Beyond the Wall, Season 2 Episode 34

My major issue with scouting is largely Thrones notoriety. Everyone, by round 3, knows what Greg, Bruno and so on are playing, whether they're Winning or losing. 20 people per tourney wander up to anyone well known and ask what they're playing. If it sounds interesting, it gets more questions from the person and others. If scouting is totally disallowed this will still happen, creating a fairly large information disparity organically. Just let Thrones be a team game, let people scout, and move on.

Also, Alex, did you really do a whole segment using my Lanny NA and my Stark to Martell as a base and not credit me once? Stay classy....

Also, Alex, did you really do a whole segment using my Lanny NA and my Stark to Martell as a base and not credit me once? Stay classy....

 

Doh!

 

The Lanni has evolved a fair bit (10 cards, 2 plots?), and is actually closer to a version I was working on with Jon afterwards - but it's fair to say my starting point was the Lanni you sent me and it informed a great many card choices (especially 3x PttS, which has been great).

 

The Stark/Sun was wholly yours, and taught me a lot about initiative control in the matchup (and Varys use). I mentioned it was given to me, but not by whom - and that's my bad. It was actually my first two wins against the Fealty, breaking an 11 game losing streak, and was the deck that forced Florian to re-build to adjust for it... but then it went on to a losing streak of its own against the re-build.

 

The last-minute nature of the segment is no excuse for failing to acknowledge your contributions to this testing efforts, and I'll be sure to mentioned it next week. Sorry, Aaron!

 

I should also add that James W (JCwamma) sent me the GJ/Wolf deck I tried as well.

 

Edit: Added it as an erratum to the article and to the announcement post on facebook as well.

I've been working on the Starktell still.. and the Lanny na just won Kizercon.

I've been working on the Starktell still.. and the Lanny na just won Kizercon.

 

Did he post his list/a report? Someone had mentioned this, but I had no outside confirmation, so I couldn't mention it on the cast.

My major issue with scouting is largely Thrones notoriety. Everyone, by round 3, knows what Greg, Bruno and so on are playing, whether they're Winning or losing. 20 people per tourney wander up to anyone well known and ask what they're playing. If it sounds interesting, it gets more questions from the person and others. If scouting is totally disallowed this will still happen, creating a fairly large information disparity organically. Just let Thrones be a team game, let people scout, and move on.

 

Full agreement with Aaron, no surprise.

 

I don't understand the intense opposition to informational asymmetries which freak people out when it comes to scouting. Thrones, like all competitive games, contains a lot asymmetries - of skill, deck building, meta calls, etc. People can control or mitigate some of them (scout if you want to, scout if you want to) but one should always keep them in mind at big events. 

 

Finally, the segment with Florian, even if Jon had to bail early, was great. It must be noted that while Bara fealty is ridiculous, I'd argue Bara/Martell is stronger. As was noted in the 100 percent correct episode of The White Book (#218) where the Martell cards were reviewed, the additional spot control of Confinement and the excellent way in which Martell can fill in Bara's intrigue hole makes for a powerful deck. 

Did he post his list/a report? Someone had mentioned this, but I had no outside confirmation, so I couldn't mention it on the cast.

We spoke. The list is literally the one I sent you.

Awesome! Know if he faced any Bara Fealty?

I played Bara/Martell in the final, piloted by Matt Phillips.  Tight game but I squeaked it out with Seal of the Hand on Tywin and by getting a lucky intrigue pull of (his 2nd) Milk of the Poppy.

 

The same Bara/Martell list has been fairly dominant in our weekly tournaments, as well.  I vastly underestimated Chamber of the Painted Table until about 3 weeks ago.

 

And yes, it is the exact list Aaron shared.

And by Bara/Martell I 100% meant Bara/Tyrell.

I was gonna say, when did Matt change it to Martell?!

The Iron Throne gets more respect from me every time I see it on the table. And the Chamber with it is just money. Props to the designers for making Dominance actually matter in 2.0.

It is interesting you bought up Corey at Worlds 2014...

I am admittedly still bitter at my involvement with that situation.

I played Corey in round 6 of the swiss... I was 4-1 at that stage, and I assume Corey was as well. He did what Corey does and stomped me. I was then 4-2 on the bubble and lost my round 7 match and did not make the cut... 

To then find out Corey made the cut, but then dropped (and I point out, I couldn't actually care less if it was to let a team mate in) absolutely infuriates me to no end, and goes against my own ideals on any sort of competitive situation (why would you travel to and enter a tournament for a start to not take it through to the end? I don't really care if you have won 2 World Championships or not? ...).

