Jump to content

Ire

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ire

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Turku, , Finland
  1. This is completely my opinion, but in tournaments games people shouldn't be conceding. The most obvious reason would be the "comeback" where the player gets grip back to the game and ends the control players lock, this can happen when the control player does a fatal mistake while he is doing his learned pattern or if the locked down players draw is just better than control players (not the amount, but quality). The other reason to not concede is a bigger one and it affects several players - timed wins. If you are against a lockdown deck which cannot win in the tournament time you shouldn't let them win. Most likely if you start to play the game for power a deck like this will not win and in some cases you might even get a timed win out of it. This is something people did in the 6 agenda wildling meta, if your opponent was unable to win in time why give them full win? Most importantly the opponent can only get a timed win in a situation like this, which currently can effect his score a lot especially if he gets several of these. So the results of conceding can affect several players, maybe someone would have made the cut had not the control player gotten a full win from the concede, or perhaps people got different pairings because the player got a win out of the game. Since not all control decks are like this it doesn't happen too often. The more common concede against control which I have seen is the "oh they are about to call time, I think you have beaten me, I'll concede here so that you can get a full win" which for me is even more of a no-no. It sounds sportsmanship like at first, but again it is altering scores of a player in a bigger field and so it has an effect on the cut and pairings. It is giving the opponent advantage against the other field just because they played against a player who would more gladly concede before the time is called than let the game go to time. Conceding is also a grey area thanks to the "throwing a game" addition to the tournament rules.
  2. I have been able to run OCTGN with a year 2008 mini-laptop and a year 2004 laptop both of which are using Windows XP (the OCTGN at times notifies that there can be issues, but I have still been able to play). Now getting something like this for a secondary computer shouldn't be expensive at all.
  3. Strange, usually when I'm sitting with a friend I try to backstab him the most in a melee game... might be a Finnish meta thing.
  4. Question: I was wondering how the timing with control change of moribund character work with Call of the Three-Eyed Crow. If for example I have stolen a character from my opponent with Reek and then the Reek dies while under my opponents control will the control revert back to me in time for me to use CotTEC on him and again have him under my control? Answer (Damon Stone): From FAQ entry 3.42; "the card is still considered to have left play for the purpose of responses and passive effects." From FAQ entry 3.31; "when a card leaves play for any reason, it always returns to its owner's discard pile, dead pile, hand, deck, or shadow's area." Basically, the control changes passively when the card leaves play, so Call of the Three Eyed Crow will keep it in play under its owner's control.
  5. From what I saw it looked like the Moqorro save came in as a surprise. Possible playmistake on that he was actually able to save from discard effect. Even if he had burned Vic the GJ player would have gotten to 14 power that turn by the end of his own turn depending on did he get to keep drowned priest or not. Now if Jon had made any attacks the GJ player would have used his crown reagent and forced the challenge to go towards him (only possible target since Jon was supporting the other player) and either win it with defence renown or blackwind one of the attacking characters and place Tarle on the line and also claim the final power when things would have moved to deadly. So even in that scenario the GJ player is sitting at 14 power and most of his characters standing ready for dominance. Well you can never be 100% certain with things like these.
  6. Anything really with unconditional mill would be welcome to me. That is what I always find the most problematic thing with mill. I have to do something in order to get the first mill effect (win M challenge, win challenge on uo, kill a character). Now with house card as "on demand" mill I would run it even if it just milled 1-2 just so it was sure that I could mill and get some of those mill effects going when I need them. So either plots used or small static number would be of my liking. What would be the downside of this?
  7. 1) Nope, there is no time window open at the end of the phase for the player to use actions so the character could not be saved. For more about timing windows check the FAQ page 20 2) Nope, keywords cannot be cancelled so ambush cannot be cancelled.
  8. 1) Only restriction that cannot be bypassed is the "House X only" othervice you can play cards from other houses than what your own House card is, but - when you play a card that doesn't have the same house affiliation as your house card you have to pay a gold penalty of 2. So it gets very expensive to play out of house cards as they cost two more to play. Neutral cards don't have gold penalty and they can be played by any house normally. 2) You are probably talking the 4 player format "melee" here? There is nothing to limit on how many houses are used, it is even possible that everyone in the table is playing the same house. If your playgroup only has 1 coreset this will most likely not happen as there are not enough cards to make multiple decks for the same house.
