Martell Rush seems to do well in both Melee and Joust. The difference for the deck is more about playstyle than deck construction. In Joust you can jump out of the gates as fast as possible, where in melee you only want to rush when the win is in grasp. I have a Greyjoy/Wildling that does ok in both Joust and Melee.

I think it's better against a Targ shadow burn deck, most other shadow decks don't need that many cards in shadows at a time. It may become more like Black Walder, where the mere presence in the environment alters people desire to play shadows.

It's good to see Stark still going strond in Europe. Too bad it never seems to do well over here. Congatulations to the winners. That was quite the turnout.

Here's a different way of asking the VB question. Has it gotten to the point that unless the character is phenomenal or undercosted, I no longer play with characters printed strength 2 or lower? Has VB become so dominant that it becomes a measuring stick for how I evaluate characters? That was the complaint against Bruno's plot, and for me personally, VB is becoming meta defining in the same way. When I'm looking through new chapter packs, when I see a character printed strength 2 or lower the first 2 things I think of are VB and Targ burn attachments to determine if the character is playable, So I don't think VB has done this on its own, but against a third of the houses, most 2 strength characters will probably not see more than 2 rounds. My question is, why not bring back Bruno's plot if the game is metaing against it anyway because of VB and burn?

Highlander's schedule conflicted with the Warhammer Worlds and many of the past players chose to compete in Warhammer instead. Highlander was fun and I finally got a chance to meet and play against Jerusalem Jones afterwards. I'm not expecting either Highlander or Kingsmoot to survive after this GenCon.

I understood that part, my question was whether people you beat with a modified win counted fo your strength of schedule. Does the person who went 0-5-0-0 have an advantage over the person who went 3-0-0-2 because the first person counts the strength of schedule of all five opponents where the second person counts only the three he defeated or do both players count the strength of all 5 opponents?

When totaling up strength of schedule, do you get credit for Modified Match wins or only Match wins?

Karazax said: I'm new to this game, but not to competitive card gaming. From my outside perspective, I think it's just a matter of being so unenforceable to have rules restricting alliances that even if the overwhelming majority agreed that premade alliances were wrong, you couldn't stop someone else from doing it. And it seems everyone does not necessarily agree. Ideally for competitive integrity alliances should be made during the course of a game based on the situation in each game. But realistically there is not much that can be done about people who choose to do otherwise and when situations come up during a game that warrant allying, then friends are naturally more inclined to do so even if they didn't pre-plan it. Which is probably one reason why joust might be given more emphasis competitively. In joust, even with alliances you could not guarantee yourself a championship unless EVERY opponent you faced agreed to concede. I could in theory come in as a new player and win all my games and regardless of what alliances you made with other people, it would not have an effect on my ability to advance and beat you in a head to head match. On the other hand if I met you and one or more of your buddies in Melee and you were allied as a team from start to finish then my chances would be practically zero and I would probably come out of the match feeling like I wasted my time. If everyone agreed that alliances were bad for the game or bad for them personally, they would not enter into alliances, thus preventing the spread of alliances. Most people who play do not cheat in general because they believei it is bad for them personally or bad for the game in general. Historically, the Thrones community has been pretty good about integrity and fairplay as defined by the community, not because of the management of the OP by FFG but because of the character of the players. To be honest, if the top 10-12 players all agreed to conspire to determine the World Championship in Joust, they could defeat almost all of those outside the cabal and determine the winner well over 90% of the time. I'm glad they don't, but ti really isn't beyond the scope of possibility.

Kennon said: Sorry dude, I tried that tack. No one would agree to crown me king of Westeros. But is it ok for something besides gameplay to determine the winner of GenCon? Are backroom deals and bribery acceptable means to determine the winner of GenCon? At this point in the thread the answer is: YES, ALL MEANS ARE LEGAL AND ACCEPTALBE TO DETERMINE THE WORLD CHAMPION; SO LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, CONSPIRE, AND BRIBE AS LONG AS FFG CANNOT ENFORCE HONESTY . DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN BECAUSE THAT'S HOW CHARACTERS COMPETE FOR THE THRONE OF WESTEROS. Maybe this started long ago with Melnick, and no one wanted to admit this was where we were going.

