Beyond the Wall, Season 1 Episode 38

The card they fixed last time was "Long Lances" from "The Long Lances". Great episode btw.

I really don't like the illegal deck ruling. You can run a 60+ card deck with a 4th copy of a couple key cards, then just remove those extra cards if you make the cut and run a 60 card deck. 

I really don't like the illegal deck ruling. You can run a 60+ card deck with a 4th copy of a couple key cards, then just remove those extra cards if you make the cut and run a 60 card deck. 

Well, sure, you can cheat - there are lots of ways to cheat, and the TO can DQ you for doing so regardless of the the wording of this rule here. This is a guideline for clearly 'mistaken' deckbuilds, so you don't feel obliged to DQ someone. It is worth noting here that you don't get to remove those cards if your deck is illegal; you have to keep them in your deck as flipped (facedown, useless) cards.

I really don't like the illegal deck ruling. You can run a 60+ card deck with a 4th copy of a couple key cards, then just remove those extra cards if you make the cut and run a 60 card deck. 

Sure, if you enjoy cheating to win a game.

I am saying you remove the extra cards proactively before possibly getting caught one you make the cut. I have never cheated in a game, and have no intention to.. but there are always people who will and this change reduces the incentive not to.

The biggest issue of this in my opinion is big tourneys should promote the highest level of play and this change seems to be towards making it more new player friendly. With the side effect of reducing the penalty on cheating.

While I can see where you're coming from, I don't think this is a 'reduced penalty for cheating' - the penalty for cheating is still whatever the TO deems it to be (likely DQ). I mean, if you weren't getting caught before, you're still not getting caught now.... and there are plenty of ways to cheat without being caught. 

I guess what you mean is that if you *do* get caught, you don't get instantly DQd if you can convince the judges it was an honest mistake - but that was often the case at tournaments anyway. As Jon says, I've seen people be allowed to replace cards at Gencon if their decks were illegal! 

To me, this just helps TOs have a 'baseline' to deal with honest mistakes impartially, without having to decide whether to do what they heard happened at gencon (let them swap cards), or what the rules seem to suggest (DQing the poor new fella). In fact, this penalty is somewhat harsher than the old unofficial one of letting them continue, but have to cut their deck down to 60 (if you can) - now you're forced to keep your 'dead' cards.

Well,.... I have to say.... I am a bit dissappointed about this episode... First, the stump of the episode on monday, which was intersting, but could have been done a lot better with a guest, or maybe previously collecting some ideas for champion cards of listeners and talking about the best of them on the episode.

Now this one, which was pulled on a friday (duh...), not being additional and instead replacing the regular one, being only a bit longer than the last one. Helmut as guest was top notch, but when Jon made the snorting noises in the episode,... well, he kinda nailed it for me... Don't want to badmouth, and I really usually enjoy your podcast very much, but this one felt a bit lackluster... Now I feel bad about saying bad things...

Well,.... I have to say.... I am a bit dissappointed about this episode... First, the stump of the episode on monday, which was intersting, but could have been done a lot better with a guest, or maybe previously collecting some ideas for champion cards of listeners and talking about the best of them on the episode.

 

Now this one, which was pulled on a friday (duh...), not being additional and instead replacing the regular one, being only a bit longer than the last one. Helmut as guest was top notch, but when Jon made the snorting noises in the episode,... well, he kinda nailed it for me... Don't want to badmouth, and I really usually enjoy your podcast very much, but this one felt a bit lackluster... Now I feel bad about saying bad things...

Don't feel bad! We appreciate comments, especially the critical ones! It allows us to improve. I do agree, and apologize, for this week's regular episode (37). It was a struggle to schedule around visitors, a national holiday, and other topics just not coming to fruition. I think the topic itself might have been better served by more preparation and guests to discuss it (e.g. other champs), but we had almost no flexibility in schedule to accommodate guests, and our other topics that we expected to come to fruition just didn't. 

In the past we've released CP reviews as "bonus" episodes within a day or two the official release - but so far we've always done FAQ episodes as regularly scheduled ones that, if we can get them out earlier (to make them as relevant as possible) are rushed ahead of schedule. The episodes still get a full editing pass, and other segments. Heck, I remember one crazy week where we released a pre-FAQ episode, a CP review and a post-FAQ episode... which made me think we might want to re-evaluate the practice! I'm not sure exactly how we'll proceed when we get to Season 2 - bonus episodes in general are a lot of work. We certainly would appreciate suggestions as to how we should proceed with CP reviews and FAQ episodes in the future!

As for this one feeling a bit lacklustre - would you care to elaborate? Was it the focus on the rules and their implications, the lack of post-FAQ analysis, the relative imbalance in host airtime? I'd love to hear more specifics!

