Beyond the Wall, Season 2 Episode 35

229 not 219

Nice to hear that someone reads my posts every now and then

Very interesting episode. I particularly liked the talk about the concept of 'Deck marriage'. In our particularly small meta, in 1st Edition, there were a few players that were just single house, and often single archetype players for years, and while it made them very strong with there particular deck which was also very refined, they did not have the level of insight that you really get by playing many different kinds of decks. I couldn't really blame people for doing that in 1st Edition, because legitimately not everyone had a copy of every Chapter Pack like I did, so if people are just buying Packs to build a single deck, it can be quite an investment to be 'flexible'. I am looking forward to 2nd Edition in the early phase anyway because most of the cards in the core, and it will very much encourage people to be trying all sorts of decks as they move in and discover competitive play.

Also thanks for the heads up about the Team Covenant tokens... they are amazing. I am hoping they can ship to Australia

I am intrigued by this secretive "French Connection" you did (or did not) elude too <wink wink>

Is there any other information you "will not" share with us on this subject ?

Erratum: I confused Greek Nationals (which happened last weekend) with Thronestoberfest (which happens on the same weekend as the french Tourney of the Hand). Greek Nationals was won by Periklis C., GJ KoW, beating Alex T. who was playing Bara BS. 

Fro those that care here is my blog on deck marraige http://www.cardgamed...d-a-dirty-girl/

I have to say this is easily one of the worst Beyond the Wall episodes I've ever listened to and I am considering never tuning in again.

Alex and Jon are two of the worst sellouts I've ever encountered. What is the point of running a community podcast (for free!) without milking it for as much free swag as possible? Team Covenant send y'all their awesome new power counters for FREE and now you are giving them away to the community? That is simply the worst. And what is this nonsense about regifting things Jon already gave Mikey?  Terrible. What's next, free alt-art cards for the community? 

I simply cannot continue to support a podcast which does share my acquisitional values. Though, to be honest, I am not sure what to have expected from a pair of Canadians. 

DC makes meta calls. The Lanny Wings was a meta call instead of the other deck ya'll were going to bring (wont comment on what it is in case you're thinking of it for worlds) becausse Lanny Wings was better vs Bara NA.

I don't think we really make meta calls--at least not in the same definition that you have it.

Only half of us played lanni wings because of disagreements over what was the best deck. I didn't play lanni wings because I don't make meta calls like that, as I said on the cast.  I played martell conquest with greyjoy--I considered it to be the best deck even though it was terrible against bara--which was expected to be there en masse.  And I ended up losing to Lauren and her bara deck in top 16.  Had I managed to win that tough game, I would have had easier matchups ahead of me against lanni na and wings decks for the rest of the tourney---but, after the cut, anything can happen, and I lost.

I don't make meta calls like that, as I said on the cast.  I played martell conquest with greyjoy--I considered it to be the best deck even though it was terrible against bara--which was expected to be there en masse. 

Nothing to do with the M/Gj matchup vs Lanni DWDW? Cause that would be a meta-call...

Nothing to do with the M/Gj matchup vs Lanni DWDW? Cause that would be a meta-call...

And further, did you not notice the Bara NA in the top 4?

And further, did you not notice the Bara NA in the top 4?

not on my side of the bracket bro.

get your bracketology squared away.

Nothing to do with the M/Gj matchup vs Lanni DWDW? Cause that would be a meta-call...

That was a bonus.  But I liked the harrenhal density in a 60 card deck versus a 75 card deck. So not really a meta call. Just moar harrenhal plzzzz.

Meta call is specifically picking a deck because you expect to see a certain deck.  I don't do this.  Maybe Seth does.

DC makes meta calls. The Lanny Wings was a meta call instead of the other deck ya'll were going to bring (wont comment on what it is in case you're thinking of it for worlds) becausse Lanny Wings was better vs Bara NA.

Nothing to do with the M/Gj matchup vs Lanni DWDW? Cause that would be a meta-call...

 

Aaron (and Alex... NYC gives full credit) gets at one problem with an otherwise excellent discussion of the issues at the core of competitive play: your definition didn't really get at the core of the issue. Being able read the meta - both internationally and for a big event - is a separate skill. Because there is simply just not one "top deck" in a meta - unless it is an extremely broken one. 