I find it odd that intentional draws and watching other peoples games in Joust can create a 10 page thread, but what kind of alliances are allowed in melee is ignored. Is that because melee is still the red-headed step child of LCG events or did the the other thread reveal a divide in the community that no one wants to deal with again? What if I made alliances with the top players in the field to insure I won the World Championship Joust? Would anyone care about that? Should the tournament scene be governed by the same rules that govern Westeros? I'm not asking Nate and FFG to govern this area. Quite frankly, FFG cannot govern this area. I'm asking what does the community deem as permissible and what does the community find intolerable? Should Melee evolve into who has the best network of friends and metas?

Everyone knows that the heart of Melee is the table ploitics, both the overt verbal and the covert unspoken. Most alliances, both temporary and long-term, are created and maintained in that particular game. So here is my question for the Community. Should players participating in the World Championship Melee Tournament be creating their alliances now, before GenCon even starts, to ensure their victory, or is that collusion and frowned upon by the community?( I'm trying to avoid the term Unsportsmanlike) Example 1: Me and my meta-mates all agree before hand that if we wind up at the same table in any round, we will work together against our non-meta opponents. Is that OK? Example 2: Me and people from across metas who have become friends agree to to work together any round we wind up at the same table against people outside our group. Is that OK? Example 3: Me and my group design decks that give one of us the win and play them in such a way to insure player X from our meta wins whenever we wind up at the same table. Is that OK? Example 4: Me and my group design decks that synergistically work together to insure someone from our group wins, but not necessarily a particular, predetermined player. Is that OK? I know there are other variations and scenarios, these are just the first 4 that popped in my head. What kind of pre-tournament collusion is ok with the community, and what kind is frowned upon, and what kind is taboo?

I was hoping Rings would post on the card. He is always cautious about agendas and I wonder what his take on the card is. I agree it is probably not an auto-include in most Rush decks, because a good flop helps you get deeper into your deck, which is huge in Rush. But most non-Shadow heavy-control decks will be greatly helped by this card. Shadow decks I could see going either way. Seems like an auto include ineverything else.

Good, I've been wanting to build a wrath deck for a while now.All resets, all the time.~ No NPE there for my opponent in that.

Congratulations! Looks like a fun tourney and a good time had by all. Greyjoy winter is one of my favorite builds in the current environment.

Dobbler said: Sure wish I could just edit my original post! By my count, we are already sitting at around 30, which isn't including maybe's IL - 3 PA - 4 Dekalb - 2 DC - 2 MO - 8 Boston - 1 TN - 5 CA - 2 GA - 3 I've been estimated between 35-40 for each event. Makes me wonder if I am underestimating? I know the Missouri, DC and TN meta's all have some "maybes", and that alone could drive us near the 35 mark. I also have heard of some other high profile players making it (Rings, Casey and Mallesh), and we haven't heard any news from some of the other metas that have historically sent players to Gencon (Iowa Crew, Wisconsin crew, Minnesota Crew, etc) The only event I'm committing to is the Clasic Highlander. If I can work out a deck I like for LCG Joust or Melee, I might play in those events. But I wouldn't count me in for those events yet. So at this point I think I may play in 2 evemts, 3 at the most.

I haven't noted the more negative tone so 1) I'm reading the wrong threads, 2) I am one of the negative people so I am contributing to the problem, or 3) I am a negative person so I am oblivious to the negativity? Personally. I am happier with the cardpool now than I have been at any point since the switch to LCG. Sure there are still some holes I would like addressed, but overall I like the current state of the game.