So I found it intriguing... why was Corey even 4-1 at that stage? Who had he lost to? a fellow DC member? If anyone actually knows, I would actually be interested. To me, entering a tournament to specifically try to eliminate strong competition from the cut while letting your team mates through seriously seems like something that these new 'rules' might be trying to do something about... if that was the case, and I am happily stating this is wild speculation.

Also, consider this with a pinch of salt. Completely bitter as I am, I also completely admit my own player fault for my losses... I was just disappointed to head half way around the world and not make the cut

Corey's one "loss" was to a dc metamate.

Why do tournaments have a cut? I have never understood why.

1. It creates agreed draws in rounds 5 and 6 between those at 4-0 (so fewer actual games)

2. It allows (alleged) manipulation of the Swiss.

3. In smaller tournaments, it creates horrible split groups. The driver has to wait with no gaming whilst his friend continues in the cut etc.

4. In big conventions in a no-cut tourney, you just drop to play something else if hope is lost

5. It increases variance! Eg, "I was leading Swiss, made the cut and then met my nemesis build and I was knocked out" etc. When you look at the top 16 with their decks, you can see how some avoided their nemesis builds that fell to their own nemesis builds - it just makes match-up variance so transparent (best of 1 too).

6. It removes that horrible feeling when you missed the cut because of strength of schedule.

A 10-round Swiss tournament (alternative to the 6 round Swiss plus cut to top 16) accommodates 1,024 competitors to find the winner. When every round matters, there is no manipulation with agreed draws or throwing losses knowing you will make the cut because every win counts.

Another great podcast. Thank you.

I won't comment too much about me agreeing that there is no point in having unenforceable tournament rules (as I discussed this at great length in that Etiquette thread). Despite my pragmatic views, I did find the DC gloat (last week) about Darknoj revealing his entire deck to a DC player he beat who then reported it back in its entirety to be shameless and bad PR. It was however naive of Darknoj to do that. If you are going to win a match against a DC meta player without using your special trick, you do it that way despite the longer uglier game to give out as little information as possible. Mentioned in my Best of 3 Magic games (Etiquette thread) where you never reveal unnecessary tricks in game 1. Knowledge is power.

However, why do we need to register 1 deck? Are we testing the driver or the car? I don't understand why this continues in constructed card games. The player who can play many different decks very well is surely better than the one who studiously practised one deck built for him and then faced favourable match-ups with it because of knock-out stages of the cut? If you have a deck check and they find an illegal number of cards (the only way to cheat as out-of-rotation cards will be known by opponent), then you are disqualified and shamed out of the hobby for cheating. But I don't understand why we marry ourselves to 1 deck in tournaments because that makes behind-the-scenes deckbuilders even more influential. You should be testing the driver, not the car - and the driver should be able to drive a wide variety of cars.

(As an added bonus to FFG, this will stimulate sales to have the convenience of simultaneous decks built - with strict rules on simultaneously unveiling chosen decks. I just did well at the Magic prerelease this weekend partly because I had 2 decks built and switched between games, common practise among good Limited players.)

Comments on Bara Kneel will be made in the CGDB thread as this is already an essay (sorry).

Another enjoyable podcast. Thanks guys.

 

If scouting is officially illegal (per tournament guide) then when someone asks details about a game/deck you faced, simply say "sorry, I can't talk about specifics". Once people start doing this (especially the main guys that everyone looks up to) then it will catch on and become the norm.

 

Having two decks in a tournament is a great idea. For tournaments with a "day 2", you should be allowed to have a different deck for the 2nd day.

I'll follow up later with rebuttals to certain points when I'm not on my phone, but great cast today.

Firstly, I would actually prefer an "unenforceable" rule that prohibits scouting. If FFG comes out and says "don't watch other games and don't discuss specific details of your matches" then it's up to us (the community) to be adults and voluntarily abide by those rules. On the other hand, even if FFG doesn't explicitly prohibit scouting, I think we should create an environment that discourages it anyways.

As was noted in the 100 percent correct episode of The White Book (#218). 

 

I was going to make fun of this saying "I look forward to episode 218 this week. Is it telling that a 100% correct episode hasn't happened yet in 217 episodes?", but turns out that's only because the article announcing 219 called it 217. Sigh. 

 

Sparrowhawk, I'm not sure I follow your 10 rounds of swiss - if it's for a tournament where 6 would have resulted in an undefeated, 10 can require a fair bit of re-jigging to avoid rematches. I also am not sure how it makes "every match matter", as I'm sure a search for an undefeated swiss champion would result in a lot more 1-loss-drops (their loss, I suppose?)

