Shikaku said:

Those are unrelated. Rick wanting to play another deck doesn't mean that he thought the deck wasn't the best, just that he didn't necessarily enjoy playing it. You could make an argument that a deck you enjoy more is better, but the fact that he opted to play the deck he did shows that he recognized its strengths, even if it isn't what he'd play for fun.

I don't like playing maesters, not because I think they're bad, but because I don't enjoy them. Going to a tournament, I wouldn't necessarily bring the deck I enjoy the most, but the deck I think I'm most likely to win with. All things being equal, those will hopefully be the same.

A big issue with this is the JOKE that is Overall Champion. It causes so many issues with collusion and trying to get more points towards overall that it breeds unsportsman like behavior. It should be that you win Melee, good for you! You get to make a card. You win Joust, great you're the best player in the world this year. If you can't do one of those two then you aren't champion of anything. It certainly wouldn't fix all the issues, but it would be a good start. 

The problem with collusion is that its sort of like asking someone to "Not think of the Pink Elephant." I wasn't there, but from past experience, I do know in at least some cases one person does most of the deck building in DC, NoMass was similar (they had a shared card pool, and Dan was the primary deck builder). Nor would it be something enforceable. Say me and Kyle (the one guy in boston that plays agot other than me) go to gencon next year and bring the same deck… guess what? Neither of us have talked since last year's black friday, but how can that be proven? We'd be disqualified, so now we would have to communicate what decks we're bringing just to overcompensate for collusion? Which becomes collusion. Wonderful.

Its generally a given that either meta mates will collude, or overcompensate which is sort of colluding (though to not do as well).

Hence FFG should take that assumption and either not allow metamates at the same table, or factor collusion into the meele game, since kingmaking is after all a viable strategy in meele. 

Granted, personally I would just avoid the melee tournament. If nobody shows up at gencon meele, and the other worlds events for melee, then we can finally get rid of what I feel never should have been part of the championship. Then we don't have to worry about collusion.

Twn2dn said:

3. Yes I don't think it is very wise from now on to play identical decks with your meta mates which contain exponentially broken combos. IMO the hellholdt engineer combo in of itself may fall reasonably and logically within the realm of bad sportsmanship / infinite combo in the tournament rules.

I think everyone involved with this knew EXACTLY what they were flirting with.

We all know what collusion is.  We all know what collusion is not.  Greg did a very good job of putting it all down.

What we don't exactly know, is when a judge is justified in calling some one out for collusion.

This is a grey area that FFG has left open for TO's to decide.  IMHO, setting up a mine field of detailed do's and don'ts is not the answer, as it will simply trip up more honest players instead of protecting them.

If you don't want to get called out for collusion, don't show up looking to see how close you can get to the line without crossing it.

KhalBrogo said:

lol

I've been running hellholt engineer in a joust shadows deck for a year. Its a fun card. Never sat across the table from one though.

alpha5099 said:

First of all, I get what you are saying, I just think it's BS; there is no "best deck" that you are forced to play in order to win, and we all know it.

Bringing a deck you don't enjoy playing to a tournament you are paying to enter into is masochistic; the line of thinking of, "I must play this deck because it is the most broken best thing ever and even though I hate it I know it's my best chance of winning," is the kind of ultra-competitive nonesense that led to this mess in the first place.

If a player can't build something themself and run it, then maybe they don't deserve to be champion. (note the maybe)

Second, it sounds like someone in the DC meta needs to back off a bit.

On deciding what deck to play for Melee…

Rick wrote, "… both my melee and joust decks were decklists from Erick, though I knew Stark Winter was what I wanted to play after being owned by it at GenCon and the OCTGN tourney."

Chad J wrote, "I actually would have preferred to play a “real” melee tournament. I enjoy the format. I didn’t find the combo very fun to play. I’d imagine it was even less fun to play against."

He goes on to write, "Still, I knew the deck was out there and it was better to play it than get owned by it."

How many people brought that deck to the melee event from outside the DC meta? Was it really a threat to be dealt with, or did someone do a really good job of convincing his Meta that it was.

Dealing with a strong deck by playing a copy of it is not an excuse, because it doesn't address the threat. If the deck is that good, then all you have done is set your odds of winning to 50/50 at best. 

There are other ways of dealing with a strong deck, if it truely is a threat to you.. adjust your build to be ready for it.

I can't say for sure, because I am not part of the meta and am not privy to the conversations that led up to this, but I would not be surprised if Erick played a large role in convincing the rest of the Meta to take the same deck. That may seem unfair, but based on what I saw in that final round of the game, Erick was doing a heck of a job yammering on about trusting him, everything would work out, that it would be okay. He clearly wasn't looking at anything but the math; but that's like the creation of the atomic bomb… sure they could do, but what were the implications if they did.

On paper the math worked, and Erick was right, Dennis could win and he could end up in second; but in the end, that kind of deal making and the way the whole day went with complaints about getting tag teamed by a single meta at multiple tables, may have crossed the line from being competitive to creating the kind precident that FFG did not want to see move forward, and so they set their own.

That being said, I don't blame Erick completely; FFG shares some fault here.. they created the multiplayer game and encouraged interaction between players that other card games stir clear of like the plague.

