I realize that Nedly does not always equal fun, especially in this case. However, I do think that since 'kingmaking' is part of the Melee competitive environment it should be the players responsibility to manage that element of the game, just like the table talk rule. Isn't it true that sometimes a player may be persuaded to attack you (or anyone) instead of attacking a weaker player or attacking the more appropriate player. There is no TO rule to minimize this effect, its just part of the game which players accept and build decks to manage.

The melee is designed to be unpredictable, but at the same time each player has an equal chance of ending up on top and therefore an equal chance of being made 'the king'. I understand the complaint about ending up 3rd or 4th when you could have had a chance to make a push if the game didn't end; but really can't that argument be made about every non-1st-place finish in a melee game. I am just saying if you wanted to push before the game ended you should have done it. I guess I am trying to advocate player responsiblity. If you lose a melee because someone was 'made king' there is no one to blame except yourself. I realize that most players are limited in their ability to see into the future (except for Bruno, that Asshai bastard), but if you are aware of your table and the power levels it seems fairly easy to figure out when a game is close to the end.

It seems strange to me to orchestrate the game to entice players to be 'honorable' when valuable points are at stake for a second place finish. What next, give players in joust extra points for NOT beating their opponent into the ground if they had the chance and chose not to?!?! I mean this would make it more fun for those players who didn't get pounded, right? Ridiculous, in a competitive joust you do everything in your power to lock your opponent down to secure victory. Why should melee be different? I would venture to guess that 9 out of 10 players would admit to either throwing the game to secure the points or a willingness to do so if they have not yet played a competitive melee; It just makes sense.

That being said, if you want to reduce the 'kingmaking' in melee, the point system may need to be revisited and revised to make a 2nd place finish no more valuable than a 3rd or 4th place finish. By doing this the win becomes the only acceptable outcome in a players mind because there is no incentive to place 2nd over 3rd etc. In my experience the final table (similar to a casual game) is a devastating battle to the bitter end simply because each player has little (or no) regard for 2nd place. Although this idea seems counter-intuitive because as a player you want to be rewarded for your performance and achievement of a 2nd or even a 3rd place finish. This point brings me full circle to the fact that 'kingmaking' is (and probably should be) part of the competitive melee environment.

~Ok..... Now that Dormouse has taken the gun away from your head, tell us what you really think.

I'm not concerned with the little backstabbing actions that take place durring a game. Those are good for the game. It's perfectly acceptable for a player to provide and opponent an advantage one round, without any intent to let that player win the game. It's also perfectly acceptable for one player to not see something that's happening on the table, and accidentally let someone win (of course this is difficult to do if the two other players at the table see what's going on).

I'm more concerned with deals that are reached at the end of a game where one person says "If you attack me, I'll let it go unopposed and blah, blah, blah... you'll win while I lock up the 2nd (or 3rd) place finish I'm about to lose."

Notice that the special rules do not get rid of "Kingmaking", they just don't encourage it.

Let's take a senario where player B throws the game for player A:

Player A = 12pts. (defeats 3 players = 9, plus 1 for the win, plus 2 "honor" points)

Player B = 6pts. (defeats 2 players = 6, 0 "honor" points)

Player C = 5pts. (defeats 1 player = 3, plus 2 "honor" points)

Player D = 2pts. (defeats 0 players = 0, plus 2 "honor" points)

Player B still walks away with more points than anyone else who took 3rd or 4th place, but their postition isn't as secure as those who legitimately took 2nd place at other tables.

The jury's still out on whether or not we'll use the rules anyway.

Deathjester26 said:

Actually, most other card games would consider the above conversation "collusion," which is a form of cheating, and those two players would be disqualified from the tournament. Collusion is when two (or more) players agree to offer anything in return for trying to influence the results of a tournament. If I made the offer above, I am telling you that I am willing to let you win, so I can come in second (or whatever). That's cheating in and of itself. If the other players goes for it, then both players are in collusion, and thus "Yer out!"

This may seem heavy handed, but it may be time this type of play was focused on in the melee environment. At our store we have had to have several conversation about different forms of cheating -- bribery, collusion, etc -- when it was discovered that certain players of a certain card game were leting other people use their cards, but that if they ended up playing each other the "borrower" had to conceed the match to the "lender." Cheating is cheating, and Kingmaking in itself is not cheating, but Kingmaking as described above would be.

The recent Greyjoy and Martell announcements have gotten me excited...I really want to go to Kublacon, but I think I'd need to split room costs with people. It'd be my first big tourney ever, but I'm feeling the itch to play real badlike. IF I come, I think I'll probably play Greyjoy..probably. Even without the new set...just not ditching my squids.

