15 replies to this topic

[sparrowhawk]

After disappointment was expressed at how strong (and even worse dull) Bara Fealty is, I suspect I will be playing a lot more Melee in the near future. Especially since my local 4 playtesters were all part of the melee group and renounce any responsibiliy for letting Bara Fealty be so strong in Joust.

I'm planning to organise my first 2.0 Melee game this Sunday so I thought I would put my theorycraft mind to this format (as nothing amazingly new is being said in Joust, the most over-analysed Core Set ever?). I also thought I'd help out a forum friend who is playing the Melee side event at Worlds. Although I guess publicly discussing insights doesn't really help him.... Still, it's the thought that counts.

So I played Thrones 1.0 mostly Melee. Mainly because I had the cards (so I created decks for boardgaming friends to play, given what's left after they inspected all the decks) and also because opponents found being crushed in Joust not a fun experience (I even played control to give opponents the illusion they were about to win before crushing them - they were less than thrilled). I've no concept of being gentle or pulling punches. I also play a lot of multiplayer boardgames and realise that a Melee game is very different to what most card gamers know.

INTRODUCTION TO THE DARK ART

There are 3 levels to a multi-player game: Strategy (deck building and how you plan to win), Tactics (in-game play) and Diplomacy (your relations with other players). And by far the most important part is the latter. As a table united against you (for example your Cersei + Seal of the Hand + Master of Whispers + Casterly Rock + Winds of Winter stripped all opponents 6 cards) will usually stop you winning unless you are at the threshold (and somehow they never noticed). You need an ally. In a way, combative multiplayer games are a hidden voting game. You do your tricks to impress your opponents with your skillful play so that, when it comes to the crucial king-making point, they subconsciously think "he deserves to win more, I don't mind being beaten by him.". It's a circus act with a judging panel.

You can't teach duel gamers to suddenly learn a new skill that is irrelevant in duels. You either have it or you don't. You only need to listen to Darknoj on Beyond The Wall or Buzz (OKTarg) when he guests to instantly recognise the type of players who shine in Melee. But even if you aren't blessed with natural charisma, you can still learn a few basic techniques.

ALLIANCES

Alliances will occur in preliminary rounds of Melee tournaments when Top 2 can progress to the next round. Don't immediately establish an alliance openly. Wait until the player to the right of you is starting his first challenge then offer him an alliance. Your ally being to the right of you is the best position as you will gain more from the alliance 75% of the time. Sometimes, there are synergies in deck builds that suggest otherwise - e.g. you are Martell with Paramours and he is Targ with Dracarys. Also you need to appraise your opponents and ally with the strongest player for mutual assured progress benefit.

This aspect is why many players dislike Melee because known strong players will ally with each other to progress. After all, when you establish an alliance, you are just provoking the other 2 to ally too. The 2 strongest vs. the 2 weakest sounds good to me. Now the reason why this exists is because of the silly Top 2 progress. The game would be far better if it was always ruthless winner only progresses: 16 players on 4 tables become 4 players on the final table. So don't blame Melee for tournaments destroying the game with "play for second and progress".

In a proper Melee game of "winner only matters", you can still make alliances but there is an implicit proviso: "we won't attack each other unless either of us then wins that turn or is forced to so as to avoid losing". Especially if you intend to play Melee a lot as you want to garner a reputation of being honourable on the Melee tournament circuit (or in that circle of friends). Garnering a good reputation is worth an inconsequential initial sacrifice (but exploit this kindness to the full). Letting someone win a qualifier round with you progressing second because you stayed loyal will pay dividends when you're in the Final with him and he's out of the running (because he's just not that good without you guiding him).

Alliances are about building long-lasting relationships with players (beyond this tournament) and you rarely have enough incentive to destroy goodwill. Of course, in a Worlds Final, you stab like Jack the Ripper if you're certain you will win as a result. Everyone will forgive (and even admire) someones who stabs their ally for the win. It's the futile stabs that weaken both of you to let someone else win that are unforgiveable (learn to recognise that type of player and avoid allying with him like the plague). I'd rather ally with a shark who you can rely on to play optimally than a nervous puppet who will cripple your alliance with paranoia.