Love the focus on the eye and the heated blade. I never really thought about painting the clansmen in Kings Landing. Definitely a different take from past paintings of clansmen and very intriguing. Another beautiful painting.

Why not eliminate draws and the player with the most power at the end of the round is awarded the win and the player with less power is awarded a loss. Thats how we award points in melee.It would also discourage decks that take 2-3 hours to win(I'm looking at you Longclaw). If there is even power at the end of the round, each player gets 0 points since they defeated no one.

LetsGoRed said: kpmccoy21,I'd have probably agreed with you that the kits don't materially influence whether people show up for League nights before the current kit, but I think the playmat has enough appeal that frequency of participation might rise and players might pick up an extra chapter pack for that key "rare" card in their deck to get more than one copy so as to better compete. I say that b/c a few of the NYers are hoping to win the mats now that we're resuming League play after the tournament and might make a bit more effort to make more meet ups b/c of it. A question for those who think the League Kits should be available to anyone: Do you want there to be an Organized Play program supported by FFG and, if yes, what would define it if League prizes weren't exclusive to OP? That's a serious question, I'm not trying to be snarky. Would it just be an FFG player ranking system that only OP results would feed into? Would it be FFG giving GenCon reimbursements to League winners (like they did at Regionals)? Would OP just be Regionals, again with the GenCon reimbursements and, supposedly, a Hall of Fame on FFG's site listing winners? I came in under the CCG so I really loved promo cards for attendance and some other prize for placing/sportsmanship. Of all the new LCG OP support, I have liked the poker chips(I just want 15 to use as power counters), the wooden power counters from the last Regional, and the playmats. Nothing else has really grabbed me. I'm not into pins, special invitational tournaments, or the other tiny power counters. I like the ranking out of curiosity, it's not a real deal breaker. And outside of Regional events and Major Cons, I guess I really don't ever expect to see a strong OP program like it had the first 4-5 years. I don't think FFG gives a **** about localized OP programs. So i find these discussions a little too hypothetical to take seriously. ~Also, I'm not a good enough player to win at GenCOn so I would never have to worry about the reinbursements. But I would like to see all the former champions cards be legal all the time. It seems like a minimal recognition for their accomplishment.

JJ, I really do see where you are coming from as an owner, but I guess my question would be, are the op kits now drawing people to play in your tournaments or leagues who wouldn't show up for tournaments and leagues without the op kits? My limited experience with the game right now is that there are not a significant number of players showing up merely for the prize support in the op kits. They would show up to play the game if there was no op kits. So why not make the kits more available? Maybe things are different out there in the midwest than they are here on the east coast.

JJ this is the first league kit I've given a **** about since the switch to LCG and the new organized play system. I still showed up for every tournament I could.(Some I didn't play in because the numbers were sufficient without me, but I was still there in case they needed me.) If I have the $15 dollars, why shouldn't I be able to buy my own kit? I buy all my Thrones as well as many other books, games, etc from my local shop. Is it better for me to buy the items I want but don't win from other players or ebay?

kpmccoy21 said: kpmccoy21 said: So far only a handful of players from the Midwest Melee have shown a dislike. Sorry to double post, but the above statement is incorrect and I wanted to apologize before I antagonized others in the thread. Other people from around the country and world have chimed in, and I did not mean to disregard their contributions. What I meant was that Kennon and Staton have been the primary proponents of this plot cycle and deck archetype are creating a NPE. But they are not alone in voicing their dislike. Sorry.

