Join us this week for Greg's triumphant (so to speak) return to the show. This time around, we get Greg's belated thoughts on Worlds, hear some Dating Disasters, have a new BERLITHA, and early thoughts on possible House of Dreams builds. Check it out here.

Also, for those who have been hearing the rumors for some time, "The South Will Rise Again" is on sale on our Cafepress store! Stock up now!

I agree with Greg on the ambiguity of the collusion rules, and the risks for TOs. I think this is a great example of how , regardless of one's view of the melee championship outcome, we can agree to make this a productive learning moment. I look forward to FFG's clarification of the melee collusion rules in coming months.

I'd say that all those problems (collusion, etc.) appear in MtG which has much more tournament statistics. And the way all the problems were solved was by making superprecise rules and training judges (which have to pass tests and have 3 levels of qualification). Second part can potentially be enforced, but requires some effort (like giving out some tests to TOs with some confusing situations to show them how to handle certain situations or/and give them some kind or ranking like Judge, 1st category.=)). While rewriting rules in such a way that there are no ambiguities left is probably the way to go.

On the issue of Hellholt Engineer, I'd say that the right solution (IMHO) is to either stop printing cards which can have potentially infinite triggers or just create a general rule that no trigger can be triggered more than X times per round/phase. The reason behind this is that as long as there are cards that can trigger infinitely (by themselves or involving 1-100 extra cards on top of that), AGoT will face potentially infinite and broken combos which as it seems from FFG rulings, FFG is trying to avoid. Otherwise there will always be some Hellholt Plumber, Hellholt Carpenter and so on to argue about.

TLDR: Collusion is tolerated in MtG tournaments in a form of intentional draws and intentional loses. :-P

BBSB12 said:

It should be pointed out though that this is far from an automatic negative. In generalities, MTG tournaments are larger and more rigorous (# of rounds), and seeding even outside the cut matters more. If you are at the point in an MTG tournment where you can afford to draw into the top 8, for instance, you've already had one hell of a tournament. It might not be right for Thrones, but there are valid reasons why it is allowed under the MTG tourney rules.

imrahil327 said:

Speaking of intentional draws (ID) in AGoT. Are IDs allowed as long as TO is fine with that or are they considered collusion? 'Cause I was offered ID in a mirror Maesters match once and though I declined, that was dumb on my side (since everyone will agree that no matter how good you are and how much you love the game, extra hour break in the end of tournament is always welcome=).

___

I'm not sure what specific sportamanship rules are going to fix. People who want to walk the line between what is and isn't acceptable are going to continue to do so, no matter how many rules you put in place. Most will still get mad at the TO when they are DQ'd, and still come up with acusations about how the TO is abusing the tourney rules (again, props to the DC guys for not doing this).

As a TO, I like the open sportsmanship rules. They allow me to focus on making tournaments fun, instead policing everyone.

As far as the risks TOs assume, warnings are a TOs best friend.

Kraus, I rarely disagree with you, but this is one time I will.

Anytime you draw stricter parameters on sportsmanship rules you make things better. Yes, there will always people who try to walk the line or cross it, but better definition equals a more level playing field for all.

Take Major league baseball for instance. They used to have no steroid rules, and steroids ran rampant in the game. They then instituted specific steroid rules with specific punishments. Things improved greatly! Are there still people who break the rules? Yes, but the situation has become much better!

To build on Greg's comments, I think it's also important to remember that the TO has the final say, so ambiguity doesn't give the TO more flexibility. That person already has all the power they need to make a decision. If the TO disagrees with an FFG ruling, he/she can disregard a ruling altogether (as Erick's comment above points out) or interpret the ruling differently based on the "consensus in the room."

The problem with ambiguity is that, at this point, the TO is going to have some personal opinions on the definition of sportsmanship/rules and may even have an opinion on what happened at worlds in 2011 and 2012. Most TOs are going to do what they feel is fair and/or standard, but because FFG still hasn't explained why players at worlds were disqualified, different TOs will interpret the ruling differently. Should we ban players who run the same deck if that deck has a combo that feeds off similar decks? If so, do we only ban those who are seated at the same table? Or only those at the finals table? Do we only ban them if they are at the finals table and king-make each other? In-game king-making hasn't been against the rules in the past…has that changed? In short, at what point in the tournament should we ban them, and for what? Letting them "run amock" throughout the whole event, creating NPE moments, and then banning them at the very least moment seems like a lose-lose for everyone.

Reasonable people will disagree with what FFG's ruling means, and how it should be interepreted. This is where the real problem lies. Ambiguity significantly increases the risk that tournaments will be judged completely differently by TOs who are attempting to decipher the new meaning of "standard practice." I am fairly certain that differences in rules interpretations were a contributor to what happened at worlds this year. Specifically, it was elluded to (if not outright stated) at GenCon 2012 that in-game king-making wouldn't be considered collusion, so long as it wasn't premeditated. Fast-forward a few months, and this seemed to be a factor in the decision to DQ. As the 2012 world championship points out, one person's views may not align well with another's.

Without further clarification, the best case scenario is that any melee tournament will have "local interpretations" of the rules. GenCon's rules will continue to be enforced differently than World's, which may be different from Stahlecks, etc. If the point of a tournament is to identify "the best player," then the best player will be someone who shares the same personal opinions on sportsmanship as the TO. (Note: This cuts both ways. Someone who refuses to king-make may miss out on opportunities for advancement at a tournament where king-making is allowed.) At worst, the TO of a regional event will disqualify someone who unintentionally violated the the TO's version of the rules…or may have to avoid playing altogether because they brought the same deck as their metamates.

~If FFG starts making me take random blood tests when I turn in my deck list, I'm done! (I kid, but there is a point to be made here too)

I just want to play the game and have fun. I don't want to sit down at a melee table and worry getting banned because my innocent comment violated article 12.4.34 of FFGs sportsmanship rules.

Making simple, clear, and objective rules about sportsmanship is fine. I have no problem with that. However, I doubt FFG is going to be able to explain every possible scenario that could ever take place. The TO is going to have to make subjective decisions sometimes, and the rules need to allow for that.

Honestly, I think part of the reason we haven't heard from FFG is because the decision was based on an overall opinion of what had happened during the final game, throughout the day, or even the past 3 years.

Do we run the risk of having some TO go crazy somewhere? Sure. But you certainly won't catch me returning to one of that TO's events.

Lots of people seem to have figured out how to be good sports and still compete at high levels in this game. It seems easy enough to do. Much easier than having definative proof that someone is colluding.