INITIATIVE & SEATING ORDER

Initiative is crucial in Melee. Where you want to be depends on your deck and the stage of your game win plan as well as any desperate need for a Title. But generally you want to be to the right of a player who you can sell as the Big Threat. That Martell player to your left with Palace Spearmen? Point out that he's best chosen as first player, remind everyone how quickly he could power surge. Then apologise to him and try to console him with "at least you get to choose titles first". First player is the poison chalice except for that turn when you are going for the win (A Clash of Kings turn with Hand of the King). As the 4th player (assuming 4 player melee, any other format is poor), you will still have a choice of titles and can usually work out the choices of your opponents (just like in Citadels).

Always realise that you will act after the upstream player (to the right) 75% of the time, you are his natural predator and he is your prey (in Vampire Jihad terminology). Whilst the downstream player (to the left) is your natural predator and you are his prey as he will act 75% of the time after you. Some people prefer to ally to the player to your left as a result. But my experience tells me that predator allies invariably stab you and neither of you progress. Whilst if you have a prey ally (perhaps initially nervous), you can demonstrate that you understand that keeping the alliance means you both progress. It's a personal choice although the meta-rule is, in a game where the top 2 progress, you try to ally with the strongest opponent.

THE TITLES GAME

You must learn The Pentagram of Titles (with Crown Regent on its own), the incentives to attack Rivals and who each Support. Learn the asymmetry of them that varies with game stage (Master of Coin is premium in turn 1, Hand of the King is premium in the end game). Looking at the board state and what people are playing and the missing titles, you can often work out who has what title. Know the Master of Whispers can convince the Master of Coin or Master of Laws (both commonly picked) to not block intrigue in return for exemption from intrigue claim (you hit the others whilst gaining 2 power). Know the Crown Regent's Redirect ignores Support (and you declare stealth on this attack). A whole analysis article can be written about the Titles alone.

Thankfully hidden Title picks make alliance ganging up less easy in this edition - a good thing. But they made a mistake in only having 6 Titles and no random title discarded before picking (like in Citadels). It's thus too easy to deduce the Titles using logic. Like the famous logic puzzle about the 3 men about to be eaten by cannibals. Once you put yourself in each of the preceding player's pick decisions, it's usually easy to work out who has what already in your turn then pick accordingly. The key giveaways are the vulnerability of Hand and Laws to Ships and the supports that a player being attacked by another will naturally pick and gamble.

TIMING & LEVERAGE

Cards that grant any action timing are best in Melee. Confinement is much better than Consolidation of Power (except the latter can be used for power surge on self too) because latter is a Marshal action. Margaery is diplomatic leverage in every challenge, as is Dracarys. A Shipwright holds the Martell player hiding behind his Ghaston Grey hostage (let alone anyone who plays a Kingsroad) but this is a marshall action whilst Treachery is greater leverage on that Martell player (assuming you can win the cancel flurry).

SHOW OR TELL?

When you cow someone to do what you want, you have to emphasise the benefits to them (compared to the hurt they will endure if they attack you). Whether you play "Show" (revealing the card) or "Tell" (claiming you have the card) depends on your hand and the board position. Note that once you Show, it's hard to become coy again. But if you are coy and they call your bluff and you Dracarys Theon, the whole table knows not to call your bluff when you claim to have an event.

WHO'S THE FOOL?

If this is a new group of players, act dumber than you are. Make players underestimate you. You can do this by making illegal plays that need to be corrected, giving people the impression you don't know what you are doing. This only works at the start of your Melee career so you might as well make the most of not having a reputation. But be careful if this makes people wary of allying with you. Or think you are easy, the whipping boy of the board. You should do this only to be "adopted" by an Old Pro who will take you under his wing and treat you as a patsy ally to help him win, only to be shocked when you suddenly reveal the flurry of tricks in your hand to stab for the win. That will earn his respect, not his enmity (as long as you actually win).

