Let's Talk About Meat of the Mountain [Archive]

joshlytle

11-21-2010, 10:54 AM

I'm starting this thread to discuss the new card Meat of the Mountain. As many of you have discussed in this forum, and have communicated to us via email, the card is part of a very powerful combo. I can admit that this interaction was not intentional. I also can admit that it may in fact be too powerful.

What I'd like to know is what you think should be done about this. I can see a few options in front of us:

1) Do nothing.
2) Ban Meat of the Mountain.
3) Errata Meat of the Mountain to maintain it's general flavor but eliminate the combo aspect of the card.

I tend to like option 3 because it lets people still use their cards the way they were intended. The disadvantage is that newer players, or players without the errata information, may play it wrong. I think this disadvantage is minimal because in general anyone who's going to "abuse" such a powerful combo is likely piped into the online community. Also, as long as judges and tournament organizers spread the word I think we'll be fine.

It's annoying to have issues like this pop up, but it's bound to happen when we're making cards and sets that are meant to be exciting. I was hoping to give deck builders a rich set of cards to work with in Seed 2 because it had been so long since you'd had anything new to sink your teeth into.

With that said, I don't want to allow an interaction to persist that is making the game less fun to play. So please let me know what you think overall and we'll collectively figure out what's best for our community and The Spoils in general.

Brad Meine

11-21-2010, 11:44 AM

What will the wording on the errata'd card look like?

w4r10rd

11-21-2010, 11:53 AM

When I think of Meat of the Mountain the first thing that pops in to my mind is BURN IT ALL!!!, now joking a side I personally am open to the idea of errata but, I don't see how to without making it useless or with it still being over powered. So, with that said I say Ban meat of the mountain.

joshlytle

11-21-2010, 12:00 PM

One idea for errata would be to just limit the effect to only happen once a turn.

Fishman

11-21-2010, 12:30 PM

KingOfBadaBing

11-21-2010, 01:14 PM

Since I hadn't noticed a combo with this, I am now looking for one.

Is the idea to play Dwarvish Grimalkin with enough threshold to draw twice and switch between the 2/3 token abilities to draw your entire deck?

Yes.

Also, two possible suggestions for errata (which I favor over banning).

1: Spread out the token requirements. Instead of them going up easily 0,1,2,3, try something like 0, 2, 4, 6, or something of the like. This way one instance of drawing doesn't always trigger the Mountain and it allows both players to fight over it.

2: Errata the third option to read: That player may play a resource. It enters play attached to his Faction. This allows the players to use the resource building aspect of the card but eliminates the possibility of huge one turn combos as you won't benefit from the resources until the start of your next turn.

kallisti

11-21-2010, 01:22 PM

One idea for errata would be to just limit the effect to only happen once a turn.

Once per turn or once per player per turn? Once total per turn would change the card quite a bit IMO.

A few more options.

4) Change the rules in a subtle way to break the combo. Not really a good idea unless it's something which should be done anyway.
5) Temporary ban until the next set comes out. This is a good option if you can make the combo not too powerful by printing more cards.
6) Ban the combo. This is my favorite option if the combo is too powerful to do nothing. Under this plan, you could put either card in your deck but not both.

tgrtrax

11-21-2010, 02:34 PM

'Spread out the token requirements. Instead of them going up easily 0,1,2,3, try something like 0, 2, 4, 6, or something of the like.'

this would make a big diffrence and my combos would not work anymore. this would not be a good fix because you would have to reprint the card. you cant expect someone to know the changes especally a new player.

' That player may play a resource. It enters play attached to his Faction.'

this would fix the combo and make the card much less useful.

'Temporary ban until the next set comes out.'

2
item-module
this item must be attached to an item
the attached item has no rules text

this card may be played as a tatic.
your opponent cannot respond to this card.

'Ban the combo.'

yeah i dont like this one at all. meat with any draw is just broken. not just Dwarvish G.

i say ban this card. i play the deck and it is broken. i have players in my area who will not play me if i am playing the deck. they say it is no fun to sit and watch me draw and play cards for 30 min then win the game. i was there to play against EO. i was of the mind to erratta EO and i think this card needs to be BANNED! it is no fun to play and no fun to play against but it wins. the only way it will not win is if there is operator error or such a bad draw that you go 6 turns with play a resource, draw a card, done go for each of those turns. this has happened to me in only 3 of about 100 games.
please ban this card before it ruins the gameplay experience.
thank you

i will be in the chat room until midnight eastren today.
http://theworldsnotes.com/chat/spoils/

KingOfBadaBing

11-21-2010, 03:28 PM

'Spread out the token requirements. Instead of them going up easily 0,1,2,3, try something like 0, 2, 4, 6, or something of the like.'

this would make a big diffrence and my combos would not work anymore. this would not be a good fix because you would have to reprint the card. you cant expect someone to know the changes especally a new player.

Well, to get technical, The Spoils already has quite a few cards that have been re-worded (and not reprinted) since the game came out, and I'm not even including Beta.

Cards that have been reworded without reprints: Voidal Interference, Snooty Doorman, Subsection 5 Paragraph 12, Exploding Sock Puppet, Tactician Vacation

The only card that has been re-worded and reprinted is The Billionaire, and I'm not sure if that counts because it was only available as a Judge promo for judging one of the special events.

Yes, it sucks that there are quite a few cards with new wordings, but the fact of the matter is it is inevitable. Maybe when there are enough of them it'll be possible to reprint them for players but I don't know how viable that actually is.

' That player may play a resource. It enters play attached to his Faction.'

this would fix the combo and make the card much less useful.

Agreed that it would fix the combo but I do not think it would make the card any less useful. At the end of the day it is still a crazy amount of resource acceleration that can be possible through this card, which is absolutely amazing. It simply changes the timing on when to do it so that you can maximize the value of those new resources.

tgrtrax

11-21-2010, 05:19 PM

i guess my point is that if we could not find an errata for EO and it had to be banned then so should MotM. thats all really.

lighttigersoul

11-21-2010, 11:04 PM

i guess my point is that if we could not find an errata for EO and it had to be banned then so should MotM. thats all really.

I'll agree with this statement.

Josh, you mentioned when EO came up for discussion that you wanted to avoid 'power level errata' and I totally agree with that sentiment. While I won't say that having made the decision locks you to it forever, perhaps it is best if you stick to precedent unless there is a compelling reason why this card should be given a power level errata and EO did not.

Or if you decide a power level errata is a good choice, maybe going back and giving EO one so that you keep consistent. (Even if it took time to decide on the consistency.)

Weesie

11-22-2010, 01:09 AM

1) Do nothing.

Because my brother just picked up the final MotM to finish his deck lol. Seriously though it's very easy for a good player to handle the combo. Granted drawing your deck is ridiculous and not what was intended when the card was designed but breaking cards is part of the fun of CCG's as well as building decks to combat them. But I'm sure I'm in the minority here so I guess if I had to pick I'd go with an errata (once per player per turn).

Also I'd like to suggest play test groups for future sets. Take one store/team from each region and send them printable proxies to test before cards are finalized. Missing the interaction of two cards from the same 110 card set is almost comical. Not only would it be totally free, it would have caught a problem like this right away.

Sigorion

11-22-2010, 02:11 AM

Wouldn't it be enough to just switch the order of the 1 token effect and the 2 token effect?

That way it would be:

0 tokens - That player's opponent discards a card.
1 token - That player may pick a character or location. if they do, put it into its owners hand.
2 tokens - That player may look at the top 2 cards of their deck. If they do, put 1 into their hand and 1 on the bottom of their deck.
At least 3 tokens - That player may play a resource.