Most metas have 2-3 decks which, if efficiently built, can take a tournament. Being able to figure out which one of those builds is appropriate for a particular tournament is the skill I believe Jon was getting at with his intial questioning. Each build has its weaknesses and strengths. Example: Stark NA may be a top tier deck but if there is a lot of Lanni in the field it can fall flat on its face and not make the cut - despite having strong match ups against other decks which may win their way into the top 16.  

This is a very fine skill - having spent the last year learning from a handful of the best players at it (Jon, Alex, Aaron, Dave, and Dan) I've seen this in action. It is also the most time intensive skill at any card game. You can boot camp yourself into being an acceptable player (i.e. me) or even into a great one. You can have a great deck builder like Jon or Corey hand you a deck. But reading a meta is something that you really need to learn from years of playing the game, understanding meta trends, listening to podcasts like BtW, Banter, or the TWB, reading articles, etc. Or you can just get on the ground floor with 2.0.

DC's lived experience plays this point out: there are 4 highly efficient decks, which can take a large tourney, in the GenCon meta for 2015 - Bara TMP, Targ Pit, Stark TMP, and Targ AAA. DC played the first two decks to great success and read the meta well. BUT Pat and Aaron read the meta better than their fellows - for they swept the field. Pit wasn't just a great deck, it was a great deck for the field in Indy. 

Are there certain players who make deck choices which then creates the meta for that specific event?  

And if so, then do the other players try and read that meta and pick a deck based on that?

I guess I just don't understand what 'meta call' means.  That is where all the discussion comes from.  If it means picking a deck based on what you think other (top) players are playing, that would then insinuate that some players make meta calls while some other players define the meta itself.

I don't know if it is both and/or neither.  Interesting discussion guys.

Why does "Little c" keep coming on the podcast? He behaves rudely to the UK champion and now gets a semi-regular spot on the shot. Good lesson to teach guys. Won't someone please think of the children?!?!

Why does "Little c" keep coming on the podcast? He behaves rudely to the UK champion and now gets a semi-regular spot on the shot. Good lesson to teach guys. Won't someone please think of the children?!?!

We've had a number of comments (through emails and otherwise) in this vein, and they're not falling on deaf ears.

We think the DC players have a great deal of valuable knowledge of the game. We have (obviously) directly colliding viewpoints on a number of matters, and thought that contrast would be both informative and entertaining. They've also been extremely accommodating of our scheduling, as both Jon and I have had serious constraints in the last month or so (as you may have noticed by our dearth of European guests, and Darknoj having to leave halfway through a segment last week) - and for their time and their efforts, we're extremely grateful. I don't want to sell this short, we have very few people who come to us with segment ideas (we wish it were more), and even fewer with the flexibility of timing to accommodate some pretty important real-life issues both Darknoj and I have had to deal with. DC has bailed us out more than a few times!

All that said, we understand the complaints. The information may be there, but the tone of the content: "isn't something we should encourage" "actively detracts from the ability to learn from it" "offends listeners".  All of that is a problem, and, to some extent the same problem that started the comment controversy: if the tone makes people defensive/offends, it's not a good thing (and much harder to accept or acknowledge valid criticism). 

We're going to do our best to clean up the tone in segments like these, through consciously guiding the discussion or simply better editing. We want people to be able to listen to, engage with, and learn from the cast - and if this is a barrier, we intend to intervene.

In the meantime, if the segments with DC this week are actively detracting from the episode, feel free to skip them! We have segment markers so you can easily do so, and there's almost 40 minutes, practically a full episode, of non-DC content.

We've had a number of comments (through emails and otherwise) in this vein, and they're not falling on deaf ears.

 

Great, ignore them.

We're not gonna hold hands and chase rainbows. Variety is good and DC guys are nice to have.

The DC guys are also right the majority of the time.  Like it or not, Seth is correct that some decks just aren't as good as they could be, regardless of results.  Watching Steve play, he doesn't really make mistakes.  Breaking down Corey's decks will make you a better deckbuilder.  Aaron B. and Patrick R. are 2 of the best players I have played against.  I could go on.

I will say that there is value to posting in a respectful manner and in being nice in general, but I also believe people get their feelings hurt WAY too easily in the community.  Not taking sides here, just calling it like I see it.