BALANCE OF POWER

Your deck will determine your strategy. If you find yourself on a table with 2 Rush decks and top 2 progress, that's a bad table and the other 2 need to focus on those decks. But often you find yourself playing Melee the way it was designed. It's a game of shifting alliances of convenience, sometimes dictated by Titles for that turn, In this game, especially if you are playing a Long Game house like Martell, you need to ensure that no House feels out of it (when someone feels he cannot win, he will often help someone else win to spite his aggressor, make sure you benefit from this psychology).

You have to give opponents the illusion they can win (often you have to risk a slim chance) so that they don't sacrifice their game to stop you winning. Nobody should be imploded as that just creates a whipping boy for the whole board and never ever be the player who implodes another player. You want to come out of this smelling of roses, the good guy who won.

POSITIVE NOT NEGATIVE

Negative cards are very strong in duels. Denying your opponent benefits you. But in multiplayer games, the benefit is mainly for players 3 and 4 who spent no resources (card or gold) for same benefit. Consolidation of Power is a Marshall action and everyone else gains from it. Confinement you can play when going 3rd to find an opening against 4th player and deny his counter-attack with Asha etc. Placing Milk on Tyrion will only attract resentment of that player on you. And would you dare play a Milk on a player with Raiders in play and thereby attract his Military attacks to remove it? How about putting a Seal on him instead when he can be a valuable ally for you (especially if you are vulnerable to his attacks) ? You still control the Seal and you both gain, Meantime his tentpole attracts the negative cards of players 3 and 4 and when it dies, you get your Seal back.

Cancels are crucial but mainly as protection. Make sure that you have each icon standing so that players just can't get a free unopposed attack on you (ok, let your ally have one if he wants to break the alliance for such a poor incentive). Deterrence is great. But rarely light the fuse. Cersei attacking you in Intrigue warrants your Dracarys. Wendamyr stealthing to steal Power early to mid game does not (you've got Plaza for him when you draw it). When you do have repeatable negative (like Plaza that can kill any player's character, not just the loser) or some sort of deterrence like Master of Whispers, leverage it. Showing your Treachery to deter a Stark player with Ice from attacking you is good as you want him to kneel to weaken someone else with military then trade 2 great cards, neither of which are yours.

GRACIOUS IN VICTORY, VENGEFUL IF STABBED

When you win, make sure to privately thank any players who were kind enough to help you win. Make them feel part of your victory. You must always underplay your achievement, call it Beginner's Luck, continue to be awestruck at all the great players you beat (stroke their ego), their biggest fan. You want people to think what a Nice Guy you are to win it, feel less bad that they didn't win.

On the other hand, if someone treats you badly and you have no chance of winning, you really need to show that you will punish whoever stabs you like that. It has got to be a visible victimisation so you gain the reputation of not being someone to be crossed. There's got to be both a carrot and a stick in your alliances, a loyal ally but vindictive if stabbed.

LOW PROFILE

Finally (for this first installment anyway), unless you are blessed with bags of charisma, you need to keep a low profile, at least to begin with until your successes start to raise your profile. You must never reveal that you are a manipulative bastard - always keep up the facade of geniality. And whatever you do, you should never ever make yourself a target by writing articles on how to win multi-players games by manipulating others - that would be an egocentric faux pas and the kiss of death for your Melee career.


Until next time...

[GKZhukov]

But they made a mistake in only having 6 Titles and no random title discarded before picking (like in Citadels).

 

There is a random title discarded though, or have I been playing it incorrectly?

[sparrowhawk]

There is a random title discarded though, or have I been playing it incorrectly?

 

Yep. My bad. You can tell I haven't played 2.0 Melee yet. That makes the 4 player game much better. (The only format to play it really.)

 

For some reason (I think it was the Melee preview article), I got the impression there was no random discard. Obviously reading the rules is something I rarely do...

 

Cheers for the embarrassing correction.

[GKZhukov]

It's alright - I played about 5 games of it before I realised that the Redirect of Crown Regent ignores Support restrictions. This can lead to all sorts of crafty shenanigans.

[sparrowhawk]

So what did you learn in your 5+ games? (I'm jealous you've got to play that much melee already.) Care to share any insights that are particular to the 2.0 game?

I assume etiquette (and tournament rules) says you must never reveal or hint what Title you chose? If so, this is good as I'm looking forward to that aspect of the game most.