Oneyus

11-22-2010, 05:39 AM

I don't see how the card is broken, it says that if you draw any number of cards you may put A token on this card, not add or remove a token on this card for each card you draw. So If I draw 1 card or an effect causes me to draw 2 or even 5 cards at once, I can only put one token on this card.

Lekkit

11-22-2010, 06:00 AM

With Dwarvish Grimalkin you don't draw 2/3 cards at once; you draw one card, then another (if you meet the threshold) and then a third (if you meet the threshold). Therefore you get to put/remove a token on MotM between every card. And that's when the resources starts flowing and you can replay the Grimalkin.

A way around this would be to change the wording of the Grimalkin so that all the draws are simultaneous.

Sabash

11-22-2010, 07:30 AM

I'm with Weesie on the Do Nothing idea.

I haven't seen the deck in action but I've seen decklists. And if you break that one combo somehow (which seems pretty easy to do) the deck is dead in the water.

Granted I'm not fully informed as I've never seen it played or played against it. But really...it just doesn't seem that bad. Seems like meta would handle it efficiently and effectively, to me.

TriAdX

11-22-2010, 08:29 AM

The meta can adjust to handle it.. Do Nothing.

lowercase

11-22-2010, 09:51 AM

I agree with KingofBadaBing make the resource enter play attached. It still allows for the combo to work but to a limited extent. If you want to draw your deck and have half of them be resources, you would have to devote a few turns of it to the combo allowing your opponent to prepare.

I definitely disagree with the do nothing idea. I have played against the deck personally a lot play testing with Team Hopper. It isn't something the meta can adjust to easily. even if you are playing a deck with a lot of item destruction and removal it is still hard to stop it because of the low cost of the Grimalkin and MotM. Once your opponent gets to 5 greed thresh hold and plays the MotM and the Grimalkin they effectively win. Because once they start the combo can almost not stop it because everything that happens is a trigger. You would need to respond to them playing the Grimalkin by blowing up the MotM in which case they either play a limited liability or play another MotM.

I don't know about you but when my opponent draws his entire deck has half of them as resources and in one turn drops 15 characters and still has 20 cards in his hand not to mention flip up cards. There is a problem and it is nearly impossible to come back from.

So as someone who has played against the deck I would say make the resource enter play attached to the faction because it still makes MotM playable and still powerful but not broken.

La_Sin_Grail

11-22-2010, 01:18 PM

I'm going to rock the "meta can adjust" position. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't, and honestly anybody who thinks they know enough to conclusively state that decks can't beat this can't is too arrogant to have their opinion count. There have been no real tournaments yet, and those who have made the format defining decks in the past are not working on this problem. I would put down money that if anybody gives me a decklist, I could build something that beat it over 50% without using this combo in about a week. I'm not the best deckbuilder, or even close to it- there are a lot of good players who can do this.

Give the meta time to adjust (maybe run a decent tournament or two to get more experienced players more involved) and then re-evaluate seems logical IMO. If the meta can't solve this problem despite sufficient motivation, then banning may be necessary. This combo does involve hitting a reasonably high threshold, playing a specific style of deck (starting arcanist, with banker main), and can be stopped by hand disruption/item destruction. This is not an unstoppable force, just a really, really powerful interaction that probable shouldn't have been printed. I've noticed that players complain about games where things need to be banned, though, and since getting a bigger community is important right now... on the other hand, they don't like getting comboed out either.

IMO do nothing until there's a real tournament.

Brad Meine

11-22-2010, 01:29 PM

Atleast EO required a decent pilot, a monkey could play the MotM deck as proven by the Team Hopper guys.

joshlytle

11-22-2010, 01:52 PM

There are a few things I want to add. The way I handled things in the past might be different than the right decision now. We're not running a huge money tournament anymore; we're focused more on local play and that's where fun is even more important.

I agree that in general metagames can adjust to cards and strategies, but this is a special type. It's a combo that is extremely powerful when it's used, it's hard to disrupt, it wins the game nearly automatically, etc.....that's the time when it's good to consider banning.

I'm still a fan of simple errata. We banned EO because it was just too weird/disruptive to tournament play. This is a different situation. Banning isn't a huge deal for me....but don't you think it's nice to be able to still use the card in a less competitive deck?

TriAdX

11-22-2010, 02:01 PM

IF a change was to be made, I would rather see an errata than a ban. Something simple and intuitive

Oneyus

11-22-2010, 02:36 PM

I still don't see how people are running this loop to draw their whole deck.
It seems to me like people are playing it the wrong way.

I.E.

1. If i have MotM in play at the beginning of my turn and I draw a card, I can put a token on MotM
2. I choose to add a token for the 1 Token trigger.
3. Then I can add or take away 1 token
4. So I have the 0 Token trigger or the 2 Token trigger to choose from.

5. The action stops here, unless

5. I play grimalkin at this point (lets say i have 5 greed and 2 obsession for 7 total resources)
6. I draw a card and add a token or take one away - so I get the 1 Token option or the 3 Token option (the 1 Token option allowing me to add or remove 1 more token)
7. I draw the second card for grimalkin (finishing the original trigger)
8. I either get another 0 Token or 2 token trigger.
9. I add or remove the token I gained if I chose the 1 Token option in step #6.
10. I draw two, bottom deck one
11. I get one more token to do a 0 Token or 2 Token trigger.
12. The loop stops

So in recap, drawing one a card at the beginning of my turn and playing a grimalkin allows me to draw 5 cards total, bottom decking two and play no resources without paying 4 for it.

granted you could play up to 3 more grimalkins drawing a total of 19 cards in one turn, but you still only have the last 3 resources available. I don't see how anyone plays 15 characters in one turn with this.

Lekkit

11-22-2010, 02:45 PM

What you do is this:

1. You play Meat of the Mountain.
2. You play Dwarvish Grimalkin (if you have at least 5[G].
3. You draw one card with the first trigger of the Grimalkin.
4. You add a token to MotM and add one of the two cards to your hand.
5. You draw one card with the second trigger of the Grimalkin.
6. You add one token to MotM and bounce the Grimalkin.
7. You play the Grimalkin again.
8. You draw a card with the first trigger of the Grimalkin.
9. You add a token to MotM and play a resource.
10. You draw a card with the second trigger.
11. You remove a token from MotM and bounce the Grimalkin.

At this point, just repeat step 7-11.

Oneyus

11-22-2010, 03:06 PM

Well . . . I guess when I looked at the 2 Token option, I pictured it being used on your opponent, not on the grimalkin.

But in your example playing MotM and Grimalkin cost you 3 resources total (lets say you have 7, 5 greed, 2 obsession) yeah you can draw your deck but you still only have 4 available resources that turn because you have to keep using the one you put in play to use the grimalkin. I guess the next turn you have would be the one that really unbalanced the field of play.

It seems overpowered, but I would think there are several means to stop this.

I vote do nothing for now, but I'm a noob so I'm not sure how much that vote counts.

