Beyond the Wall, Season 2 Episode 33

Cut and past of James question from a different site...

Jamie Bamfield "DC guys. Just listened the cast. I still disagree with how you approach the game, but I understand your approach now. I wanted to ask one thing. Why does it matter that you don't get kudos for making a good deck? Is that relevant? Do you want a competitive meta, or do you just want reverance because those are two entirely different beasts. Great comments from The Hyena and Noj on the cast as always."

PS: best part of that comment is that Alex got a nickname.

PS: best part of that comment is that Alex got a nickname.

From our secret guest. In the first 30 seconds of his appearance on the cast...

From our secret guest. In the first 30 seconds of his appearance on the cast...

and we now know the people liked the name...o man Hyena are you in for it now.

Well, Corey doesn't care if we get kudos for making a deck. To be honest we usually just steal a European deck, change 6 cards, and then tell anyone who will listen that we "took the bad cards out" and really "fixed things up." Like the boats deck. Or Greg's bara sails. Or Bara Hollow Hill. Or Dave Stromes' Pit deck. Or the classic bara maesters. Or Lanni DWDW . . . ok maybe that one was us.  

I know I shouldn't care about credit or recognition for a card  game, but the honest answer is that we're all small little men consumed by pettiness and a thirst for respect.

Alex, Noj, with the greatest of respect you guys agree far too much with DC to be adequate devil's advocates here. This needed a firm voice to actually state the other side, and without one this was basically Seth and Erick writing a love-letter to the DC Meta.

Alex, Noj, with the greatest of respect you guys agree far too much with DC to be adequate devil's advocates here. This needed a firm voice to actually state the other side, and without one this was basically Seth and Erick writing a love-letter to the DC Meta.

I certainly agree with your first paragraph Alex, and both you and Jon are great bastions for the community - as, in my opinion and for totally different reasons, are the DC group as a whole.

However, overall I feel like DC weren't challenged enough here for my liking. This might be a fault on my part, I was expecting this to be more "Seth (and as a cool surprise Erick [yes I'll happily spoil that he's on the cast, we're 10 comments into the post and if anyone's reading this far down without listening to the cast they don't deserve cool surprises]) defends his approach taken, both in the specific agotcards thread and in the community overall". Instead it was almost more of an interview, in which we get a nice insight into the DC meta's approaches. Which is all well and good in its own right, but given the timing of the subject and the fact that the segment was explicitly inspired by the controversy in the other thread, it's not what I was expecting to listen to.

I'll give one example (I'm saving a full-blown whiny rant for another place ): about 45 minutes into the cast, the question "why don't DC share decks" is asked. If I'm talking to a DC player who's meant to be justifying DC's approach to competition, that's the first question I ask. Then the answer Erick gave received little scrutiny (except, ironically, from Seth) when it was full of holes - why do current DC not share decks when the stated reason is a couple of bad experiences from over 4 years ago? Why do DC state their desire is solely to improve the level of competitive play, then refuse to give out their decks for fear someone will beat them (to be fair to Alex he did ask this but it got kinda brushed aside)? Why do they not at least post their lists after a major tournament like Gencon or Worlds? There's a major difference between posting a list at the start of a regional season and being annoyed to see it feature elsewhere, and posting a list after the tournament that is the culmination of the meta it was built in. The closest we have is Seth posting the Lanni Dark Wings deck several months later, after not one but two FAQs changed how it would have to look and several more cards entered the meta. Why isn't the DC Pit deck posted now? Why isn't the Bara Maesters? What gives people the right to criticise decks that are posted while refusing to give their 'better' version? Instead we got "oh, most players ignore good advice anyway, we're only helping the great players who don't need it" which is such an obvious crock of proverbial that I'm amazed they got away with implying it (Alex saying "I disagree" then changing the subject away aside). This is all just one example.

Other than a firmer line of questioning, an example of how they could've been challenged more would be to have someone who doesn't go to every tournament with the intention of winning it. Not everyone does. I know plenty of people who go to a tournament knowing they won't win, but hoping to make the cut, or have a winning record, or win a single game, or not even care if they lose the whole tournament so long as they have fun. But because you and Jon are, as I am, uber-competitive players who want to win every tournament they attend if possible, we didn't get a second opinion and instead of "why is competition the be-all, end-all", we get "what can we do to make the community more competitive".