As for multi, I hate kingmaking, too, but it's kind of impossible to stop isn't it? I guess there's always the "bash the crap out of the kingmaker at the next table" approach...but that's not much fun either (well, maybe for the bashers it's okay...)

JerusalemJones said:

I disagree, the Melee is designed to incorporate and encourages table talk. Yes this is different from other games but, to me, its part of the reason this game is so appealing. Think of all the deal making that happens during the course of a single melee; 'when revealed' plot card resolution trades (you pick me for your summoning season and I'll pick you for my counting favors etc.), coercion (if you don't attack me, I won't use my ability to discard your attachment etc.), character/location ability bargaining (if you give his/her character the raven trait, I will be able to discard that character etc.) and the list goes on...

Also I am not sure why one type of kingmaking is cheating while another isn't. (under your definition)

Someone get Rave and Jesse to show up and I'll buy them a beer. I'm with Matt on this one; I'm gonna be at the con and I'll probably wanna check the game out again and, God willing, relapse into addiction and start playing in San Diego for once.

shadow stag said:

Come help me get something restarted down here. That would be awesome!

Kublaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

cha0s said:

Well, that is the crux of the problem, isn't it? Melee in Thrones is a different type of game, and does strongly encourage deals and counter deals, lies and promises. That's why it can be really hard to enforce what would -- and would not -- be construed as cheating. If two peole ahead of time decided that they would work together to ensure that one of them won just to make sure player X didn't, is that cheating? Sure sounds like it. They are trying to manipulate the game in their favor. If the game comes down to the final attack, and player Y tells player Z to go ahead and attack, and he'll give him the game...wow, that becomes the tough call. And the rest of the players at the table all get angry, since no matter what they have done up until this point doesn't matter, because player Y just threw the game.

Last year at Nationals we held a melee event, and at the final table were two people from our meta, The Braz and another MN player from another meta. From what I recall, Braz kept attack one of the two local guys, and he decided to do everything he could to keep theBraz from winning. He wasn't working to make someone else win as much as to keep theBraz from winning (which, incidently, theBraz lost to The Nick-ler). But I don't ever recall him taking any actions to essentially throw the game into another player's favor.

Melee is a difficult beast, but is so incredibly fun -- if you like that kind of play (and I do). It can be really hard to determine who is and who isn't cheating, and what constitues "fair" play in a game that is all about the "Life isn't fair" axiom. I can't really remember a melee game I've been in where one player "gave" the win to another player, except in cases where we had been playing for hours and just wanted it to be over -- and in tournament play, those time limits should be enforced.

Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand your point now. I guess I just don't forsee the above mentioned scenario taking place (where 2 players talk ahead of time to try to manipulate the outcome of the game) but I do think that near the end of the Melee battle (after many rounds of ruthless attacks, creative diplomacy and intense strategy) a time comes where each player must choose how they want to go down. Each must assess the opponents power positions relative to their own and make some tough decisions. When it is clear that an opponent is likely to be the winner, it just makes sense to cut your losses and reign in 2nd place. IMO telling someone you wont oppose their challenges is just part of the game, especially in a competitive setting.

I, sorry to say, threw two of my games at Gencon because I was quickly losing my position on the board and there was another player that was close to winning. I hated doing it with every ounce of my being, but it got me points I would have otherwise clearly lost. In the third round, the game was thrown to me by another player so he could lock up second place points

On the flip side, from what I've seen, this rarely happens at final tables, as everyone there is in it to win it. These have been some of the most back and forth, exciting games I've seen or played in (although somewhat long, but always worth the wait), and that's what I like about melee.

BTW: The melee is confirmed for Sunday at 10am. It's open to as many people as we can get, even though the Kubla guys put 12 as the limit for some reason.

I agree that it can be a fine line at times between what might be 'table talk' and political maneuvering, and what goes beyond the bounds of the spirit of the game and into the realm of cheating.

The simplest way I can look at it, is as long as there isn't some sort of "out of game" incentive being offered (shared prizes, cards, money) then its probably ok. "I'll let you attack go through, so I can hold onto 2nd" is hardly the same as "I'll let your attack go through if you buy me lunch and give me that Rare I wanted."

One is tactical and perfectly within my view of the bounds of the game, and the other is quite clearly bringing other factors into it and cheating. There is of course that middle ground where it can be murky. But I think that holds true with LOTs of games. (See the debacle with last years CoC championships for instance.)

Well, I am done with the cube for the cube draft, and am excited to test it out. We have two leagues before Kubla here, so hopefully that will test it it a bit.