Well... okay. So you really make me to hear the episode again, so I can get you a detailed analysis.

I liked the rule discussion on the "3 copys per phase" (another example would be to return your Forever Burning in Dominance to your hand burning down everything as long as you have influence standing), but you took sooo much time for clarificating that the clarifications are only there to clarify what everybody already knew.

I also liked the talk about the restrictions, and what it means for decks and meta. Also the comparing of Errata on Asha and Daeny on the one hand and restriction of Bran of the other was good.

I didn't like the talk about the Errata in general, because they felt a bit like nitpicking. And I can somehow understand your crusade against them, but it got somehow tiring in this episode. 

I somehow expected more of a discusion on Harrenhal, especially when Helmut mention he wouldn't agree with Alex, and wished it would get a bit deeper, but was brushed somehow off rather quick. 

And it is not the problem, that I am not into rules discussion (usually in my playgroup I am the poor rule laywer), but for me it felt like a problem with pacing and focusing, which usually isn't a problem at all in your podcast.

Maybe I am just nitpicking now, but you wanted my 2 cents.

Ick! An episode that bothers you, and now I've made you listen to it twice.... I'm sorry! I do appreciate it, I know that if you didn't care about the cast, you'd just stop listening rather than take the time to tell us when we're going astray!

Forever Burning is actually a great example of something affected by the new limit, I wish we'd thought of it! Influence builds in general just haven't been on our minds recently.

As for the "clarifications of what everyone knew"... yeah, I think I agree it may have dragged on a bit. We've been recently cautioned against assuming all our listeners are veterans, and the discussions on agotcards/cardgamedb about some of the just 'clarification' errata seemed to warrant telling people what each change meant... but, for the most part, they all meant "Keep playing as you have been, it's just properly official now". Admittedly, not the most engaging message...

We did actually go in a little more depth about disagreeing about Harrenhal, but it was cut... that would wholly be an editor's mistake (my bad!).

I appreciate the in-depth comments, DarkBlue, and we'll see what we can do to avoid these pitfalls in upcoming episodes!

You are welcome. I only feel not very comfortable in critizising anyone, while I haven't accomplished nothing by myself to give my points some weight. "So it is just an opinion, man."

So, rules question:

Does Ambush fall under the '3 copies' rule? It is a put into play effect which should be excluded from the limit, but there is a 'weird' second condition mentioned in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph:

 

So, rules question:

Does Ambush fall under the '3 copies' rule? It is a put into play effect which should be excluded from the limit, but there is a 'weird' second condition mentioned in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph:

 

This limit applies only to cards that are 

"played" via the standard game rules or 

by card text.

 

What does the 'or by card text' refer to here?

 

"or by card text" probably refers to an effect similar to something like "play this card as if it were in your hand".  It's basically there to cover as many bases as possible and if a card effect lets you "play a card", then it will fall under this new rule.

Ambush does NOT fall under the "3 copies" rule.  Ambush is a "put into play" effect like you had said.

Ah yes, of course... So 'events' Robert will not let you bypass this rule. Makes sense.

I really don't like the illegal deck ruling. You can run a 60+ card deck with a 4th copy of a couple key cards, then just remove those extra cards if you make the cut and run a 60 card deck. 

I played in a tourney earlier this year with a Maester Mill deck for fun and I played a guy in the last round before cut to top 4 (it should be noted that it was between him & I who would get the last top 4 spot so this game meant something) and I was aggressively milling him and on the 3rd plot my first mill activation I saw a card that looked a little too familiar (Melisandre RotO)

   I asked to see his discard pile and I could see a weird look on his face. I searched through and yup there was 4 Melisandres in there and I also noticed the card right before the last Melisandre I found was a a Street of Sisters...he had one already in play. 

  I looked up at him after my discovery and he quickly scooped his cards and just said " I guess you win" and he walked away. I told the judge what happened but was told it would be too hard to go back 5 rounds of swiss and change the wins he had and also said that if he deck checked him now he would probably have switched out the cards needed to make the deck legal again so it was not worth doing. 

  So YES even in our game (we hope it isn't there, but it is) people will cheat if prizes are on the line. I was really frustrated and sad that day.

Wow... that's awful.

FAQ 5.3.2 coming!

(F55) THREAT FOM THE EAST

FAQ 5.3.2 coming!

 

(F55) THREAT FOM THE EAST

Hah. You're kidding. 

No... you're not. Facepalm.

Your work will never be done, istaril!

Nice episode but I'm with Jon, that much rules make me sleepy. Restricted list discussion was good even though there wasn't much to discuss about.

Great snappy sign off btw!