I thought this was settled. Seth was an ass when he rained on Dave's well-deserved UK victory. Erick's victory lap was a bit too much at times.

Still, as the 70+ comments raised over last two BtW episodes shows the issues raised are pretty important to competitve play. I've learned a lot from Steve, Wamma, Corey, Tom, and everyone else involved the debates. A lot has been accomplished in getting the community talking in the awkward transition from 1.0 to 2.0.

It is also weird to object to THIS episode, which was less DC focused and more on point than the last one featuring my friends from our nation's capital. Really well done, even if Steve will not agree with Alex and Aaron than meta-reading is an important skill.

Bottom line: don't be an ass to community members but be insightful.

Ps. I do want to say that I really enjoyed Wamma's response to the last DC episode on Banter 2(?) weeks ago. Quite fantastic, insightful, and entertaining.

I have 0 knowledge, but, about the mellee, I think they should restrict those plots that you exchange stuff with others. It super silly to start all the games the way.

I have 0 knowledge, but, about the mellee, I think they should restrict those plots that you exchange stuff with others. It super silly to start all the games the way.

That's a weird aspect of melee that never *needed* to be true (you don't really gain an advantage if everyone does it), but now that it's common, you can't afford to be left out. I don't know if it can be changed at this point, but on the other hand, I'm glad they don't exist in 2.0 - the 'trades' and negotiations are more subtle.

I think the trade plots actually skew melee toward rush which is a bad thing. if people didn't trade with you, dragons wouldn't be as good for example (still good, but not as good).  Trade plots and renown and power grab events should be hard to come by in melee (i.e. restricted).

No problem with the DC guys, but the podcast content itself seems to go more towards old 2C1C way of doing things (with copious back-patting and agreeing without the discussion evolving anywhere further) when you have DC guests. Sorry Kennon et al, but you have thankfully fixed this with TWB.

I personally really enjoyed the discussion and thought that the insights on deck testing that were shared were very helpful. It was only mentioned briefly (by Steve), but the problem of my (basically) non-existent local meta became very obvious to me while listening. I was definitely envious of the network available that affords a player the ability to run 70-80 short games a day through the gauntlet with experienced players. Anyway, nice episode guys.

Thanks for the compliment Roy, I fear you oversold it but I'm happy for the praise all the same! I'd love for more people to hear that (especially if they have to listen to me recounting Melee triumphs first ), because it felt slightly less rubbish than the stuff I normally come out with.

On this cast, I think the segment with Seth and Steve was good but as Ire alluded to I think you should've maybe stretched for someone who didn't agree. I accept that scheduling difficulties don't always allow for that, but four people with a broadly similar mindset agreeing with each other about how to play the game is only so interesting to listen to, even when it's insightful! And there were some thoughts pushed I think needed to be challenged more than they were, notably the assertion that a long-game deck is more skill-intensive than a short-game deck, which I disagree entirely with.

On the restricted list discussion I think you were pretty bang-on (although I'd be happy to see Threat go on and Feast come off perhaps, because I'm not a fan of the Maester Threat builds as a rule). One query I'd have would be why you so quickly glossed over the idea of Manning the City Walls coming off? With Greenseer's Raven I'd have thought this was a good time to bring it off - I don't think it would push Martell AAA too far over the curve or anything, and if anything it might rejuvenate some other decks, such as the ol' Greyjoy Black Sails.

Also I think there's a more interesting discussion to be had about the exact role Harrenhal is playing in the meta, because putting it to the list to shake things up has a lot more ramifications than merely empowering control and they were somewhat ignored, presumably in the name of keeping the podcast length down.

 

On this cast, I think the segment with Seth and Steve was good but as Ire alluded to I think you should've maybe stretched for someone who didn't agree. I accept that scheduling difficulties don't always allow for that, but four people with a broadly similar mindset agreeing with each other about how to play the game is only so interesting to listen to, even when it's insightful! And there were some thoughts pushed I think needed to be challenged more than they were, notably the assertion that a long-game deck is more skill-intensive than a short-game deck, which I disagree entirely with.

Good points wamma.  I think what makes a good podcast is disagreement and controversy.  I hope BTW keeps inviting more guests that have strong opinions on things.