 

Frool: I think it can catch on and become the norm, but I think it does detract a bit from a fun aspect of tournament experience - recounting matches, checking in on how friends did. Obviously, that's a sacrifice that could be made, but I worry also that, as unenforceable as it is, it just creates information assymetry where we functionally disadvantage those who are abiding by the spirit of the rules. 

@Istaril (of course I will reply!)

I don't know the size of Thrones tourneys. But say a tourney is 250 size. Normally this would require 8 rounds of Swiss to find the winner (2^8 = 256).

But we don't want people to drop out after 1 loss do we? Let's say it's "three strikes and you're out" (of the running for winning). So we make it 10 rounds. So you can notch up 2 losses and still win.

This does mean that after 8 rounds, the Swiss program has to reallocate players to dodge each other. This paired up or down is standard (and actually one of the unfair things about cut-offs because I've failed to make the cut on equal points purely because I was randomly chosen to be paired down).

Now it is true that after round 8 in this example, you are effectively playing 2 more rounds of "Swiss league". But this does mean that the players on each points score tier are being tested against others at a near-equivalent level. It is actually testing the winner not just against the losing finalist but also against both losing semi-finalists. It's more testing.

Now there are more complex arduous solutions like the double loss elimination of Netrunner worlds (asymmetrical game of 2 matches). But in a "best of 1" game like Thrones, this approach would minimise match-up variance (in knockout, you may be relieved you never faced the losing semi-finalist from the other half of the tree) and the variance of the game - that will invariably throw up losses which is sudden death after the cut. Here, there is no magic threshold where the tournament suddenly says you cannot be unlucky without being out. It's just plain fairer.

Its main negative is perceived lack of spectacle. But with score positions constantly posted/wifi to phones, this is not an issue as people will congregate watching the leader games (in the spotlight table with streaming etc).

10 rounds (max assuming you don't drop out after 3 losses) is the same length of time as 6 rounds Swiss then cut to knockout. Without all the negatives like the agreed draws, unfairness of equal points cut, manipulating friends into the cut etc. It also has less chance of rewarding luck as you need consistency to win the tourney whilst allowing for a few unlucky draw slip-ups.

That's what I meant by 10 rounds being exactly the same as a (hypothetical) 6 rounds to top 16 format (which is also 10 rounds, with an artificial cut-off and an unforgiving match-up variance knock-out stage).


I shall duck Scantrell's rebuttal on unenforceable tournament rules. A solution would be to design games to not rely on an honour code. Hence not tying anyone to any deck. Scouting is part of card games sadly just as Netdecking or having someone else build your deck for you. Best to redesign tournaments so that it tests player skills and not just packs of scouts and a mastermind deck builder behind the competent pack. But I'm not gonna go down this road again. I respect the honour argument but think it charmingly naive (sorry).

I just want undefeated swiss members to be able to choose opponents..

I come from a small town, with a small meta, and often only one or two of us can make it to a tournament.

The notion that I should be penalized because I have a smaller team or no team to work with, while other cohorts from larger communities enjoy advantages I don't have access to, is patently offensive.

This is not negotiable for me. If it goes the other way then I'll spit on the game and leave.

@Istaril (of course I will reply!)

I don't know the size of Thrones tourneys. But say a tourney is 250 size. Normally this would require 8 rounds of Swiss to find the winner (2^8 = 256).

But we don't want people to drop out after 1 loss do we? Let's say it's "three strikes and you're out". So we make it 10 rounds. So you can notch up 2 losses and still win.

This does mean that after 8 rounds, the Swiss program has to reallocate players to dodge each other. This paired up or down is standard (and actually one of the unfair things about cut-offs because I've failed to make the cut on equal points purely because I was randomly chosen to be paired down).

Now it is true that after round 8 in this example, you are effectively playing 2 more rounds of "Swiss league". But this does mean that the players on each points score tier are being tested against others at a near-equivalent level. It is actually testing the winner not just against the losing finalist but also against both losing semi-finalists. It's more testing.

Now there are other more complex arduous solutions like the double loss elimination of Netrunner worlds (asymmetrical game of 2 matches). But in a best of 1 game like Thrones, this approach would minimise match- up variance (in a knockout, you may be relieved you never faced the losing semi-finalist from the other half of the tree) and the variance of the game - that will invariably throw up losses which is sudden death after the cut. Here, there is no magic threshold where the tournament suddenly says you cannot be unlucky without being out. It's just plain fairer.