Corey, you say there's no "DC meta" approach to the game, but how does that square up with DC, as a collective, playing one or two decks between the group and never posting them? I certainly wouldn't mean to accuse everyone in the DC meta of having the same approach to the game, but that doesn't mean there isn't also a collective approach that evidently is taken with regard to certain aspects of the game.

Corey, you say there's no "DC meta" approach to the game, but how does that square up with DC, as a collective, playing one or two decks between the group and never posting them? I certainly wouldn't mean to accuse everyone in the DC meta of having the same approach to the game, but that doesn't mean there isn't also a collective approach that evidently is taken with regard to certain aspects of the game.

Because while we have varying voices, the competitive players get to "set the rules" so to speak on our interaction with the community. Not because they are the alphas of the group, but because we are first and foremost friends who respect their desire to not share decks or tip our hand to the other competitive players and metas. An additional factor (at least before I moved away and was more active in the DC meta) is that many of the players are not as good as Corey and Seth because, like so many others, we are overworked or fathers or elsewise occupied and therefore again respect those who have so much more invested in it. Most of the time, this translates as deferring to their experience in terms of what the best deck is. It's not a hive mind, or meta-game manipulation, or evil genius.

Thanks for the posts guys, good stuff! I'll agree the "all running the same deck" thing is slightly laboured in light of the last year or so, but there's certainly historical precedent for it, would you not agree? I seem to remember 2011 and 2012 in particular resulting in the same deck being played a large number of times - and obviously in 2012 in the Melee, it proved to be to the detriment of the whole tournament, both DC players and non-. When people say the DC Meta approach when it comes to deckbuilding it may not be as fair as it once was any more, but it does have that association for a reason.

As for the not-posting, I entirely respect that logic Corey (although I'll admit I still disagree with it, but I can at least see where you're coming from!). As you say yourself though, the primary reason is that the competitive players want to keep an advantage. I don't get how that ties with the assertions that DC (and I hope you'll forgive me for using DC as shorthand for "some of the players from DC" and understand I don't mean to assert a hivemind over the entire meta in doing so) want to push for a more competitive field for everybody to get better. If the main reason was the latter one you posted, in feeling that it skews smaller tournaments, that would be one thing, but it seems like that's not actually the reason.

This whole debate has gotten me pining for more theory-crafting articles written by good players. That would seem like a "best of both worlds" approach, helping people improve without giving them their lists, but we just don't see enough of them...

I'm about to start listening, so this comment may be obviated, but the impression I have of the DC meta is "If you don't prompt an update to the Tournament Rules after Worlds, you're not playing hard enough."

First things first, this was a great episode. The historian and lover of gossip in me were very happy to listen to Erick, Seth, Jon, and Alex bullshit about the history of competitive Thrones for an hour.

That said, the episode left me with a lot of opinions, which I am going to try and distill into 3 points.

Starting with the part of the DC attitude towards competitive Thrones that I believe more people need to embrace: viewing Thrones as a team sport. Having a meta that builds together, theorycrafts together, and mentors new players (i.e. folks like me) really, really enhances the experience. Participating in such a "team" makes you a better player and gives you someone to cheer for after the cut. This tournament season I traveled to just about every event in the northeast US (and one in Canada), it was great to prep for the event, travel together, and then cheer for one another. After swiss, when I inevitably did not make the cut, I still had Dave, Dan, Jane, or Aaron to stay at the event and watch play towards (or in) the final.

The GenCon experience was even better as a team sport. As a careful reader/listener can figure out from various BtW and WB episodes and tourney reports, I was part of the Greater NYC (G-NYC) build group. We built, tested, and socialized together all summer. Dan was kind enough to turn his house over to use for 2(!) testing weekends and Noj and TheoRex were generous enough to drive down to play with us. In Indy we all stayed together, debriefed during the tournament together, and partied together. It was an amazing, once in a lifetime experience.