The above was more about the woolly ephemeral subject of diplomacy. Which is a pretty tall order to cover. I would advise reading Dale Carnegie's classic book before Worlds. It's mostly pretty obvious but reinforces some behavioural meta-rules that everyone should follow. I only wish I practise what I preach.

[emptyrepublic]

I assume etiquette (and tournament rules) says you must never reveal or hint what Title you chose? If so, this is good as I'm looking forward to that aspect of the game most.

 

In fact it's a core rule that you can't reveal titles until everyone has chosen. The process is similar to plot selection.

 

I haven't played much 2.0 yet but I find the Melee dynamics to be effectively the same with the very notable exception of selecting titles. Not being able to deliberately position yourself for protection from another player invites more tension into Melee I think. Interestingly, there will always be at least one player who supports another given that Crown Regent is the only title outside the support/rival circle and that title cards get burned in smaller games.

 

I find that in Melee games success is determined if you can make yourself indisposable. Other players don't hit you so hard because they need you around to help hit other players. If you contribute nothing to pacing (e.g. help slow down a rush player) or are rushing to win then you get stomped. 

 

Otherwise, I love the philosophy you laid out for Melee. It's my favorite format. 

[LaurenF]

I like this article a lot! I love melee but rarely get the chance to play it. Last year at Worlds I went 2, 2, 3, 3/4 (it was a tie) and I want to do much better this year. One note, I believe you are not allowed to show another player any cards in your hand or any other hidden information. You can say whatever you want, of course.

[sparrowhawk]

@Empty Republic & Lauren F

Thank you both for the kind words. I played 1.0 Melee in a cut-throat group of strong Diplomacy players so all I am doing is imparting techniques I learnt playing in that environment, applied to 2.0 game purely at a theorycraft level at the moment (as I’ve only got my first 2.0 Melee game organised for Sunday). I believe that much of the multi-player game techniques that I’ve developed over the years in various boardgame tournament play can be applied to Melee. Perhaps it’s hubris, perhaps it’s a bit of boredom that I’ve (temporarily) lost enthusiasm to further analyse the Core Set Joust game we've had for so long as diminishing returns sets in, provoking opening fresh frontiers.

I never looked at it as being “indispensible”, Empty Republic, but I can really appreciate that approach. Implicit in your approach is that you are not a front runner, you are simply “a helpful member of the pack” trying to stop the current Leader from winning – only to sneak the win yourself. I assume this approach can be a fake awestruck noob feigning reverence to an Old Pro (the Wormtongue ploy yet we all knew the worm would turn) or a proud competitor who “just wants a good game and to allow us all a chance to win equally” (except of course some players are more equal than others).

Lauren, I never realised that you could not show draw cards. Is this a Tournament rule? Again, whilst I am an experienced Melee player, this was just in a specific circle of friends, never in Tournaments (although I followed controversies like DC at GenCon and Canadian Nationals with bemusement). The whole “you can progress as a top-scoring second placed player” (and the friendship alliances this will create) really puts me off the Tournament scene (if I was keen on it, I would not be writing this series of articles). In my old circle of Melee Diplomacy players, every game was brand new (there was no meta-gaming of favours or grudges across games) and everyone was playing to win, not playing for second. We often played the Littlefinger variant if we had time (so much negotiation) and in the early days, when my card pool was smaller and I wanted to get them into the game with multiples of famous characters, we played a variant where you can kneel 2 Influence in Dominance to move a dead character to your discard pile (to make Hand of the King more useful outside of specific builds). I guess we were a bit “fast-and-loose” with the rules, just enjoying the negotiations and bluffing of the Melee game (e.g. Arrogant Contender was one of my fave cards for I'm You Writ Small or Heart of the Stag bluffs as other decks had no Dissension). I can’t see reference to secrecy of draw cards in hand in the rules so I will assume this is a Tournament rule (and usually it's better to keep cards secret).