  9. Hopefully we can get these boards up and running again. I'm still amazed when I have these load up in seconds rareth than in minutes. Also some of the new functions here seem very useful.
  10. How about we give it the same restrictions that Bear Island has? you can only play cards that have your houses affiliation (well and any events naturally). This would do several things for TLV builds: 1) less optimization from cheap neutral characters. 2) harder resource curve since you are unable to use neutral 0 cost things to balance the build. 3) stop season splashing in some houses. Now GJ cannot get to use Wintertime Marauders or the choke element from white raven. 4) make seasons a vulnerability for TLV. No carrion bird, no raves… clear weakness that can be used to meta against it.
  11. There was once talk of Maester Kerwin and if he was able to cancel claim and I asked from Damon. " I am interested of how I should use Maester Kerwin and what kind of limits his ability has. His ability reads "Response: kill Maester Kerwin (cannot be saved) to cancel any effect that chooses 1 of your ironborn characters as its only target." Is his ability only limited on card effects such as the card No Quarter or can he be used to cancel noncard-effects such as claim 1 military?" and got a respond of " Maester Kerwin cannot prevent military claim."
  12. LFenix said: BUT, as most of you probably saw, there are NONE on Martell characters (I have missed 1 of the boxes, none on the other…4?). Someone may argue that Martell has no naval power in the serie. And I would answer that half of the houses don´t ever show more than a couple of boats in the books, wich I have read fully. Have to disagree here. Martell is the only house which has no naval forces what so ever (appart from the orphans and merchant ships). The house doesn't believe in naval fleets since the time of Nymeria sailing to westeros and uniting the house of sun and spear. She burned all of her fleet down to make it clear to her people that Dorne is now their home. Other houses have had clearly warships and boats in the books, but it has been on the far background for houses whose main strength is not its naval power. Greyjoy is one of the clear winners, thou most of the fleet is sailing with Victarion in search of dragons ~and conquering the dothraki sea. Arbor has the second strongest fleet in Westeros (or possibly strongest) which just captured Dragonstone. Thing is their loyalty in the game is usually divided to Lannister and Baratheon so both of those houses could easily get their naval forces from them. Lannister and Baratheon have small naval forces now since Cerseis ships got stolen and Stannises fleet of pirates has fled. Both of them on the other hand again have had larger naval forces in the books. Stark is a though one, but I would say their naval fleet will soon come as a full surprise to Westeros. Earlier in the books King Robb ordered more naval forces to be built in White Harbor. When Davos visits White Harbor we see that Manderly did as he was ordered as Davos sees a great fleet in the harbor. Targaryen is there currently down with Martell since they haven't had any ships for a long time, they have a captain, but no ships.
  13. ~How many repeat champions do we have in joust while the LCG has been around? since thats the same amount time melee has been played competitively. Currently both formats in this timeline are without repeat champions
  14. ccgtrader99 said: I'll address what Kennon and Khudzlin said first. Obviously, you need to do what if fun for your meta. If that means having Melee count for something, fine. But I think you're coming from a place (and this is aimed at Kennon since I don't follow much of the Euro scene) that has three pieces of criteria: 1. Larger meta with other metas within a reasonable distance. 2. Great players in these metas 3. Resources In the states off hand I can name a few of these groups: 1. MO / Tulsa 2. CA 3. DC/ NY All former champs, all have people that won or should have won the Melee championship over the last 3 years, all have Joust winners and finalists, and have people who play constantly and travel all over to play. It is frankly, awesome to see how dedicated they are to playing this game. So while I look at that I think sometimes people can come from a place of good intention, (making Melee legit) it is hard for someone like me who comes from a meta that doesn't really have 2 out of the 3 criteria to focus their energy on playing that format. If say, booster draft was the next thing to count for a championship (and I feel high level draft takes a ton of skill) I would feel the same way. Why can't we just run things seperate but equal? People who like Melee can do that. People who like Joust can do that. People who enjoy both and play in both, but what I can't understand is why we combine them. Perhaps it is because most players might not show up to an Melee only regional tournament? No other format is supported in this game at the moment, so I get it. It is nice to have something different to play and consider when deck building. Ok now this: Okay, could someone explain to me, why the Overall title causes so much bad blood over there? It almost seems like Joust players feel that it's a Joust-prize, but with some evil forced inclusion of Melee. While to me it seems to obviously be an extra prize for people that genuinely like both formats. It's like a professional swimmer complaining that he hates cycling