehow cheating.

Here is the bottom line: Last night’s game was NOT a situation in which three players somehow stone-walled a fourth player and refused to negotiate with that person, so that the three may take first, second, and third places. RATHER, the game was about a tired old rush deck getting beat by an innovative, new control build, with little the rush player could do but watch. The problem is, if I take a tired old deck to a joust game, I expect to lose. Why should it be any different if I take such a deck to the melee?

In my opinion, FFG owes an apology to all four players involved, and to the community as a whole for this travesty of competitive play.

Here's my cynical opinion:

1. The stated reason on camera doesn't appear to be a reason, under the tournament rules, to DQ someone. In game or between game collusion, or showing/revealing your hidden cards is a reason… but I don't see in game collusion being listed.

2. Watching the whole thing live last night, I thought from pre-plot Turn 1 that the three of them would be playing essentially a 3 player game to determine a winner. While they challenged each other, it seemed to be because they were fighting for first place - but it seemed as though they knew all along who they would choose to come in last. I really thought there was ZERO chance that the Targ player would be in it, regardless of plots. Its nothing against the Targ player, but when you see 3 people with the same deck who obviously know each other and know their decks, the situation is rip for suspicion. It appeared as though FFG officials were watching the game, too. I'd be interested in knowing what actions specifically showed proof of that suspicion.

3. At the end, when Dennis and Eric start to orchestrate the final placement in "consideration" for helping Dennis get to the final table, that seems like foul play. It's something that should be against the rules, but the tournament rules don't really speak to that particular issue. (Unless I've missed it). It also wasn't the reasons stated on camera for the DQ - and if it was the reason, why was Rick DQed? He was getting screwed as much as the Targ player.

4. I think the melee tournament rules either need an overhaul or need some guidance for TOs

I agree with 90% of this, MeatLoaf. Where I slightly disagree is that the Targ player had no chance at winning because he didn't know the other players. I think he had 0% chance at winning because he had nothing except plot effects to negotiate with. If he had sat down with Targ burn instead of Targ dragons, I think the other three would have negotiated for him not to kill their characters. Or if he had played Favorable Ground, he would have been in the game.

His card choices aren't the other players faults.

Again, I know I'm being cynical, but I really think that no matter what he played, he would have came in 4th. It's really hard to turn on your friends, especially since it really seemed their deck design was made to help them work together if they met up, which was a very good possibility throughout the day.

I agree with FFG on how they ruled it but also believe Melee needs tighter tournament rules. I would never play Melee outside of friendly casual games with my friends precisely because of stuff like that.

Toqtamish said:

+1

Twn2dn said:

Well, I'll not comment on the innovativeness of either deck, that's really not important here, is it?

Now, looking through the video near the end a second time, here are some odd details:

1. Matthieu is already in last place at the start of the last challenge phase (8-14-14-10?, if I read the camera right). He has one powergain character (Rhaegal), whereas the guys sitting at 10-14 power all have at least 2 renown characters + Ellaria. Not sure of what Dragon locations he had then, could maybe have had a single renown there, but even then there's really very little chance of him winning the game that round, especially with all the Ellarias on the table.

Yet, for some obscure reason, all three Martell players use their Scourges primarily on him, and only on each other once he is completely neutralized… and even target their title changes on him as well. 2 Scourges, one Orphan and Myrcella's title change it looks like.

2. While Dennis and Erick are trying together to look for a method to get Erick second (huh?), Rick (who is second) is just sitting by amiably and not commenting. Of course it's perfectly possible that he had just done some cunning shenanigan with the titles to try and stick Ellaria in somewhere for an odd support power and the win, hard to say from the video. What he didn't try to do, was target Dennis (whose going before him and is at 14 power) instead of Mathieu (8 power) with his control effects.

3. ~ Is it customary for people in Joust games to look through their challenge phase actions together, so that both are playing optimally? I guess I'm just not sporting like that, neither in Joust or in Melee. I usually expect the players to do their math themselves…

How all of this ties into the Sportsmanship Rule:

Players are expected to behave in a mature and
considerate manner, and to play within the rules
and not abuse them. This prohibits intentionally
stalling a game for time, abusing an infinite combo
to unnecessarily lengthen the game, inappropriate
behavior, treating an opponent with a lack of courtesy
or respect, scouting, predetermining the results of a
match (i.e. determining a result before the match is
played), premeditated collusion, etc. The TO, at his or
her sole discretion, may penalize or remove players
from the tournament for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Is pretty much anybody's guess, and there is no yes/no answer, since the rule is open-ended, and only gives examples, not a definitive list, on what constitutes Unsportsmanshiplike conduct. So it's left to the discretion of the TO.

Drakey, not sure I follow your logic.

1. 8 power is withim striking range for a rush deck. All of the recent tournament melee rounds I've played typically involved swings of 5+ power, given events, etc.