So tonight I'd really like to do an equivalent length second instalment of this Articles Thread (like my "Sun Tzu and the Art of Warhammer Conquest" thread) but my brain’s a bit fried (and it’s really distracting catching up on last 2 great podcasts whilst typing this, with AGOT temporarily neglected as a flitty Jack of Many Games, Master of None). Nevertheless, here are some supplementary thoughts to add to the above.

APPRAISE YOUR OPPONENTS

You have to read your opponents. Understand why they are playing this game. What their expectations are and what they will be happy to achieve. To do this, you can usually identify the high profile players (learn this) but for most opponents, you need to analyse their play and demeanour - as well as rate what you see of their deck’s cards. In my categorisation, there are broadly 3 categories of players.

SHARKS: These competitors are aiming to win. You can rely on them to play optimally, to always prolong the game whilst they have a glimmer of hope of winning (this means that if (s)he has husbanded his cancels, you can pass up on cancelling that end game Superior Claim for the win and instead let him downstream of you use his cancel). Sometimes, the fact that they always play optimally can make them predictable. You can push your luck a bit with opportunistic nibbles as he will have a higher threshold before he gives up the game to prevent you winning the game.

CAREBEARS: These are players who are secretly worried they’ll make a fool of themselves so will be happy to acquit themselves by ending up as narrow second on the table (to you of course). They may be new to their melee career or have low expectations because they lack confidence or killer instinct. Sometimes these players just like to make a friend via alliance-based multiplayer combat games. As long as they are competent (or better still are willing to do everything you say guiding them), this is the ideal type of player to take under your wing. The exception is when there are 2 other sharks on the table when he will make mistakes and be a liability so you are better off taking your chances with a shark. Obviously posing as a carebear to then stab and win is the best way to earn the respect of an Old Pro who wrongly appraised you.

CLOWNS: These are loose cannons, entropy personified, completely capricious. Their agenda is different to all other competitors. How well they do is irrelevant, they want to enjoy themselves so revel instead in being disruptive (stabbing because “it’s Game of Thrones, we’re meant to be treacherous”) or executing some stylish combo that doesn’t actually win them the game (but hey, it looks cool). It goes without saying not to ally with this trickster but you can use him to your advantage (“I’ll kneel Ghaston Grey with my Shipwright so that you can do your cool Paramour / Dracarys / Confinement / Tears of Lys combo”). He will generally play combo so act entertained by his antics and the cleverness of his combos, he wants to play to a gallery so always throw a sly appreciatively smirk at him when he exasperates your mutual opponents. Try to plant seeds of how he could use his cards against your opponents (give him ownership of the idea), be a fan of his antics so as to get him on-side but never expect loyalty, always keep your guard up.

THREAT IN DEFENCE, NOT IN ATTACK

In Texas Hold’ Em Poker, when you “represent” a hand (e.g. bidding high when a third card in the same suit appears, representing a flush), you apply pressure on opponents to fold to your threat. In Melee, you never represent a threat in attack (because this only provokes the maximum defence from that opponent, opening himself up to subsequent challenges from other players). Instead, you represent a threat in defence. This is mainly done by threatening stand or STR pump or by having events usable in defence like Dracarys, Warm Like Rain or ambush (look through your dead pile to make sure you have a dead Hatchling, the opponent should notice this).

Here’s an example: you are player 3 with a Greyjoy Fealty player 4. You are at less than 10 power and attack a player in POW, you know his Arya can either oppose you (but not win) or oppose Greyjoy. You must point out that even with a Superior Claim, you cannot win and that if he blocks you, he will allow Greyjoy who has not used his Fealty to attack him unopposed and play We Do Not Sow for free to discard his Winterfell. You are not representing a threat but that Greyjoy Fealty is a threat. He should see sense and save his defender. After all, he doesn’t want you to attack in MIL as well does he? Appeal to his sense of self-preservation but failing that, a little bit of extortion (with a smile, don’t push too far!) helps. Carrot and stick.

In this way, Tyrion can be a liability. He always threatens a Tears of Lys. So always attack in MIL first so that you don’t have the gold to Put to the Sword / Torch so that the opponent will not feel too threatened, he will just lose a dupe or bodyguard (the reason why you chose him for MIL is he had that expendable) but keeps his defender against the same threats from other opponents and gives you unopposed power (the only currency that matters as crushing him only helps 2 other players). Attacking INT when you have gold should be against an opponent with no big non-INT character to poison who has other challenges to defend. Whispers is the best way to negotiate an unopposed from a rival in exchange for claim exemption but the target must also feel safe from poison.