Lekkit

11-22-2010, 03:23 PM

Sooner or later you are up to 9[G] which means you get to draw another card. So for each Grimalkin you play you get to draw three cards and play one or two as a resource. You will be able to play a lot of cards either that round or the next. I would almost certainly concede if I was a seven resources while my opponent was at 30 resources with the rest of the cards from his deck in his hand.

tgrtrax

11-22-2010, 03:50 PM

ok let me explain why meat (yes just meat) is so broken.
starting hand is:
2 cashout
2 exploitation
1 meat of the mountian
1 dwarven grimalkin
1 crest of obsession
1 foment (or anything that lets you draw a card for 0 or 1)

first find any and all 0 and 1 cost banker and archanist cards that let you draw. no you dont want any that cost over 1 unless they flip-up for 0 or 1. start with 1 each of greed and obsession.
start of turn play either exploitation or obsession.
you will need the crest of whichever you didnt lay (greed or obsession).
play meat.
you would like to have cashout in hand (2 is better). play cashout paying 0 this lets you draw a card. put a token on meat.
look at the top two cards and get something that draws a card or if you need it a greed.
if you can play another cashout for 0 add a token bringing you to 2 bounce something it doesnt matter what.
play something that draws a card. foment would not be bad or but you can spend your last resource if you need to because you are going to add a token and lay a resource.
now if you have dwarven grimalkin (DG) play it.
you should have 5 banker resources icons in play.
draw a card removing a token bouncing DG then draw your second card and lay a resource face down or whatever is avalable.
you can do this until you have your whole deck in your hand. while you have done this you will have gotten up to 9+ greed icons in play this lets you get ahead on resources when you have 3 unattached you play another meat. now you are sailing. you can do bad things to your opponents hand and anythig else they have on the field, bouncing characters and then making them discard them.
now comes the fun part you put barbaric rifleman, rumming millapede and ingenious tinkerer into play. then you play reality shift returning everything palying the 3 above in that order. play voidal for free return the dudes play voidal for free returning the dudes and voidal to your hand keep doing this until you win.
you can also use the bile/writ (i use Dragon's Strategy also) whith this option i use gluttony (you only get one token but it is for discard).
you can also use Time Traveler Tourist Trap. once you get thresh for 9 greed without crest play crest of eletism or even use all nighter and just pay to put tokens on TTTT. sacv it at the end of your oponenets turn and win the game.
now if anyone wants the deck lists i can provide them. what i have shown you is the first turn win. it is even easier to win on turn 2 or 3. i have won about 90% of my games and the losses have all been because i screwed up or got such a bad draw (all resources and kill, no draw). the bad draw happens about once every 10-15 games and if your opponent is not playing a speed deck then you can win by turn 6 every time.

questions?

i will say you have to have luck to win on the first turn. the above hand is not gonna happen often. but turn 2 or 3 happens often. even if i draw 3-4 cards and stall turn 1 it is all good because you have a full hand and 4 or 5 resources turn 2.

bigwillbigwill

11-22-2010, 04:14 PM

kallisti

11-22-2010, 04:59 PM

I'm still a fan of simple errata. We banned EO because it was just too weird/disruptive to tournament play. This is a different situation. Banning isn't a huge deal for me....but don't you think it's nice to be able to still use the card in a less competitive deck?

Can you tell us the exact wording you're proposing?

Anyway, I agree that it's nice to be able to use the card is a less broken deck. This is why I like the idea of banning the combo. (You can put either card in your deck but not both.) It avoids the downsides of both a straight ban (can't use the card in nonabusive decks) and errata (card doesn't do what it says).

haoyong

11-22-2010, 06:41 PM

I feel this card should be banned. The interaction Jeff described happens all too often. I originally built this deck thinking that Dwarvish Grimalkin was only 1 trigger regardless of how many cards you drew and it was still too good. The ability to draw you whole deck on turn 1 warrants the removal of the card from the format.

I am against errata for a couple of reasons. first, the precedence of banning has already been set. Consistency is key when it comes to matters like these. second, how do we know the errata wont open up other avenues of combo with the card? The ways that have been presented leave the card extremely powerful.

QFT - I vote ban. Playing against any deck where your opponent plays, and you don't (such as the EO deck, or like what seems to be the situation here) is not fun, and we need things that show off the fun of the game right now, and keep people playing. I can see a new player running up against this combo, and quitting the game out of frustration.

The reason for banning instead of errata-ing is that as the game moves forward (and we all want the spoils to move forward, right?) new cards will be released that could as easily cause some kind of brokenness with MotM. It seems just way too breakable.

lowercase

11-22-2010, 07:21 PM

The First turn method using cashout and such is not neccesary. All the combo requires is 1 meat of the mountain (preferably starting with two tokens). And a Grimalkin. (Having 5 greed icons). The way it was stated above uses too much effort and is not needed when you can do it with just two cards. Getting it off first turn is not what makes it broken. Drawing your entire deck half of which you can lay as resources (and if your deck is built around it you play alot of characters with flip up). As stated above once the combo starts and you are constantly drawing and building you can get yourself up to 9 greed threshhold allowing you to gain a resource everytime you do it.

Another part of it when you have alot of resources is you can play another MotM and accelerate yourself even more and use it to discard your oppenents hand and bounce their characters. And ontop of that, with your mass amount of resources, drop characters and have enough to win the following turn.

As i stated above to make the card still playable and make it so it can be played on the fun level as that is what spoils is trying to be right now. I would still say make the resource come into play attached to the faction.

Weesie

11-23-2010, 12:22 AM

Once your opponent gets to 5 greed thresh hold and plays the MotM and the Grimalkin they effectively win. Because once they start the combo can almost not stop it because everything that happens is a trigger. You would need to respond to them playing the Grimalkin by blowing up the MotM in which case they either play a limited liability or play another MotM.

...Or just respond to Grimalkin by drawing cards. All it takes is playing to the deck and a decent player can pick it apart. I've even watched a Seed block mono Rogue deck walk all over this combo, between Milkshake and Cashier's Window it didn't have a chance.

tgrtrax

11-23-2010, 05:50 AM

a good player will go off before you can do anything to stop it..or...you dont play your deck and sit back so you can 'take apart the combo'. if you do that you will not play your game and you are just sitting and waiting to draw a card. you do that and i will just respond to you drawing by playing something that will let me draw (my deck list is set up that way)

Obsession 1(s)
Neurosis 4
Greed 6 (s)
Elitism 1
Violence 1
Exploitation 4

Resources 17

Dwarvish Grimalkin 4
Barbaric Rifleman 2
Ingenious Tinker 2
Rummaging Millipede 2

Characters 10

Meat of the Mountain 4
Crest of Greed 4
Crest of Obsession 4

Items 12

Cash Out 4
Foment 4
Manifest 4
Brainbath 4
Inhibit 4
Essence of Greed 4
Obsessive Compulsion 4
Voidal Replication 3
Writ of Reclamation 3
Reality Shift 2

Tactics 36

play this build. this list will let you win turn 1-3 without having to wait a turn so i can attack. it wins NOW. the big deal is not that it wins so fast (although that is a problem) it is that when it 'goes off' it takes 30 min to play it out. it is boring to play and even worse to just sit and watch.

Sabash

11-23-2010, 06:41 AM

I agree that in general metagames can adjust to cards and strategies, but this is a special type. It's a combo that is extremely powerful when it's used, it's hard to disrupt, it wins the game nearly automatically, etc.....that's the time when it's good to consider banning.

I think "it's hard to disrupt" is untrue. And that's why I think meta can handle it, which makes it not a special type in my opinion.

ok let me explain why meat (yes just meat) is so broken.
first find any and all 0 and 1 cost banker and archanist cards that let you draw. no you dont want any that cost over 1 unless they flip-up for 0 or 1.

And given that sort of deck design, when you disrupt it your opponent is dead in the water. If all they've got is the sort of 0 and 1 cost crap suggested you're going to walk all over them once you disrupt them.

I'm willing to concede that I could be totally wrong. But I think LSG is right...wait a while. See what happens. Then make a decision.

tgrtrax

11-23-2010, 08:26 AM

@sabash: i think now that you are right. we should wait until we see just what the deck is going to do. i say we wait until after next gencon. yeah that way i can play it in some big tournaments.
thank you

joshlytle

11-23-2010, 09:29 AM

I think "it's hard to disrupt" is untrue.

Well, can you start talking about all the ways to disrupt it?