2. The main point here though is that the Targ player had no tools to support negotiation. Nothing personal, but I would have held back the rush decks first too, and been more reserved in my negotiations with other control players. Control is designed to control rush, and it takes more diplomacy against non control decks.

3. You suggest they were ganging up on the Targ player, but that implies exhausting resources. Hellholt Engineer was in play,repeatedly standing The Scourge, and the Brimstone was triggering frequently…in fact, in the last round the Targ player seems to have intentionally triggered the Brimstone (using GoHH on himself and reminding people to trigger the Brimstone). It Wasnt hard to control the Targ player, and controlling his characters was the first check point on the road to victory.

4. My understanding is that Dennis extended the deal to the Targ player first, and he didn't take it. Dennis then offered a deal to other players. Doesn't seem like favoritism to me.

I don't mean to jump on you. Im just afraid that if our community doesn't collectively demand an explanation from FFG, the rules will continue to remain extremely vague. I believe clarity here is important more than ever to protect what little integrity the competitive melee format has (if any).

In reply to meatloaf's 3rd point, Dennis was trying to help Erick get 2nd NOT for helping him get to the final table. Rick had no part in that. Dennis win multiple tables by himself. It was for helping him stall the Targ player on the final round, letting him get his challenge phase.

Thought this posted awhile ago. Just filled out my host decklist, so I'm not going to return to read the rest of the lively discussion here until after the joust.

Twn2dn said:

1. Yes. With at least one card in hand (he had none). And there isn't a way for him to win with one single challenge from 8 to 15, with the new restricted list and with Rhaeger blanked of icons. Not that I'm aware of, at least. So they could just as well have waited the one challenge and seen if he really is a threat, and only used their Scourge before the second one, no?

2. Well, he had two Rookeries and the gold to use them, which depending on his plot deck could have been great bargaining chips for somebody who didn't have power on non-Noble characters and was not going to win the game.

3. Yes, one player had the Hellholt Engineer, and that was Dennis. Who in fact was the only player who didn't target Mathieu with his Scourge.

4. In the previous round he was offering Mathieu the second place actually, not this current round. And how could he have offered for him to come to second, after he was at 8 and Rick was at 14?

Yes matheiu had 7 or 8 power going in to the final round, as first player, where he had two renown possible dragons, and 2 power challeges to make. Easily within striking distance, even if the draw he got from winning the challenges didnt net him a power grab event.

Yeah, he had the dragon location that drew him a card for winning for each dragon participating, as well as GoHH, to help him further sift through his deck. Not saying targetting dragons was the only option, or even necessarily the best, but I dont think it's fair to say he wasn't a threat, especially since he was challenging first.

WWDrakey said:

WWDrakey said:

Whats a fact is that the TO's thought at some point there was unsportsmanship conduct going on, when this was is open to debate and hopefully there might be a answer from ffg. There doesnt on paper seem to be a proper reason for it, there wasnt any stalling, abusing infinite combos, treating opponent with lack of courtesy, predetermined results etc but these are all just examples and at some point the TO felt there was USC going on and stepped in.

Ive not played that long, and never been to a tournament but melee games round these parts have some deal making elements and a small fraction of "dont attack me", "kill that character not mine" banter but its never to the extent where we organise whose going to come 2nd etc or help other players do challenge maths…

Im pretty sure if there were two of us from where i play (go Scotland!!) in a tournament in a similar situation we'd hamstring each other so badly another player would win because we have a pretty mean rivalry streak even going into if im not winning neither are you territory , might mean we never do well at tournaments but we'd never be DQ'd for collusion thats for sure..

Its fine to disagree with the TO's ruling but i think its one of those "Whats collusion or unsportsmanlike conduct" & "I'll tell you when i see it" moments and personally i agree with ffg's decision on this, the game just felt off and wrong.

Would anybody have been DQ'd if Dennis had just gone ahead and won as soon as he was able, without trying to help somebody to 2nd place? Maybe not, im sure one of the TO's asked "why are you trying to get Eric to 2nd place?" at one point in the video? Perhaps that was the moment that the TO's started to decide things?

And im waffling so um ye..how could it be better? Do people really want a massive list of what qualifies as collusion, unsportsmanship conduct or can we just get on with trusting the TO's ffg has and get on with more games…theres already enouggh lists and rules already.

Twn2dn said:

Hmm. Of course there's the outside chance. But then there's the fact that Dennis is challenging after him, has 14 power to start with, there is a huge intrigue hole in Mathieus board and Dennis has a clean path to doing intrigue challenges at Mathieu who has very little intrigue to begin with.

So… This can either be seen as:

Cautiously, but slightly excessively, making sure the currently acting player doesn't win.

OR

Not taking the risk that the person who is in last place and from outside of the meta will get the win (or even rise from 4th place), but rather clearly handing it over to a guy from your own meta.

And to be honest, there is *no* way to accurately discern which is the truth. I can honestly see both arguments made.