Plots like Power Behind The Throne, free events like Waking the Dragon (which you don’t want to play but will to stand Viserys to deny an unopposed POW attack, discarding attachment later) and the threat of ambush (that bypasses stealth) are great ways to oppose and deny bonus power. And have no doubt: unless you are trying to bring down a leader about to win, the only reason to attack is to gain power, in POW attacks, attacks against Rivals and via unopposed. Any other type of attack is unnecessary, unbalancing the game (unless you've pushed that player to vow revenge against you or vice versa).

This is why 2 claim plots like Winds of Winter are avoided like the plague as they only attract defensiveness (whilst Calm over Westeros for power and A Clash of Kings are melee plots). In a Joust game, you need 6 characters to participate in every challenge. In 4 player Melee, you need between 3 and 12 characters so some attacks have got to be let though unopposed. This is partly why MIL is weaker as the character to be killed kneels to oppose.

That’s not to say MIL does not have a purpose. The ability to crush your opponent’s board if he angers you is a powerful deterrent (sometimes you do it just to provoke his reset to your advantage). Obviously many MIL icons have renown (and Jaime gets a free non-kneeling attack). And there are more subtleties. The humble Rattleshirt Raiders in a MIL-strong build is a big neon sign saying “don’t play your Milks on me or you will attract my MIL attacks until I remove it”. In many ways, that sort of “deterrent leverage” exemplifies the subtleties of Melee.

Finally, there’s a level of threat that is just too obscure that players will discount it. You are playing Lannister Fealty on 7 Power with 0 gold, 5 cards, only Tyrion standing. You attack a rival in intrigue and stealth to win unopposed. Then ambush in a Gold Cloaks to attack another rival in MIL against an opponent who would win Dominance if he does not oppose and can lose a dupe so again unopposed (you are at 11 Power with no more characters standing). Finally play Hear Me Roar for Fealty, play Tywin and attack a player with no POW icons standing, play Superior Claim (cancel the inevitable cancel) and gain renown to get to 15. You never appeared a threat (not even A Clash of Kings as your plot) and played an obscure card (they should have worked out why you’re playing Fealty) to win. But Hear Me Roar could never really be used as a deterrent block in defence, it’s a game win play. Unlike Fire and Blood or Waking the Dragon, it’s not defensive deterrent which should always be bleedingly obvious (e.g. 2 gold unspent with Illyrio).

ALWAYS LEAVE A “SAVE FACE”

Unless you are punishing a stabber to gain a reputation for future games, you must never victimise one player and push him over the edge to now be against you. Explain he is your rival and that all you want is that Power bonus but you will only attack once in the challenge that he prefers (assuming you can win in any of the 3) on the understanding that he won’t oppose. This is minimal antagonism by you to gain at least 2 Power – and you have empowered him to choose the single nibble you need to claim off him. Unless you can win this turn, leave it at that, you’ve had your pound of flesh this turn (explain that it’s just unfortunate your Titles are rivals and hopefully you can work together next turn).

Humiliating a player (who perhaps trusted you) by claiming 3 challenges off him better win you the game. Because he will hold it against you, oppose all your attacks and not oppose your opponents. You have created a “Wild Dog” to yap at your heels and handicap your chances. Only ever do that if you have already won. If you don’t give a save face to a target then don't win, you will only provoke obstinate defence and vindictive counter-attack. So neither of you benefit. Best wait for an opponent to antagonise or humiliate an opponent and benefit from the fall-out.