Bizze

11-23-2010, 10:30 AM

Given the size of the Spoils player base, I think we owe it to the game to prevent decks that work in the way of the Meat of Mountain build.

Spoils is supposed to be an intelligent game with lots of strategic and tactcial choices and great game mechanics (and a fun game too). I don't think decks that FTK or OTK consistently and without an elaborate setup should exist in any card game. It is purely destructive for the game. I don't care how creative the first player that found the combo was or how much work has been put into perfecting the build, it is still damaging to the meta and the game as a whole.

Yes, it is possible to disrupt the combo, but can you disrupt it consistently? Does it mean that the only way to have a 50/50 or better chance of beating Meat of Mountain is by including so many anti-combo (anti-meta) cards that any other deck theme is void?

Having one superior deck alternative with such a fast engine that doesn't care what the opponent does ruins the game. Even in the presence of anti-meta builds, it doesn't create diversity, it ultimately just creates a luck-based meta where the player with the best hand (or who wins the die roll) will win first.

I have seen this in YGO and in YGO they ban the cards that create FTK decks with few combo pieces. We should too (or errata).

tgrtrax

11-23-2010, 12:32 PM

finally someone understands...say bizze build the deck and play it some. this thing is fast (turns) and slow (doing your turn).

Hordak

11-24-2010, 07:11 AM

Several trades have Item destruction/removal, Rogue has theft and card prevention, Watchtower takes care of cheap characters (except grimalkin @ 5G), Arcanist can force discard, Banker has drawing power of its own, Elitism has search and lots of item removal and can combo with the other trades to find your solution(s).

Honestly, what happens if you get Degenerate Molestationed after you draw your deck? How would you deal with that?

EDIT: Grimalkin seems like a special case because he enters and exits play before one can deal with him, but he also puts all of your eggs in one basket. The theory of doing this on turn 1 or turn 2 seems ludicrous... you'd have ~30 cards in your hand and the rest resources which sounds dangerous, but you haven't made your opponent bounce anything or discard anything and now you lack the ability to through Meat; if you've drawn your deck, now your opponent is the only one with the power to draw and theoretically do bad things to you.

tgrtrax

11-24-2010, 07:27 AM

Sabash

11-24-2010, 07:49 AM

Here's an idea...have tournaments to decide the fate of the card.

Each player either builds a Meat of the Mountain abuse deck or a deck designed to beat Meat of the Mountain. So it's Meat of the Mountain vs. Anti-Meat of the Mountain.

If Meat consistently beats Anti-Meat, you ban the card or errata it or whatever.
If Anti-Meat consistently beats Meat, you leave the card alone.
I'm sure you can come up with some effective method of determining whether the results of the tournament support one argument over the other.

Schedule the tournaments a couple months out...sometime after the new year...so everyone has time to perfect their strategies.

I mean...we're all hurting for tournaments anyway...seems like a win-win to me.

Anders Møller

11-24-2010, 08:01 AM

I approve of this idea. :)

Bizze

11-24-2010, 08:19 AM

@Sabash: When you enter a tournament, do you want to face many different types of decks or just one of two possible designs?

A tournament such as the one you propose would probably not help much. If you pitch a Broken Mountain deck versus an anti-meta build, the anti-meta has a good chance of winning (perhaps even very good, I can't say), but it would probably be utterly destroyed if different deck strategies were included in the tournament as the meta then becomes heterogeneous and very hard to counter. That would mean that only a few anti-meta builds (if any) would reach the top and more Broken Mountain decks in the top would mean they would have a higher chance of winning the tournament (the other deck strategies will be crushed if facing a Broken Mountain build).

In other words: A test tournament with only one or the other deck type would not show conclusively how strong Broken Mountain is. Such powerful decks as we discuss here will always have a higher chance of winning in the end, even when anti-meta builds exist.

That is why broken cards should be banned.

Hordak

11-24-2010, 09:28 AM

the way i deal with all of the above, especally degenerate molestation is win by turn 3. oh and watchtower gets bounced then discarded. you can have all the removal you want but it will not help when i am discarding your hand and bouncing everything you have by turn 3 then playing reality shift combo for the win. it is just tough to beat. and boring.

That just doesn't work... at least not the way you are asserting it. Even with Grimalkin and 5 thresh, you can only perform 2 operations and only 1 of them can be to bounce something and you can't bounce and discard off the same Grimalkin.

Honestly I think you are exaggerating greatly when you say that you can win on turn 3 with any level of consistency and you are just incorrect about being able to bounce everything I have in play and discard my whole hand by that time. That would require a minimum of 9 separate card draws by you not counting any bounces you'd need for your own cards to use them again AND assuming I draw no cards.

EDIT: Why is this different from Schproingmajig? If you don't have an immediate way to kill him, it's probably game over which is what is being said about this deck.

Strmtrpr81

11-24-2010, 10:06 AM

Atleast EO required a decent pilot, a monkey could play the MotM deck as proven by the Team Hopper guys.

I find this funny as your taking a shot at Hopper guys, yet you have zero success with the spoils...you never amounted to anything in any spoils tournament...yet..you claim your so great.

Oneyus

11-24-2010, 10:40 AM

Hordak

11-24-2010, 10:48 AM

I don't see how you can get grimalkin to go off on turn 1 with the process described on page 3 of this thread.

start the game with 1 O and 1 G.
play exploitation bringing me to 3 G (this step could be a crest of greed)
play crest for arcanist bringing me to 3 O (this step could be a 1 O staple)
attach 2 of my 3 resources to play MotM
play cash out - draw
put token on MotM - draw 2 bottom deck 1(Does drawing here trigger a token addition or removal?)
play cash out - draw
put token on MotM - bounce something
play foment (using example given) bounce a resource, play a resource, draw
put token on MotM

At this point I would have to have exploitation to get the 5G necessary for Grimalkin (the example says just to play a resource, but this is the only way you could have 5g)

Lets say I do have the exploitation necessary for this to go off.
At this point I have 2 unattached resources in play.
I attach 1 and play grimalkin and start the loop.
which means I have only 1 unattached resource.
I will only have 1 unattached resource at any point in this loop during turn one as described.

How is it possible to play any of the cards mentioned for the first turn kill when you only have 1 unattached resource?

Well, that loop is dangerous in and of itself - having ~30 resources and ~30 cards in hand on turn 2 could let you have an insurmountable advantage... That said I have a deck that wins on turn 1 as well, but it's equally unlikely to go off without a hitch.

What I really object to about this being so broken is the, "...and there's nothing you can do about it", claim that's being made. I'm just not sure that I buy it. I intend to build a MotM deck to try it out and will reserve final judgement for that, but whatever broken thing I'm not seeing is certainly not being explained very well.

Sabash

11-24-2010, 11:31 AM

@Sabash: When you enter a tournament, do you want to face many different types of decks or just one of two possible designs?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Broken Mountain players should only play against Anti-Mountain decks (and vice versa) in the tournament. At the end, maybe, to determine a winner, the players with the highest win/loss in each camp face each other.

Victory in the tournament is just a sideshow, though. The real thing we're going for is stats, here. What is the overall win percentage of Meat vs. Anti-Meat?

A tournament such as the one you propose would probably not help much. If you pitch a Broken Mountain deck versus an anti-meta build, the anti-meta has a good chance of winning (perhaps even very good, I can't say), but it would probably be utterly destroyed if different deck strategies were included in the tournament as the meta then becomes heterogeneous and very hard to counter.

Sounds a lot like you're saying Rock should be banned because even though Paper beats Rock, Scissors beat Paper but are themselves beaten by Rock.

I'm of the opinion that if Mountain is capable of being consistently defeated by some other archetype (or even by additions/modifications to existing archetypes), people will be less likely to play Mountain at competitive levels because if they come up against one deck that is able to handle them in the finals they're pretty much done for.