As Corey notes (in the DC context), such a "team" attitude towards GenCon did not mean that we all brought the same deck. In the end for the G-NYC, while we all worked hard towards reading the meta together, we could not all agree on what deck to bring.* From my increasily shaky memory, there were at least seven different decks from our group - the Frankenstein HOD Aegon's played by Dan & Dave, Alex's Bara Knights, Aaron & Jon's Dragon Targ AAA, the LIV2 I brought, the GJ TMP which TheoRex and Mikey (I think?) played, a GJ AAA from Kyle S, and a troll deck played by Dennis and Sandy. Much diversity! Each player brought the deck that suited their playstyle and interests. Three of us managed to ride these decks, and our group's read of the meta, into the cut.

Last word about "team Thrones." Having multiple players playing the same deck (and/or sets of decks) actually helps cut down on the variance of competitive Thrones. AGoT turnaments are high variance affaris, since all match ups are one and done. A good or great deck can get **** draws and crap out. Having several players come to an event with the same deck actually allows us to get a better read of the strength the deck vs. the meta and the field.**

After that wall of text, onto my second point: I must respectfully disagree with Erick and Seth about sharing decklist and other meta reads is something we need more of, not less. Reading (old) articles here, netdecking off agotcards, and listening to BtW and 2C1C/WB is how I got interested in this game at a competitive level and drove me to seek out my local meta. It made me a better player. While I agree that before a big event (GenCon, Worlds, Stahleck, etc.) all meta reads and (obviously) deck lists are proprietary intellectual property of each individual and their meta. Afterwards, however, I see more good than harm in sharing as much infomation as possible - decklists ideally, but tourney reports at least. This is doubly true after we transition into a new FAQ. Why not share? I was not convinced by all of the arguments marshaled in this episode.

Finally, and this something that somes from the original responses to Seth's troll poor attempt to start a dialogue on the UK national decklist, I'm not entirely sure folks really get what DC players, like Seth, mean when they say there are clearly good and bad cards. From my experience reading tourney reports from DC players, looking at their deck lists (when they publish them ), and speaking to DC folks at events: they are a group of deckbuilders who value efficency above all else in their philosophy towards the game. Almost every card that's printed can be good in some situtation, but such a philosophy demands that a card be good in most (if not all) game states. Hence you seldom see DC players running a full-on combo deck, for combo requires running inefficient cards in exchange for the chance to utterly overwhelm one's opponent. Put another way, this philosophy wants to always be the player who is asking "the questions" in their games and demanding that their opponent have "an answer" or be run over.*** Thinking of the game this way means that there are, absolutely, clearly good and bad cards. No matter how big or splashy a card effect is, if that effect cannot be reliably pulled off, or it is not the sort of card you'd want to top deck when you are down 10 power to 5, than the card is bad. Hence the constant harping on the need for 60 card decks (the most purely efficient number of cards to have in one's deck). Obviously, this not the only way to approach deckbuilding. As I noted, combo builds come at the game with a different philosophy. That said, it is clearly (from DC's number of card designs) a competitively successful way to approach Thrones.

In the end, I'm glad we're having these debates and discussions. I've learned a lot about the game from them.

---

*The G-NYC Skype group chat logs are a tritube to deck building hand wringing, if there ever was one.

**FFG could help this by modifying their misguided rules about scouting and collusion in joust.

***Unsuprisingly the Corey designed DWDW agenda is the pinnacle of this philosophy towards the game.

So, to sum up (a real reply tomorrow):

You don't post decks because you don't want the meta to really improve. You can't beat other top decks.  And the reason you have top decks is all Corey?  Who then tells you how to pilot them and you memorize that?  

So, you're just Corey proxies. Got it.

Aaron, can you please open fear of winter into my valar some more and get rolled  It doesn't take Corey-based-training to roll on NYC All. Day. Long. (ps, you are my friend, but I had to respond to your post above).

--------------

Separate semi-unrelated note/advice to the newer players out there about deckbuilding:

I think what frustrates me about the overall meta at big tournaments is the perception that tempo cards and decks are good--for example, the awesome deck that the Hyenia used to get his card design (dany black sails). And this is an argument for me posting my decklists more to alleviate this frustration, which I am sorry that I don't but Corey et al have belabored the point above in this thread as to why we haven't in the past.