The only place where I can see a really solid case made here is the one Dennis mentioned. If FFG sees that it's unsportsmanshiplike conduct to go out of your way to try and manipulate the final order of placements to be most beneficial for your friends when you're going to win anyway, instead of just making the one challenge that will win you the game. And yeah, there really isn't an explanation on why Rick would be DQ'd there.

To be honest, the main reason why I'm trying to pick this all apart into small details is to form some kind of idea where the lines with unsportsmanshiplike conduct really lie. The open-endedness of the rule makes me cringe inside, with regards to having to make said judgements.

Hey hows this for a wackey idea, at least 2 decks were made by friends, those decks helped each other out and synergised well with each other, so there must have been some point before any match was played where the idea of "Hey if we both play at the same table we will help each other to victory with our decks." was had.

Is that a form of collusion perhaps? Making decks that work well together and using them to then during the game decide 1st, 2nd etc place?

The other martell deck definately helped Dennis win which is why he was trying to get 2nd for it, but the decision to play that sort of deck was made well before the tournament?

Its out there with grassy knolls for theories……

@TotalGit, it's not so out of the place….is the first thing i thought (and probably everyone watching) when someone said everyone of their meta took the same deck to the tourney and the 3 martel in the final were mirrors.

Personally I think thats the real reason for the DQ. Also Erick was one of last year "collusion suspects" (well they did admited of doing it) so I think that putted more attention on them. It's all about precedence in your lawyery tv shows

Rick just got unlucky for taking the same deck (didn't seam so colluded).

We do need to define some margins on the rule….anything too especific is not going to work though.

I would enjoy a rewriting of the titles to be used a lot differently. That's all I have to add to this.

HoyaLawya said:

HoyaLawya said:

I haven't gone back to listen again, but maybe you are right. I took it that it was for his help getting to the finals. I know Dennis won multiple tables, only meeting one other meta-mate in the first three games. I don't know if they helped build that deck together, practiced together, whatever - so the "consideration" could have been for multiple things.

In the end, it doesn't matter much… I hope to hear FFGs side.

All I will say is considering who was at the final table the ruling doesn't surprise me one bit. It saddens me that it's the same offenders every year. #growup

widowmaker93 said:

Thanks for that brilliant bit of deduction. If you're referring to Erick, since he's the only same player as last year, then it could just be that he'a a good player and FFG made a bad call. Putting the cart before the horse just makes you sound bitter.

PS #tagsonlyworkintwitter #getalife

The Cossack said:

Cossack, I've been playing this game for years and this is the 3rd year in a row that Erick and his meta has pulled **** like this. Collusion is nothing new to them, and DCDennis himself admitted that he himself should have been disqualified during that game. The fact that this happened only 24 hrs ago and neither he, nor Erick, nor the other meta-mate have said anything to defend themselves or even seem the least bit surprised or is even a little bit upset about the ruling tells me that this was a premeditated plan. Most likely in order to make a mockery of the rules FFG has put forth. A lot of other people are probably thinking it, I just happened to be the one to say it because I couldn't care less what those guys(or anyone else) thinks of me. I don't doubt that Erick is a good player…hell I know he is a good player, but he has brought this reputation on himself for the actions of his past. If you have a problem with me saying what I've said then take that up with the man himself.

P.S. - i know hash tags only work on twitter. Jackass

I been reading the boards a while, but I didn't see anything about anything from 2010. Maybe you can share what happened?

Why does someone have to get defensive to prove they're not guilty? Not everyone is immature. If you're unsurprised at what Erick might do, others might be unsurprised at FFG making a snap crap decision. I haven't seen the video though. Perhaps Erick and Dennis were defensive. And we'll see if FFG says something official.

~Oh, and nice comeback. Lol

In 2010 Erick brought people that didn't even play the game and gave them decks to "headhunt" certain players from other metas if the happened to get put at tables with said players. I know it for a fact because I was at one of the tables where it happened to a friend of mine. Luckily I was there to help him out or he would have been 4th place for sure. When our game was over and his buddy told him that we came in 1-2, Erick was overheard saying "Well you're worse than useless."

Then of course there is 2011 where him and this same friend gamed the final table and caused these collusion rule changes. Something they completely admitted doing just to prove a point.

Yeah, real stand up guys full of character, let me tell you. Great ambassadors for the game. lol

The mere fact that all players from this meta came with mirror decks that increases their chances to win when they meet with each other looks like premeditated collusion.

From the description it DC meta guys acted suspicious. Using the same deck, discussions on who gets first. With their history, they need to do everything possible to be above suspicion. Remember everybody - the collusion rule was created to deal with the situation they created.

Of course FFG was watching them closely. FFG wanted to be sure nothing like last year happened again. This might be an overreaction on the part of FFG, but they might not have had much of a choice. If there appeared to be collusion on the final table this year - from the same meta as last year - what type of reaction would that have got from the player base?