since it's a part of a triathlon. *scratches head*" Overall championship is a farce to say the least. Can you tell me (since I wasn't at worlds) if people indeed cheated at Melee? I ask that because the same group of guys dominated the year before. I honestly think those guys used clever deckbuilding and strategy to beat the system. It wasn't their fault the Melee format was bad. They just took advantage and proved it. (2 years in a row!) So I'm to believe that this should count for a world championship? Or is it cool to have someone else win by default due to DQ? Both sound lousy. Melee is inherently much more random than Joust, and gives the impression of a crap shoot. If I wanted to play fun random stuff I would pick up something with dice. Many players probably disagree but in order to get consistent results you gotta team up. So if I want to be world champion, I need to be extra lucky or be paired with meta mates? Joust forces players to play for themselves and they control their own destiny. No king making here. The proof is in the pudding. There is exactly one Melee tournament at Gencon and WCW. One. There are at least 3 Joust events scheduled at each. Drunk draft? Joust. Tournament reports people read and care about? Joust. Demo the game at Gencon? Joust. Do you see people playing pickup games of Joust or Melee more? Exactly. The casual players who love Melee the most don't travel to play as much as the Joust guys. So you kind of see why the dedicated players who don't love Melee see how it feels forced. Again, I'm all for doing what is best and fun for your meta, I just feel like having a winner come from an competitive event that they didn't actually have to win either tournament is silly. Personally I have not attended Worlds or GenCon, but I have attended the European Championships in Stahleck… so I cannot comment on Worlds on a first hand basis. What I can say is that I have not seen Kingmaking or any other shady multiplayer tricks at Stahleck, of course it could be that I've just missed them. As a Judge last year, the only things I saw were the regular rules misconceptions that would and did happen in Joust also. This is just my personal opinion, and take it with a grain of salt, but I saw nothing wrong in what the DC group did with the format or the competition until the point where in the Final table the talk went into scorings for Overall Champion. At that point, it wasn't Melee (and playing for your personal victory) anymore, but rather gaming the system for points. It's still a bit hard to be exactly sure about what the judgment made there was exactly based on, since we didn't recieve an explicit statement on it from FFG. However, what we did get from that were much stricter and clearer guidelines on how Melee should and will be played. Honestly, I think the format will benefit from these pretty nicely, since they function as an official guideline on what the approach to the format should be. This also spurred FFG into defining Joust floor rules more explicitly, which is also a nice boon towards a more 'professional' approach to competitive play. While it can be argued that the Melee format perhaps isn't as straightforward as a competitive format, we still tend to see the same players in the top tables… which doesn't sound too inconsistent to me. And judging by the results from the events that do have Melee Championships: Gencon, Worlds, Stahcleck… we can see that it is clearly a format that rewards both skill and deckbuilding. And if there happen to be luck elements involved (ending up in a table with three Rush decks as a Control player), these aren't much larger than the Rock-Paper-Scissors -thing going on in Joust (both in the Swiss and the top matches). As a comparison, this exact same discussion has been going on regarding Poker playing for ages, the format is said to be too random, but we still get the same guys sitting at the final tables. Now what are the Joust players losing if there is a Melee event on another day, instead of there being none? Not much, but the players who like melee lose a lot. Is the problem purely semantical, and tied to the "Overall" in the name itself and nothing more? So, would it be okay if it was named something different, like 'Combined Champion'? I'm saying this because it sounds like it's the name itself, which is taking something away from the other format winners… not the fact that Melee (or a combined format of the two) exists. Honestly, I think the thing to understand about Melee, and especially Competitive Melee is that you need to first try and forget all of the things you know about playing Joust (except for rules and card knowledge), then approach it as 'something completely different'. - The flow of the game is very different (game duration, when you should challenge, what you should Marshall at which points, whether you should Reset at a given point) - The power levels of cards are very different (as an example, consider Knights of the Hollow Hill vs. The White Book) - The critical errors you can make are very different (in Joust you never over-extend and flood your board due to Valar, in Melee you never want to leave a gap in a certain icon, or you will probably get immediately hit in that hole by as many players as you have opponents) The best way to look at Melee, as a Joust player, is that you get to take part in a whole different kind of cardgame, without having to buy a lot of extra product. What exactly is bad about that?
×
×
  • Create New...