Sounds like the definition of the meta handling things, to me, just accelerated by everyone seeing, all at once, whether Mountain is as tough as it seems.

Besides...even if all we get out of this idea is a tournament we can all enjoy, I'll be happy.

Brad Meine

11-24-2010, 11:41 AM

yet you have zero success with the spoils...you never amounted to anything in any spoils tournament
You dropped this "bomb" earlier in the week. I'm not really certain where this is coming from and repeating it to yourself over and over will not make it true. You're very much mistaken.

But it's not important because the topic here is Meat of the Mountain.

Strmtrpr81

11-24-2010, 12:28 PM

Well, that loop is dangerous in and of itself - having ~30 resources and ~30 cards in hand on turn 2 could let you have an insurmountable advantage... That said I have a deck that wins on turn 1 as well, but it's equally unlikely to go off without a hitch.

What I really object to about this being so broken is the, "...and there's nothing you can do about it", claim that's being made. I'm just not sure that I buy it. I intend to build a MotM deck to try it out and will reserve final judgement for that, but whatever broken thing I'm not seeing is certainly not being explained very well.

I don't think that this whole situation is exactly "Broken" but more of a "Turn-off" to playing. When the combo starts (and if you cant disrupt it) it takes a while to actually go through the motions to complete it.

Also, if someone who is new to the game or interested in getting into the game and sees this happening ... Do you really think they are going to be like...AWESOME!! That looks like so much fun!!

I feel that its a bad image for the game, as opposed to a "Broken" combo

tgrtrax

11-24-2010, 01:36 PM

Strmtrpr81 is correct. the combo is not why EO was banned it was because it was an 'unfun experience'. it is not that the deck can or cant be beaten, it just sucks to play and to play against. that is why my guys will not play against it anymore.
also look at post 27 i will try to clean it up for you so you can see what is going on step by step. what i discribe has happened quite a few times and if you get acceleration for turn 2 then all the better.

Bizze

11-24-2010, 02:18 PM

Sounds a lot like you're saying Rock should be banned because even though Paper beats Rock, Scissors beat Paper but are themselves beaten by Rock.

I'm of the opinion that if Mountain is capable of being consistently defeated by some other archetype (or even by additions/modifications to existing archetypes), people will be less likely to play Mountain at competitive levels because if they come up against one deck that is able to handle them in the finals they're pretty much done for.

Yeah, I hear you, but the question is if enough modifications can be done to existing deck types to be able to handle Mountain without going straight anti-meta.

But as other people has said here, it is not only a "broken deck metagame call", it is also the fact that the Mountain player will play his/her loop for 30 minutes. Decks that create such loops are not good for the game. If said decks can setup in turn 1-3 consistently too, that is (in my opinion) call for a ban.

Strmtrpr81

11-24-2010, 03:44 PM

You dropped this "bomb" earlier in the week. I'm not really certain where this is coming from and repeating it to yourself over and over will not make it true. You're very much mistaken.

But it's not important because the topic here is Meat of the Mountain.

LOL....Ha Ha Ha...hah....hahahaha.. Ha

Brad Meine

11-24-2010, 04:34 PM

What's so funny?

Hans

11-24-2010, 06:29 PM

Hey fellow Spoils lovers,
I have been tuning the MotM deck since august, so i know what i am talking about.
It takes a while to see all the tricks you can do with it and everybody who doesn´t believe that it is capable of consistent t1 kills, hasn´t played a good player with a very good build yet.
Tonight i played 3 games with it and won all of them on t1. Then we decided to play some real spoils again...

But it doesnt even matter how consistent and early MotM goes off. What is totally unacceptable about the deck, is that one player gets to play all cards in his deck taking 20-30 minutes, while the other player doesnt get to play our awesome game at all. This is not how the game is supposed to work. This game normally is about a lot of strategic decisions and good responses to opposing plays. The MotM solo experience would turn players away from the game. We all don´t want that.

We don´t need an errataed version of the card. It doesnt matter that we lose 1 card for tournament play. Just ban it.

Then everybody can stop gold fishing their MotM decks, and go out to show the spoils to somebody new instead.
;)

H4n5

kallisti

11-24-2010, 06:39 PM

We don´t need an errataed version of the card. It doesnt matter that we lose 1 card for tournament play. Just ban it.

Is MotM broken without Grimalkin? Would allowing either card in your deck but not both fix things?

Tanek

11-24-2010, 08:53 PM

restrict it

joshlytle

11-24-2010, 10:52 PM

I don't think we're going to ban the combo, or restrict it. The reason for not wanting to ban a combo is that it sets a bad precedence. It's easier to just have a list of banned cards, but I don't want to go down the path of banning a combination of cards because it's harder to catch and it's a little sloppy.

I don't want to restrict cards because it really doesn't address the issue. Now any deck with Banker will just have this one card that if drawn or tutored for, the game ends. That still sucks.

Banning is a simple option. It's the most elegant. What would you all think if we just did that?

Brad Meine

11-24-2010, 11:43 PM

Banning is a simple option. It's the most elegant. What would you all think if we just did that?
Best course of action.

Bizze

11-25-2010, 12:49 AM

I also think it's for the best to ban it.

malz77

11-25-2010, 12:49 AM

ban it!

grobi

11-25-2010, 03:41 AM

Voting for a ban of MotM - even without Grimalkin it can be very abusive with loads of cheap draw spells.

Lekkit

11-25-2010, 05:32 AM

I wouldn't hate you for doing it.;)

Sigorion

11-25-2010, 05:36 AM

I vote for an errata since that would not make the card entirely worthless to draw from a booster. Even though you technically could play friendly games with banned cards I haven't ever and I suspect I never will.

It's just a dead draw rare card and I know how much it sucks to draw EO from a booster and never be able to use it properly.

tgrtrax

11-25-2010, 05:50 AM

it needs to be banned but something needs to be made to spoof both it and EO in upcoming set/sets.

cidic

11-25-2010, 06:15 AM

it needs to be banned but something needs to be made to spoof both it and EO in upcoming set/sets.
I like this :D

Silverwolf

11-25-2010, 06:21 AM

haoyong

11-25-2010, 06:35 AM

Banned cards are allowed in limited, no?
Yes, they definitely are. The proposal is to ban the card from constructed.

Hordak

11-25-2010, 06:43 AM

Century

11-25-2010, 11:27 AM

Banning is a simple option. It's the most elegant. What would you all think if we just did that?

You know I hate Power Level Errata. I believe that PLE creates an even more negative experience. Building the deck that breaks the clearly broken card you found and you go and play it at a tournament and have a legal deck that does nothing? That's not fun.

joshlytle

11-25-2010, 01:20 PM

Why not just limit each token effect to once per player per turn?

Banning is more elegant in that you are using a hammer which is much easier to understand to the layperson than a dremel. I just worry that all of our problem cards are going to start looking like nails.

I don't take banning lightly. Also, I don't think I've made that many mistakes. In this set, I consciously decided to give you a lot of toys to play with since it had been so long and deck builders were going to be eager for new material. That's why there are many "engine" type cards in the set. I like that we had a chance to have a combo deck that might have been more balanced...but there is just too much that's too good about this one.

I honestly think the game is better off for having tried to live on the edge, than if we had been too timid to approach it.

Sigorion

11-25-2010, 03:42 PM

Living on the edge is awesome. That is one of the best things about the spoils, in my opinion. Keep at it!

In my opinion "just" banning a card from constructed still severely cripples the cards usage. Sure, I could use it if I manage to draw it while playing a draft or sealed deck tournament, maybe even to a great result, but the card in itself would be worthless to keep after that (not counting in possible sentimental value here).