The only other thing they could do to stop collusion in its tracks is to kill their stance on interaction in the game; no conversations beyond the normal announcing of actions and challenges, and gameplay related effects. They won't do that because they are to invested and in love with the idea of player interaction and wanting to make it as true to the spirit of the source material as possible.

The problem is, you can't have your cake and eat it too; yet they try.

Less we forget, the company and the players are not equals. Just like at your job, your boss is still your boss and you do what he says; so too here. FFG is in charge, they make the rulese, and they enforce them as they see fit. You can like that or leave that, those are your options.

If the grey area of collusion rules makes you not want to play competitve melee, by all means don't play. I for one wouldn't shed a tear.

There are plenty of people, many of whom don't play already because of the antics of players like these, that may be willing to give it another shot if they knew that dealing with ultra-competitive players, who will do whatever it takes to win, have been put on notice.

Shikaku said:

Let's see - this deck got three people to the final table of the world championships in melee. I will use that as my reasoning to refute your point…

What is your statement based on?

 Just run Burning bridges like i did in gencon (only play it when it's useful…..not like i did in gencon xD)

1. I certainly feel that in the wake of this ruling, metamates would be prudent to play diverse decks. I can't imagine why that state of affairs wouldn't be exactly the desired environment for a melee tournament.

2. I don't think it's reasonable to say that FFG should have DQ'd them sooner than they did. If a broken combo is smuggled into the tournament, if a winning deck becomes an unstoppable juggernaut in an environment with more copies of itself, then naturally this would only become apparent as the relative frequency of that combo increased. I can plausibly imagine it would have to get to a 3 v 1 situation to reach the tipping point; even at 2v2 the other opponents could try and ally to stop the other team, or at least prevent both of them from being shut out completely. (I'm also skeptical of the notion that such deck interactions were of only minor note to those bringing the decks.  They had to know that a winning combo would keep winning, and the more it won, the more likelihood it would recur.)

3. I also think that if you know that combo exists and you're more likely to see it the longer the tournament goes on, then you've crossed the line. You're supposed to build the best deck, all things being equal. What Erick convinced his teammates to do was to take steps to ensure that all things wouldn't be equal--at that point one isn't competing honestly, even if one protests a willingness to defeat a teammate at any given point.

 And I really don't want to overstate things either, I just think it was a good ruling. I like Dennis a lot from the interactions I've had with them, and I haven't seen very much drama-mongering in the wake of the ruling.  I see a lot of people talking openly and honestly and I'm thrilled to be part of a community of mature players.

Yes, I think they had to know that it would give them an edge, and a competitive advantage. I don't think they looked at it as working together as such, they just erred in their judgment of just what the first principles were, or perhaps they didn't expect that an advantageous combo would become so broken it made them look bad.  I hope the discussions yield an ever-improving tournament environment, because I'm getting to the point where I am going to start dipping my toes in, and I want my future experiences to enjoy the benefits of learning experiences like this one.

papalorax said:

papalorax said:

Not only that, this deck won a first round table on turn two against two brothers who openly said they were working together. 

A good comparison for this deck is to an arsenal of nuclear weapons. As Dennis mentioned in his report, during testing there were many decks with locations that kneel during challenges and could combo off the engineer and scourge. What happens when one country has a stockpile of nukes? They control international relations, just like this deck controls the flow of a game, stripping icons, discarding cards with house dayne skirmisher, removing characters from challenges, canceling responses, and trading titles with myrcella. 

Once one has a stockpile, everyone else wants it too. That's why the whole DC meta wanted to play this deck. It was a clear winner. To extend the nuclear weapon analogy, when two of these decks are at a table it's a cold war of mutually assured destruction. The card interactions force the best interest to be to strip the other two for uo power, then wait until you can afford to try to backstab the other person and take the win. You have to do it at the last minute and without your scourge, or you lose all your icons too.

Someone asked why some players didn't go with a different deck and add tech against this one. The best defense against a stockpile of nukes is to have your own. As far as I can tell, Star Wars cards aren't legal in a thrones tournament, even if FFG blew us away with possibly their best tournament support ever by giving free copies to pre-registrants.

 Having a card like engineer is a great advantage in Melee…with or without teammates. It makes you a desirable friend to help someone out…it's why cards like building season are popular in melee and terrible in Joust. In melee you can generally get something for trading with someone…if you have a deck that has nothing to offer then you are not going to be making any deals.

Read Dennis' TR - The deck was great without friends. This isn't about the deck, it's about a perception that FFG brought to the tournament concerning these guys and they saw enough during the final to make them think their concerns were valid. Three strangers would not have been DQ'd for the exact same behavior.

Frankly FFG made the wrong decision in 2011 GenCon melee. They had the choice to celebrat Corey and Erick achieving the ultimate in teamwork, deal making, back stabbing, etc…or they could demonize it and say it has no place in their game. They made the wrong choice. They choose to go down the road of an policy that will be impossible to be equally enforced hoping people would act different…now they have this mess.

If nothing else, this decision by FFG will spawn something good as long as they are attentive to the community and the effect it is having on it, LoL.

Whether or not there was collusion at the final table, FFG felt there was justification to apply their authoritative powers aimed at preventing collusion and maintaining the integrity of the competitive environment.

If their thinking was, "This looks like collusion. It smells like collusion. This is undermining the competitive integrity of the game. This kind of play is unsportsmanlike." then is the disqualification not justifiable?