Its main negative is perceived lack of spectacle. But with score positions constantly posted/wifi to phones, this is not an issue as people will congregate watching the leader games (in the split light table with streaming etc).

10 rounds (max assuming you don't drop out after 3 losses) is the same length of time as 6 rounds Swiss then cut to knockout. Without all the negatives like the agreed draws, unfairness of equal points cut, manipulating friends into the cut etc. It also has less chance of rewarding luck as you need consistency to win the tourney whilst allowing for a few unlucky draw slip-ups.

That's what I meant by 10 rounds being exactly the same as a (hypothetical) 6 rounds to top 16 format.

 

Even though I don't have the energy to fully step into the discussion right now, two quick notes:

1. In your example about not making the Cut due to being down-paired, it should be noted that your chances of having ever won anymore were negligent if the continuation were only two more Swiss rounds (instead of a Cut). Actually, likely impossible.

2. There's one very clear "benefit" for the Swiss + Cut method, which is... the eSports angle. Say, a Tourney streams one game a round (very common and popular with AGoT 1.0 Tourneys the last few years). In your hypothetical "lengthened Swiss", the actual winner may often be decided by the combined results of a number of games interacting, hence you cannot assuredly stream the exact game where the winner is playing for the last Round... and this may put quite a bit of a dampener in the development of that direction, and it has been a direction that I think the competitive scene has greatly benefited from.

 

I kind of tend to think of the whole Swiss + Cut in terms of the Football (Soccer for the heathens) World Cup. There are the qualifying rounds (Swiss), and those may not always be "fair" (sometimes you get into a group with a lot of big names). However, if you want to win, then you'd need to beat both those teams and some random weird ones to get to the top, just the same. The Cut rounds however bring a whole new level of pressure to the games, leading to much more interesting drama and people mentally buckling under it (which is a *good* thing, games are supposed to be exciting). And also, those Finals, especially when live streamed and followed worldwide, bring the community together.

 

I mean, I still remember following that one notorious Melee Final from Worlds with a load of people from different sides of the world, wondering "what just happened?". 

 

I guess my bottom line is this: Changing away from the Cuts could make Tourneys locally better, but a lot less exciting for the Global Meta. I for one would not be as interested in following a Worlds stream of a game that "may or may not decide who wins the Joust", and I think it's better for the game if people are as excited as possible about who there makes the Cut and what actually happens in the Final. 

I come from a small town, with a small meta, and often only one or two of us can make it to a tournament.

The notion that I should be penalized because I have a smaller team or no team to work with, while other cohorts from larger communities enjoy advantages I don't have access to, is patently offensive.

This is not negotiable for me. If it goes the other way then I'll spit on the game and leave.

 

I think you might be overreacting a bit, my friend.

 

Plenty of people have done well at events - both big and small - without at a team, friends, or scouting. There are several GenCon and World Champinions from smaller or no existent metas. And as even DC admited, in the last BtW, that not even the "Team of Teams" in Thrones approaches store championships and regionals as a team.

 

Scouting during events gives some players a slight edge during tournaments. But there are other ways to get an edge over your opponents - heavy practice, getting a good night's sleep, efficent deck construction, showing up sober to the event, etc. etc. Competitive games contains a lot asymmetries, you've just got to account for them to the best of your ability.

 

The great thing about the Thrones community is that if you are looking for practice partners or, horror upon horror, a team there are lots of people online who will gladly help you out. I mean just look at Alex and Florian in this episode - Alex is based in North America and Florian in Europe. Yet they are able to practice together and strengthen their deck building skills and meta knowledge in 2.0.

I am sad I now must practice alone, in the basement, in the dark, with my phone & computer turned off, in the mirror (but blindfolded) and can never speak of my deck building or card ideas with anyone or else I am a cheater......... It's like an aGoT Fight Club where no one wins....

 

-- the first rule of aGoT Club is you don't talk about aGoT Club --

 

but seriously I think I know where they were going with their rules but they seem a little too strict if people were actually to follow them verbatim.

 

PS - Scouters gonna scout 

Doesn't anyone else feel they are at a disadvantage if the opponent doesn't know their plot deck?

 

Often times I give the opponent too much respect, when actually they are clueless of what plot is coming down next to own them.  It would be helpful if they just knew my plots in the deck.  it is a whole yomi thing--you know, that I know, that you know, that I know etc etc etc.

 

Maybe that is just me and I am at such a ridiculously high level of skill and play and this doesn't apply to anyone else.

 

I mean, Seth taught me how to play after all.