rings said: kpmccoy21 said: Just because I don't like the current play environment does not make it broken or bad for the game. Personally, I thought last fall and winter were low points of the LCG with the King's Landing Expansion skewering the game too much to the control play style, but that's just my play preferences not coinciding with the then current environment. That doesn't make the environment at that time bad. I think the complaint against Fear is other people experiencing similar dislike with the new direction they think the game is going. 1. I agree the first turn win hasn't been shown to be consistant - as stated I think the game basically being over turn 1 (no characters, the start of next turn going down to 4 cards and your opponent has 6-10 power) is much more of a worry. I am not an expert on the decks yet, but this seems to not need a lot of luck to pull off. 2. I think you are very wrong on the first paragraph above. Maybe if YOU don't like the current play environment it doesn't make it bad for the game, but when a majority of players don't like it...sorry to say that is bad for the game (you didn't like last year, and trust me a lot of people left during that environment). This isn't the case yet, but I see a definate NPE trend starting with this combo, or the fact that you have to play around your opponents "un-cancelable always on time plots" with subpar counters. As to the game being over after turn 1, I played a Greyjoy deck that used those plots at the DC Regional, and against Lanni Shadows I had the game "over" after turn 2 or 3. Paul came back and beat me in the 9th plot. In Game of Thrones, it isn't over til you have the 15th power. The game can still be won after horrendous openings. I agree that if large numbers of people become dissatisfied and leave the game, it becomes bad for the game. My point was that me personally disliking the environment does not equal large numbers disliking it or leaving the game. So far only a handful of players from the Midwest Melee have shown a dislike. Are Staton and Kennon speaking for the other dozen players who attended? Are those people leaving the game? Are Staton or Kennon leaving the game? The point of the boards is to promote discussion and ultimateltely purchasing and playing the game. While Kennon and Staton should bring their concerns, I personally have not seen Fear of Winter lead to people leaving the game or even threatening to leave the game. If that were to occur, then I would take the concerns as much more than a personal dislike of where the game has evolved recently.

LaughingTree said: rings said: To me, the combo with the Epic's are the larger problem. You pretty much guarantee (with the right build) quite a few (2-4) military wins at two claim, and a 2nd turn RBD to hit their hand for 4 cards. Dobbs almost winning first turn seems like a problem to me, because I can see that happening with regularity to be honest...or at least the game is over for all practical purposes. I have to emphasize Rings' point here because I feel this is by far the most pressing issue: the possibility of a First Turn Win. To head off this hysteria before it starts, how many turn 1 wins occurred at the Regional? NONE! How many possible turn 1 wins? ONE Fluke things happen in CCG's, I've seen close to turn 1 wins a couple times in casual play. No overpowered cards involved, just crazy awesome luck. I don't see consistent turn 1 wins happening, though Greg and Kevin feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Obviously the bigger concern is 2 or 3 claim 2 military challenges. I never thought First Snow was overpowered, since everyone had access to use it and build around it. I don't think Fear of Winter is overpowered for the same reasons. Just because I don't like the current play environment does not make it broken or bad for the game. Personally, I thought last fall and winter were low points of the LCG with the King's Landing Expansion skewering the game too much to the control play style, but that's just my play preferences not coinciding with the then current environment. That doesn't make the environment at that time bad. I think the complaint against Fear is other people experiencing similar dislike with the new direction they think the game is going. When Stark wins GENCON, lets start talking about banning/nerfing the agenda. Every summer Stark that has a strong build, everyone starts worrying about it being bad for the game, yet they never even make it to the final game. Some other heavy control build keeps them from being even close to contenders. Lets revisit this if that changes.

Haven't Blockade/Rule/Valar been in the environment since the Core Set? Does Fear really add that much to that Cycle? I agree that if you are not prepared for it, or get a bad flop/drawback it can be frustrating, but that is true for many other situations as well. I agree that it changes the way you build your draw deck and changes some of your plot selection, but so do Bara rush, Lanni kneel, Stark Murder, Greyjoy Winter, etc. There are a half dozen builds I would love to bring to a tournament, but the dominant deck archetypes make me choose between playing what I want to play and playing what I think has a chance of winning. Fear/Blockade/Rule/Valar do the same thing. Maybe after NYC I will be singing a different tune, but as for now, it is just another evolution in a Living Card Game. On a side note, isn't it nice to be discussing something "overpowered" that doesn't relate to Lannister?