AVOID “THE RED MIST” & CRITICISM

Melee is a long game and fortunes rise and fall, especially on a table where Balance of Power is adhered to. So if you suffer a major set-back, don’t "see red" then give up on the game and attack your oppressor for the rest of the game, throwing the game to either opponent. That’s bad form: you show yourself to be not a top competitor. Instead, pretend to put it aside: “Ok, we've got new titles now, we’re not rivals, we can put last turn aside and work together, but you owe me one so why don’t you open him up with a Paramour on Tywin so that we can both attack him? Or would you rather I try to extract some revenge off you?” Be willing to be flexible but leverage the fact that you have shown forgiveness so he needs to keep you sweet to not go mad attacking him. You’d be surprised how being the underdog, you can claw yourself back into the reckoning. If you can win by stabbing him, that’s totally justifiable. And if you know for certain that either him or someone else will win this turn, teach him a lesson not to stab you as an ally - but only then have your king-making revenge (ideally get others wronged to king-make you). Whilst there’s hope, you should still play to win.

In the same way, always be positive with your game talk, never negative. Never criticise suboptimal play, embarrass them and antagonise them. Instead nonchalantly grab any chance to throw a compliment (nothing too heavy-handed, just a “nice” when the bleedingly obvious Tears gets played). After all, you don’t want to antagonise the target either, just an appreciative spectator (who then slipstreams for the win). People really do ultimately play for validation and approval. They will even write long articles sharing their secrets to get it...

This section is particularly apt as I am incredibly bad at practising what I preach here. I try to hide it but if someone plays badly, apparently the scorn can be seen in my eyes. And many times, I’ve been so outraged by some stupid mutually destructive stab on me that I’ve thrown my toys out of the pram and victimised the poor stabber to teach him a lesson. Unfortunately, this is a fatal flaw (painfully self-aware) that is exploited by the Truly Great Diplomacy players, why I’ve never won a European or Worlds (2nd or 3rd several times). Because really good manipulators can convince an idiot to do something stupid against me and provoke me to no longer compete (it's a good example of knowing your opponents and exploiting their weaknesses, Scorpion Clan-style). So learn from my own flaws, be pleasant when faced with idiotic play to your detriment and avoid The Red Mist. Because revenge is a dish best served cold. And the best cold dish is the sweet taste of victory.


Until next time...

[Whingewood]

Sparrowhawk, I've enjoyed your lengthy posts on melee in this thread, thanks for sharing!

I've come to AGOT from Conquest (my first LCG) and recently tried out melee and found it to be loads of fun.  We played three games of melee; I won the first one, then in the second game one of my rivals decided to unoppose a challenge from one of my other opponents in order to let him win rather than me, as I'd "already won one melee".  The shark in me was annoyed, but I enjoyed the game regardless of a bit of king-making at the end there.

 

We'll probably be playing some more melee this weekend, so I'm going to try and mentally assess what type of player my opponents are based on your shark/carebear/clown categories.  Should be fun!

[sparrowhawk]

Sparrowhawk, I've enjoyed your lengthy posts on melee in this thread, thanks for sharing!
I've come to AGOT from Conquest (my first LCG) and recently tried out melee and found it to be loads of fun. We played three games of melee; I won the first one, then in the second game one of my rivals decided to unoppose a challenge from one of my other opponents in order to let him win rather than me, as I'd "already won one melee". The shark in me was annoyed, but I enjoyed the game regardless of a bit of king-making at the end there.

We'll probably be playing some more melee this weekend, so I'm going to try and mentally assess what type of player my opponents are based on your shark/carebear/clown categories. Should be fun!

Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you are enjoying the melee game. And these articles.

I think one problem with you is that you are such an established strong LCG player in your local meta. I've followed your Conquest tournament reports and you are always in the top 2 - I believe you even won with the handicap of playing Urien which is rubbing salt in their wounds! So it's only natural to see some of that respect yet also "let's not have him win again" surface. The question you should ask yourself is how you can now leverage this loss to your ongoing advantage?

I'd privately speak to that player who threw it to your opponent and ask feigning hurt if you have done anything wrong to anger him. Act concerned and conciliatory, wanting to heal the rift. He will respond by being mortified that you took his decision as some sort of personal vendetta. This should guilt him into helping you in future. A small loss now for an important game in the future. This is called "playing the Metagame" and whilst frowned, you can't legislate against human behaviour. No matter how hard you try to divorce the past from a game, you will still use that knowledge that he is untrustworthy or loyal etc. Note that this has got to be done privately. A lot of Melee is simply socialising at the bar before etc. It's a format best suited for confident extroverts sadly so not for everyone. But in a group of good friends, everyone's an extrovert.