There is about 500 cards. Breaks down to about 60 cards per faction, plus 5 faction-only events. Except Martell is hosed just a tad...because to be honest they just didn't have the cards to put in. I limited it to one of each card, and only one version of a unique characters...and that is how Martell rolls (or doesn't roll actually). But, that will be posted so people know they are playing with fire drafting Martell...or are they (considering other might not be)? Each house has the same 5 locations, plus the Seas and all the Kingdom locations are in there (and a ton of extra nuetral ones, plus building orders).

The other 175 or so are nuetrals, multi-house, and events, along with just a smattering of high-level plots.

I fought with myself long and hard about if I was going to allow everyone to have a treaty, as with most drafts in the past. But, I decided against it (Treaty is one of the 5 agendas that can be drafted however...). Alliance will be also in the "starter" plot deck.

The "everyone" or "starter" plots, as of now, will be:

Alliance (with the extra text "you can also play any house only cards").

Summons

Building Orders

Wildfire Assault

Winter Storm

You can have 5-7 plots in your plot deck.

I NEED about 7 more of each of these plots if anyone has extras!!! Otherwise, there will be proxies, which I hate...

A lot of the build of the cube, and the rules, come from what I loved and hated about drafts - and aGoT in general. I hated having one control plot. I hated being able to build with two houses - the stategy is so much more for one, especially DURING the drafting which is the most fun part IMHO. I hate non-uniques...so there is way more uniques in the cube (although you will still see Loyalist, Storm Raiders, and a host of other non-unique "favorites").

Basically, I put in all the cards many of us remember from the olden days. Any cards through 5KE were okay (plus two banned LCG cards, since we have to play them somewhere/time!). If in doubt, after power level/basic nostalgia, then I went with the most popular characters in the books...since winning with Jaime is always more fun than "House Tully Spud #102" or a card that shows the Red Viper's "son".

I think it will comfortably play 10 people. Beyond that we will have to ro-sham-bo (sp?) to play!

Very cool. If I come, I have tons of copies of those plots, aside from maybe Winter Storms...but the others, I imagine I could scrounge up 7 each. Still on the fence about going, though. Will there be a Crown of Suns LIV in there for my Kraken lovin' heart? heh heh

OMG the cube sounds so great! Well done Matt. I am very disappointed that I wont be able to participate , but like foxpillow I will gladly contribute those plots you have listed. I could mail them to you if you need them ahead of time for testing as well. Just let me know.

Anyone willing to split a room for the weekend with myself and possibly one other person? I'd much rather stay at the hotel than drive back and forth from my Mom's house.

On that note, weekend ticket prices go up on on April 15th. Get them now while they are still only $40 (I think) for all four days.

cha0s said:

Funny...you still haven't said why you won't be attending? I am assuming it is a wedding shower or something equally as emascilating? j/k.

Could you send them with DeathJ? Otherwise, I would LOVE to have them in the mail so I know they are there. Everyone is being very nice about this, but everyone sounds kind of "maybe". Thanks a ton.

DeathJ - I am probably getting a room and have no problem sharing it! But...I get hookers. Oh, wait, that is Jesse (BTW, sounds like Wyndwalker and Rave will make it...I am just in the process of making sure they will play in something!).

Getting excited...

Thanks rings. ~I'm not worried about hookers, especially ones from the STM. I crashed at mathlete's pad almost every night at Gencon, and that was all kinds of kinky .

Deathjester26 said:

If by "kinky" you mean "smelled vaguely of peanut butter", then yes, I am sure it was...

rings said:

Any chance that "First Snow" could make the Plot cube? ;-)

Good luck with Kubla this year guys. I will definitely miss being there!

rings said:

Matt, if I decide to 'swing by" will you leave petals on the floor for me to guide me to your room as you have done in the past?

Lurker alert!

And, yes...all world champion cards are in the cube.

rings said:

I wish it was a wedding shower or something like that I could weasle my way out of, but unfortunately its the actual wedding. That sounds bad... the wedding itself is a good thing, just the scheduling thats bad. So instead of getting drunk with you guys, I'll be getting drunk with a bunch of strangers (but at least I'll be getting drunk)

Eh, I will give that excuse a C-. You are obviously not nerdy enough to be part of this group I will continue to talk big until my wife forces me to miss a con for some reason... But, hey, GenCon has been over her birthday the last 3 years and running! So there...

Mathlete...you are getting me mixed up with Tam I think...although I was always envious...(now WAY moreso considering I could be watching cheerleading practice!).

rings said:

It's kinda sad Matt, given the outcomes in my games against you, but Kubla is the one Con I wish I could make a repeat appearance at this year.

Though if it's a choice between me and Mathlete, I know which former joust champ I'd be sharing a room with. Giggity.