This card differs (if I understand it right) from Emergency Obfuscation in that EO does what it is meant to do, and that effect is not suited for competitive play, while Meat of the Mountain doesn't just do what it was meant to do.

So I still vote for fixing the card.

Hordak

11-25-2010, 05:14 PM

I don't take banning lightly. Also, I don't think I've made that many mistakes. In this set, I consciously decided to give you a lot of toys to play with since it had been so long and deck builders were going to be eager for new material. That's why there are many "engine" type cards in the set. I like that we had a chance to have a combo deck that might have been more balanced...but there is just too much that's too good about this one.

I honestly think the game is better off for having tried to live on the edge, than if we had been too timid to approach it.

From the perspective of one who wants an interesting game that is always providing a new kind of experience, I agree that it's better to have risked and lost. However, I struggle with that answer because the cards are in a sense a finite resource. A particular set only contains so many, an individual player acquires so many packs. In this case, 1 out of our 110 card set is going to be banned and it's one of the more interesting cards (in my opinion) that feels like it's so close to playable and fair. I'll just quit my bellyaching and deal with it :)

KingOfBadaBing

11-25-2010, 09:36 PM

As I expressed earlier, my vote is for errata. I think the card can easily be modified to still be a useful card in both formats while not being over-powered or fun-killing.

In my opinion, this card differs from E.O. in that you can keep the flavor of the Meat of the Mountain after you errata it, regardless of how you do so. Errata-ing E.O. would have been pretty difficult if you wanted to keep the switch-sides aspect of the card, which was the entire problem, and obviously you do not want to errata a card and give it an entirely different text/flavor.

MotM, on the other hand, can stay very similar to its core concept with just a few tweaks. Errata-ing the card will also prevent dead-pulls in packs, which can be frustrating in itself, as others have mentioned.

TriAdX

11-26-2010, 08:44 AM

Just a minor fix. Don't BAN IT.. then we become Yu Gi Oh.

Brad Meine

11-26-2010, 12:45 PM

Just a minor fix. Don't BAN IT.. then we become Yu Gi Oh.
We could only dream of being Yugioh.

Bizze

11-26-2010, 01:00 PM

Let's just release a Spoils anime, then we could become Yu-gi-oh! ^_^

Wiatrogon

11-26-2010, 03:38 PM

vacarsu

11-26-2010, 09:20 PM

Damn! I lost the game...

Hordak

11-27-2010, 08:24 AM

Imho, banning MoM should be considered only if this combo dominates the meta. As far as I remember one of the main ideas of The Game (I've just lost), was never banning cards. But on the other hand doing nothing with this card would be just wrong. Nerf it, I'll play it anyway :)

I think this would absolutely dominate the meta... the thing is, a lot of people like winning more than they like to play interesting decks.

Matthera184

11-27-2010, 03:39 PM

My vote goes to errata. Make it once per turn, per effect, per player.

bomber

11-27-2010, 10:13 PM

restricting the abilty to return a character or location to hand to just an opponents would suffice

vacarsu

11-27-2010, 11:18 PM

it seems this topic keeps going hot and cold,first for ban. Now for errata. Although, I vote for errata because it would be easy to keep the original flavor. Banning would just be a dead card.

tgrtrax

11-28-2010, 06:56 PM

again EO was very erratable. 'if this card leaves play remove it from the game'. it became a dead card so why should a card that is just as 'no fun to play against' not be banned?

i was playing on OCTGN a few days ago and wanted to let people get a chance to play a meat deck. i got a taker and played, i went off first turn then he told me he was a new player. i told him i was gonna just play my deck out and win that turn. he asked me if i had another deck and we played again and had fun.
his comment about the deck was that it sucked just to sit there and do nothing.
BAN THIS CARD! IT SUCKS!

caveboybc

11-29-2010, 12:04 AM

Some cards are just too awesome...EO and Meat both have great synergy with other cards and I full on believe these were realized in R&D! Maybe, just maybe thes cards were fully intended to be banned in constructed and they were put there as a litmus test for us, the players. Draft and Sealed are entirely different beasts and play out as a testament to player skill. Sure, as contrived, ban Meat in Constructed as long as the mostest funnest aspects of this game are allowed to play all cards in the roster. I wonder if there could ever be a card that is unplayable in Draft or Sealed. For you naysayers that believe it'll be all too easy to Draft a Meat and Grimalkin consider the beauty of ALL games in where ther will always be a 'Luck of the Draw'

:chomp:

Bizze

11-29-2010, 01:39 AM

It's impossible during design to foresee all combinations of cards players will make and this becomes an even harder task as the card pool increases. Some combos are obvious and some are less so. It happens in most card games and since the Spoils has such a small player base in comparison, I'm not surprised this combo was not caught.

blinkkite

11-29-2010, 06:08 AM

Hello all, here is my 2 cents worth.
I am led to believe that I was one of the original founders of the combo, but I'm not here to lay claim to that or whatever. I honestly couldn't care less.

What I am here to say is that the combo is, as mentioned prior, too powerful or disruptive for tournament play. A metagame scenario in which decks become "MotM" or "Anti-MotM" is not a good outcome for the long term health of the wonderful game known as The Spoils. I believe that the reason we are all discussing the power of the combo is because we care about the survival and expansion of the small community which has been forged.

Let us imagine a situation in which the meta became MotM vs Anti-MotM.
In most cases, tournament results would show the following:
MotM decks often win against non-Anti-MotM decks.
Anti-MotM decks often win against MotM decks.
Regular decks often win against Anti-MotM decks.
A Rock-Paper-Scissors situation where the result of the match is almost determined by the matchup is absurd. In the RPS scenario, the deck that came up against it's good matchup the most would win the day.

In the case of MotM mirrors, the game would become almost entirely based on the die roll. This is a problematic situation, as it degrades the quality of the gaming experience during Spoils tournament play.

For my stance on the ban, leave as is or errata decision, I would definately go for the errata option. Leaving the card as is would be harmful to the game as any competitive event would degenerate into the RPS scenario. Banning the card is also not a great option, as people who open packs and find a MotM will feel ripped off as they discover their card shall never see the light of tournament play.

In addition, the card itself has several options of erratum available, such as the Resource entering play attached clause being added, or altering the bounce option to "Opponents character or location". Similar to the Apt Elf infinite loop, a simple erratum allows the card to function as intended whilst simultaneously reaching a solution to a known problem. This results in less damage upon the Spoils Tournament Experience.

For those who have stated that the combo is not powerful, or would like to see how it fares in tournament play, be assured that in mock tournament play, the MotM deck I constructed, dare I say any half decent MotM deck anyone constructed, would remain undefeated against anything short of a deck full of item removal or hand disruption.

In response to the claims of allowing it to fare in tournament play, I am sure that the single tournament it would inevitably win would cause frustration, disappointment, and disillusionment in the game, and damage the player base which is still in it's infancy (relative to other games). For the game to grow strong and rise in popularity, there needs to be a swift response to the issue in regards to MotM, in order to ensure that players new to tournaments are not utterly annhilated by a combo can happen as early as turn 1, but takes up to 10 minutes to fully complete. This is not a positive experience; watching your opponent play solitaire is hardly what I would call enjoyable.

Hopefully ,this issue will be dealt with effectively and with the long term survival of the game in mind.

blinkkite

Plague

11-30-2010, 03:23 PM

1) Do nothing
The combo is good but you can handle it.

blinkkite

11-30-2010, 04:09 PM

@Plague

Have you actually played against a decent version of this deck? (That is without packing at least 12 hate cards and aggressively trying to find them)

Hordak

11-30-2010, 05:41 PM

Yeah I think without playing against it, you don't know what you're asserting. I built a deck just to prove to myself that it was disruptable, but I ended up a believer. First turn 50%+ after 20 test draws. There is almost no way to stop it; delay it maybe, but not stop it.

joshlytle

11-30-2010, 06:34 PM

I'm thinking about banning it. It's not official yet, but now is your last chance to make your case.