Now if he continues to favour this one player, you can bring it up separately with the 4th player how X is always Y's b1tch in Melee games. Maybe start a joking campaign with a nickname about it but be careful there as that provokes a polarised response. It's got to be friendly but there are ways to shame uncooperative players to play on your side. Don't feel bad - this is melee, it's often about player relations and leverage.

I suspect you are a "name" player in your local meta so sadly this handicapping in multiplayer games is a cross you must bear. And let's face it, anyone who plays Urien loves the challenge anyway.

[scantrell24]

People really do ultimately play for validation and approval. They will even write long articles sharing their secrets to get it...

 

lol.

 

Lots of great insights here, especially the part about threatening in defense, not attack. Thanks again.

[Whingewood]

Thank you for the kind words. I'm glad you are enjoying the melee game. And these articles.

I think one problem with you is that you are such an established strong LCG player in your local meta. I've followed your Conquest tournament reports and you are always in the top 2 - I believe you even won with the handicap of playing Urien which is rubbing salt in their wounds! So it's only natural to see some of that respect yet also "let's not have him win again" surface. The question you should ask yourself is how you can now leverage this loss to your ongoing advantage?

I'd privately speak to that player who threw it to your opponent and ask feigning hurt if you have done anything wrong to anger him. Act concerned and conciliatory, wanting to heal the rift. He will respond by being mortified that you took his decision as some sort of personal vendetta. This should guilt him into helping you in future. A small loss now for an important game in the future. This is called "playing the Metagame" and whilst frowned, you can't legislate against human behaviour. No matter how hard you try to divorce the past from a game, you will still use that knowledge that he is untrustworthy or loyal etc. Note that this has got to be done privately. A lot of Melee is simply socialising at the bar before etc. It's a format best suited for confident extroverts sadly so not for everyone. But in a group of good friends, everyone's an extrovert.

Now if he continues to favour this one player, you can bring it up separately with the 4th player how X is always Y's b1tch in Melee games. Maybe start a joking campaign with a nickname about it but be careful there as that provokes a polarised response. It's got to be friendly but there are ways to shame uncooperative players to play on your side. Don't feel bad - this is melee, it's often about player relations and leverage.

I suspect you are a "name" player in your local meta so sadly this handicapping in multiplayer games is a cross you must bear. And let's face it, anyone who plays Urien loves the challenge anyway.

 

Thank you for proving to me that there are at least a few people that read my tournament reports!  I'll be doing them for AGOT as well once we start our organised play.

 

As for the player in question, we play several other games together as well, so it's not the first time we've encountered each other (his Romulans keep thwarting my Klingons in STAW, but thankfully not my Cardassians).  It was all good-natured so no hard feelings.  As for nicknames, we're quite open to taking the mick out of each other for all kinds of things, so I don't think a nickname of the kind you suggest would be beyond the pale for our group.

 

The melee handicap that I might have for performances in Joust (and Conquest) is just one of those things.  Like you say, I'll enjoy the challenge!  So far I've not had an unenjoyable game of melee, even if I haven't won.  I think the Title system has a lot to do with that, as players cannot (or probably should not) focus on you for reasons (previous wins/their hate of your faction/their dislike for you) other than trying to win/stop you winning this turn.

[Explosive6]

Great posts, I didn't realise how much difference melee brings. Am I right in thinking you are in or near Brighton? I may have to get the train along the coast for a game or two some time...

[sparrowhawk]

Yes. I am. Posted 5.35 waiting for a taxi in my Halloween costume worse for wear. Please PM if you want to arrange a meet mate. Would especially love to arrange some fun melee.

[KruppSteel]

I will be sharing this thread with my melee meta-mates who are new to the game itself and melee, thanks for the great insights, was a pleasure to read.

 

Cheers.

[AFrede]

Fantastic series of posts. We have never played Diplomacy but our group is quite skilled at this sort of manipulation from a multitude of other games so I am excited to see how it transfers into melee.