Anyways to the advice-->

Whenever I sit across from an opponent and they are playing cards like fear of winter, or dry season, or price of war, I am usually disgusted (from a competitive perspective).  

Instead of trolling the boards like I normally do, I will do my best to offer the advice as to why I am disgusted or distraught--or maybe just to explain why I personally hate cards like these:

242 and 252 are 'little kid cards'.  They are cards you play when you really want to own your opponent.  I just imagine my opponent thinking preplot ('oh man, I am ahead of Steve here, now I am really going to get him with my fear').  I don't like playing cards that really own someone, because I think they are too high variance, and they don't help you come back in a game in which you are losing.

I pick cards that are always good if I am ahead or behind in a game.  I learned that from Erick; he taught me this one rule.  It got me a card design and I was one game away from 2 more designs that I would have loved to had obviously.

DC--even Erick--has deviated from this advice.  In 2012 at worlds, I played Search and Detain and everyone else played Fear of Winter as their 7th plot (even though we were all playing Stark Winter).  I refuse to play get-ahead-stay-ahead cards in my deck.  I only managed to get top 8, and Erick went on to the finals to lose eventually (because he didn't take varys out of shadows).  

So my best advice to everyone pre-worlds--Don't put the 242, 252, attack from the sea or price of war or cards like them into your decks. Instead, play the beautiful game that Nate designed that we all want to play.  Not some bullshit tempo-game where you get ahead on your opponent, and then desperately try and stay ahead.

So in closing, the advice is: Try to only play cards in your deck that are always good when you are ahead or behind, not cards that are situationally good like fear of winter.  I mean really try to do this and see the results. 

Need proof? This advice has yielded positive results for me and it can for you too (well, everyone except glazer):

Worlds 2012 melee Top 16

Worlds 2012 joust Top 8

Gencon 2013 joust finalist

Gencon 2013 melee winner

Worlds 2013 joust finalist

Worlds 2013 melee Top 16 (or finalist can't remember)

Gencon 2014 joust Top 16

Gencon 2014 melee finalist

Worlds 2014 joust Top 16 

Worlds 2014 melee Top 16

Gencon 2015 melee Top 16

Gencon 2015 joust Top 8

The one final argument against this method and against me: You will see here I have never won joust.  Maybe this is because I do not take enough risks with cards like fear of winter or other high variance cards.

So I leave this as an exercise to the builders and testers in the community--and I hope to have some competitive games at world's that don't involve a bunch of tempo cards.

Steve

Simoni - you're my boy, but the trash talking will continue.  

You're better at a table than I am, than almost anyone, but, real fast, remind me how many of the cuts you made without Corey's decks?  Right, 0.

And in fairness, little kid cards should have won Noj Joust in 2014 and did win Batalla this year.  Someone else will chime in with other huge tourney's it won.  They're cards that depend on the deck (some decks they roll in) and the meta (specifically thinking of Bara 222 meta), which DC avoids and can because of 5-6 people playing one deck.  That doesn't make them bad cards, and I am a big believer in there being good and bad cards.

I enjoyed Simoni (kungpao's) reply a great deal - it made me think. It's a topic I'd love to explore on the cast, because while I disagree on the value of tempo (And the fun!), there are some very interesting, and I think valuable points.

Somewhat undermined by the fact that "The Withering Cold" might fall into that category...

The DC guys must just reaaally like winning.

I found it rather intriguing that they bought up the concept of 'scouting' and hide behind the veiled excuse that 'MTG is a competitive game and scouting is allowed' (completely paraphrased) to justify there scouting at events, yet fail to see the point that they should be sharing there deck lists with the wider community; which is something that MTG does extremely well and is also commonplace. Seems rather hypocritical to choose MTG and other competitive games as a standard example when it is convenient and ignore it when it is not.

Also, the best comment was when it was said that the Noj was starting his Worlds Melee campaign during the cast, and was called out for being super competitive... there is no way that someone who does a weekly podcast, or flies to a country to test with a more competitive meta just before the upcoming Nationals event is not about as competitive as it gets... whether you like playing bad cards or not