Hordak

11-30-2010, 07:49 PM

I'd be curious why you think unilaterally banning it is better than errata'ing in one of the ways suggested. Restating the case for errata seems superfluous, but just in case...

It wouldn't be a dead card in a pack. We still get an interesting rare albeit not abusable. Assuming one does not pay attention to the banned/errata lists and shows up to a tournament with a deck, it becomes far less powerful as opposed to illegal.

kallisti

11-30-2010, 07:57 PM

I'd be curious why you think unilaterally banning it is better than errata'ing in one of the ways suggested.

I haven't yet heard a good way to errata it. I don't think there is one in this case. A good errata would rarely make a difference unless you're trying to abuse the card. An example is EO's proposed errata (RFG when leaving play). This would almost never make a difference during normal play.

By contrast, all the proposed errata here would often make a difference in normal play.

Hordak

11-30-2010, 08:27 PM

Each effect once per player per turn wouldn't make much of a difference in normal play. In the case of Meat, what is normal play even defined as?

kallisti

11-30-2010, 08:30 PM

Each effect once per player per turn wouldn't make much of a difference in normal play. In the case of Meat, what is normal play even defined as?

Sure it would, since players often draw more than 1 card per turn, thanks to the faction ability.

Hordak

11-30-2010, 08:33 PM

Sure it would, since players often draw more than 1 card per turn, thanks to the faction ability.

You haven't defined normal play though. Drawing 4 times allows you to run the gamut of effects once. More than that is probably uncommon at best.

kallisti

11-30-2010, 08:44 PM

You haven't defined normal play though. Drawing 4 times allows you to run the gamut of effects once. More than that is probably uncommon at best.

But it only takes 2 to make a difference.

Plague

12-01-2010, 01:51 AM

even after your comments i say

1) do nothing

Play around it.

that's all for me over an out.

blinkkite

12-01-2010, 02:16 AM

TriAdX

12-01-2010, 06:28 AM

Personally I like either of the 1st two options. I do NOT like the "each ability once per turn".. it's just too much to keep track of.

La_Sin_Grail

12-01-2010, 07:16 AM

If Hans is completely adamant that this combo needs to be banned, that's good enough for me. He's one of the few people who has a competitive playgroup to play with and the raw skill to have built good enough hate decks. If Hans and his crew can't hate it out.... well I guess we have to blow up that mountain.

lowercase

12-01-2010, 10:17 AM

well I guess we have to blow up that mountain.
...I see what you did there.

And i also agree that we should maybe errata it using choices 1 or 2 posted above. I think they will really make the card a lot more balanced.

joshlytle

12-01-2010, 11:15 AM

@joshlytle

Like Hordak, I don't see why you would ban the card without considering the much more pack friendly and overall better option of erratum. Whilst a ban is clearly better than allowing the combo to exist, it is far inferior to possible erratum.

If suggestions are required, here are a few from within this thread, all of which solve the problem.

1. Add the clause "Attach that resource to that player's faction" to "That player may play a resource". This solves the DG + MotM loop.

2. Change the clause "That player may pick a character or location" to "That player may pick an opponent's character or location". This solves the DG + MotM loop, but does prevent neat things from happening (Bouncing characters that do stuff when they enter play, bouncing a damaged location).

3. Add the clause "Each player may trigger each effect once each turn". This prevents the DG + MotM loop, but severely limits the actual options offered to each player.

Here are a few primary reason errata isn't a good option:

1) The errata functionally changes the card. That means the text on it doesn't work the way it says it does. At times when we've errata'd cards in the past it was not to fundamentally change the card; it was merely to fix some minor confusion with some edge case in the rules. Outright changing the card is confusing, and can lead to a potentially horrible experience for the ignorant player. It's far easier to communicate a card is banned, and therefore just can't be used.

2) Errata to change the power level of a card is a bad precedence. It's very easy to do, and quickly makes the game not exist on the cards. I'd rather ban a card rarely if something is messed up than have an ever growing list of functional errata that players have to remember.

3) Getting the card in a pack isn't *that* big a deal. There are plenty of rares many players might consider useless, and this card just fits right into that pile. It might even have novelty as a collectible since it's banned (e.g. I choose to collect as many of them as possible for fun).

kallisti

12-01-2010, 12:17 PM

bigwillbigwill

12-01-2010, 12:35 PM

@ Kallisti
Eratta on DG wont fix the MotM issue. I originally played DG as one trigger and it was just as nasty and the same consistency it just didnt get redonkulous as fast. That is to say it gave the opponent more false hope beacuse it looked like you could sputter out (you rarely did) and required more skill to win on turn 1.

As much as I dont want to blank 1 of the 50 rares in seed 2, I have been pushing to ban this card for months because it is so broken and hard to disrupt.

blinkkite

12-01-2010, 10:30 PM

@Joshlytle

1) The errata functionally changes the card. That means the text on it doesn't work the way it says it does. At times when we've errata'd cards in the past it was not to fundamentally change the card; it was merely to fix some minor confusion with some edge case in the rules. Outright changing the card is confusing, and can lead to a potentially horrible experience for the ignorant player. It's far easier to communicate a card is banned, and therefore just can't be used.

2) Errata to change the power level of a card is a bad precedence. It's very easy to do, and quickly makes the game not exist on the cards. I'd rather ban a card rarely if something is messed up than have an ever growing list of functional errata that players have to remember.

Isn't this situation very similar to the manner in which 4p7 31f was errated?

Official erratum which you posted in 2007:

4p7 31f

This card was worded in a way that allowed it to be abused in an unintended way. We've fixed the wording to make it more clear now and eliminate the infinite loop with Tri-Pole Magnet.

Apart from the fact that MotM would need to be changed more than 4p7 31f, I fail to see how these two situations are very different.

KingOfBadaBing

12-01-2010, 11:25 PM

Here are a few primary reason errata isn't a good option:

1) The errata functionally changes the card. That means the text on it doesn't work the way it says it does. At times when we've errata'd cards in the past it was not to fundamentally change the card; it was merely to fix some minor confusion with some edge case in the rules. Outright changing the card is confusing, and can lead to a potentially horrible experience for the ignorant player. It's far easier to communicate a card is banned, and therefore just can't be used.

2) Errata to change the power level of a card is a bad precedence. It's very easy to do, and quickly makes the game not exist on the cards. I'd rather ban a card rarely if something is messed up than have an ever growing list of functional errata that players have to remember.

3) Getting the card in a pack isn't *that* big a deal. There are plenty of rares many players might consider useless, and this card just fits right into that pile. It might even have novelty as a collectible since it's banned (e.g. I choose to collect as many of them as possible for fun).

If these all are true then what was the point of asking the community? It seems then the question becomes "ban or no ban" rather than "ban, errata, or no ban."

Also, I do not see how it is easier to communicate that a card is banned rather than errata'd. The methods that would be used to note a card is banned (posting here, update on the set spoilers, word of mouth) are the same methods that would be used to communicate a card is errata'd. The only additional step is explaining the errata.

As for point #2, players will have to remember banned cards as well, which can present the same difficulty as remembering errata'd cards.

One option, which I recently discovered, is the way Call of Cthulhu CCG handles bans and erratas.

A problem card is banned until it is reprinted. The reprint is available in newer printings of the set it originally came in OR by players mailing in the old versions to replaced with new versions. This makes it so that a card is only ever banned for a particular period of time and all players will have access to the correct version.

Obviously I have no idea how viable an option this is giving the current state of The Spoils but it is a pretty respectable consideration and it makes a lot of sense.

Bizze

12-02-2010, 05:25 AM

The Call of Cthulu method seems really smart.

Hordak

12-02-2010, 06:43 AM

The problem isn't really Meat per se, it's the ability to generate 2 Draw events for 1 card and 1 resource. Maybe you shouldn't print cards that can do that! :p

kallisti

12-02-2010, 07:21 AM

@ Kallisti
Eratta on DG wont fix the MotM issue. I originally played DG as one trigger and it was just as nasty and the same consistency it just didnt get redonkulous as fast. That is to say it gave the opponent more false hope beacuse it looked like you could sputter out (you rarely did) and required more skill to win on turn 1.

The problem isn't really Meat per se, it's the ability to generate 2 Draw events for 1 card and 1 resource. Maybe you shouldn't print cards that can do that! :p

So which is it? Is Meat.dec broken with a 1 draw event Grimalkin or not? If not, errataing Grimalkin could work.

Hordak

12-02-2010, 07:33 AM

I was being glib. Haruspex is incredibly nasty with the combo as well even if it's not infinite. It would not fix the problem and put a permanent design constraint on the game (or at least as long as Meat is legal).

TriAdX

12-02-2010, 07:39 AM

You if you ban/errata a card, you ban/errata the card that hurts the game in the long run. I dont think Grimalkin does.. I think Meat does. Meat limits Characters with Draw. Also could enable future combos more easily then Grimalkin.

I seriously think that the errata on meat of attach the resource or bounce an opponents (or both) would be the best option.

I do however understand the hesitation.. You dont want to open pandoras box.. But if you look at magic... they have errata that completely change the card (look at time vault, it's been through like 5 versions)... and I think it works for them. CCG players have accepted that after years of a game being out.. not every combination can be accounted for and having the ability to functionally change a card through errata allows for a more liquid design space. Again.. this is just my opinion. IF RnD was able to see every combination 99.99% of the time (1 broken card per 10,000) then i could see just flat out banning it. I dont see that happening.. Over time there will be more issues and Cards that previously existed will need to be banned or receive errata. I think I would rather allow for pushing the boundries of card design and then when something eventually comes up... then slighty adjust the "broken" card to fix the new issue...

The REAL problem with this current issue is that the cards WERE IN THE SAME SET!!!!!!!!!!! I will chalk this up to the change from :chomp: to :tm:

:D

La_Sin_Grail

12-02-2010, 07:59 AM

TriAdX

12-02-2010, 08:01 AM

errata is being issued only for cards printed a long time ago

This is a fair statement.

joshlytle

12-02-2010, 12:13 PM

I will say that in most games, errata is being issued only for cards printed a long time ago, like the above example of time vault from magic. Spoils isn't an old game, and it seems relatively normal to believe a card printed recently should work as it looks like it does. IMO, ban it!

Magic only changed such old cards because they have totally revamped their rules system multiple times, thus making old cards simply not work. We don't have any such need in The Spoils. Besides, Time Vault didn't REALLY get functionally changed...they changed the mechanics of how it worked but ultimately it was meant to do the same thing. I know that it can now combo with different cards than it used to, but that's just how it shook out. They didn't change it so say "Timetwister" instead of "Timewalk" when used.

TriAdX

12-02-2010, 12:56 PM

They didn't change it so say "Timetwister" instead of "Timewalk" when used.

What?

I assume you are saying that they didnt change Timetwister to do something totally different like "take and extra turn"?

And actually.. Time vault specifically.. they changed because of a specific combo. There are others that they did the same thing, However, you are correct that a LOT of the errata are to fix rules changes.

Again.. I think the real answer... more playtesting of new sets.

Magic has rules and such for card designing that help keep cards from breaking the template. Maybe the R&D for spoils can spend some time and try to set up a system that will naturally keep cards in check so that they dont have to always try to see every combination of cards. Regardless of what you set up you will always have a few that slip through but again.. 2 card combo this broken in the same set... What's going to happen when we are 10 sets deep?

joshlytle

12-02-2010, 02:30 PM

I assume you are saying that they didnt change Timetwister to do something totally different like "take and extra turn"?

No, I am saying that Time Vault still provides an extra turn. They errata'd it to use tokens instead of tapping, at one point, which functionally changed how it accomplished its goal...but it's goaled remained the same. Errata'ing Meat of the Mountain to make one of the abilities do something entirely different would be like changing Time Vault to cause the effect of Timetwister when used, instead of Time Walk.

And actually.. Time vault specifically.. they changed because of a specific combo. There are others that they did the same thing, However, you are correct that a LOT of the errata are to fix rules changes.

What's your source? I know that this was a rumor, and admittedly I haven't kept up with any new errata to Time Vault over the past couple years. I'm curious which combo you're referring to and if this is your analysis, or if you're referring to an article published on the subject. This is just my curiosity, and the fact I'd like a refresher on this old topic. :)

Again.. I think the real answer... more playtesting of new sets.
Who would have thought play testing was the answer?:rolleyes: Sorry to be so flip, but obviously play testing is important. It's also incorrect to assume that more play testing = no mistakes. To be perfectly frank, we're doing a job with the tools available and ultimately having to ban this card isn't the end of the world. As I've said before I'd rather live on the edge and make an occasional mistake than wrongly assume that more thought will lead to no mistakes.

Magic has rules and such for card designing that help keep cards from breaking the template. Maybe the R&D for spoils can spend some time and try to set up a system that will naturally keep cards in check so that they dont have to always try to see every combination of cards. Regardless of what you set up you will always have a few that slip through but again.. 2 card combo this broken in the same set... What's going to happen when we are 10 sets deep?

We already have such systems. The Spoils has been built upon the success of MTG, with all lessons learned in their process being our starting point. We have since developed certain techniques that are far more effective than MTG's processes.

Going into this set specifically, I knew we'd be risking this type of mistake. To again be perfectly honest, this type of mistake is far less important now than it would have been several years ago. We're not running a giant money tournament. We're focusing more on local play and encouraging casual play.

It would have cost far more to try and avoid this, and ultimately the set would have suffered. We simply optimized the equation given the resources we had and took necessary risks while doing this. I stand by the techniques being used...they are far more effective than might be immediately apparent.

I hope I don't offend you with my frank reply. I just want it to be understood the decisions being made are complex and that Captain Hindsighting the process doesn't add any value. You can always say more could have been done.

joshlytle

12-02-2010, 02:37 PM

If these all are true then what was the point of asking the community? It seems then the question becomes "ban or no ban" rather than "ban, errata, or no ban."

Some of my thoughts and conclusions were inspired from the discussion. Also, the discussion acted as a refresher course for both me and the community on the pros and cons of these options, as well as the ways we have dealt with this in the past that may have been forgotten.

I also think it's better for the whole process to be a dialog. Ultimately we're going to have to make the call on our end factoring in all the considerations. But discussing it openly I hope makes the reasoning for the final decision clear. My reasoning is consistent with the spirit of The Spoils, and I like keeping things consistent.

TriAdX

12-02-2010, 02:42 PM

Who would have thought play testing was the answer?:rolleyes: Sorry to be so flip, but obviously play testing is important. It's also incorrect to assume that more play testing = no mistakes. To be perfectly frank, we're doing a job with the tools available and ultimately having to ban this card isn't the end of the world. As I've said before I'd rather live on the edge and make an occasional mistake than wrongly assume that more thought will lead to no mistakes.

We already have such systems. The Spoils has been built upon the success of MTG, with all lessons learned in their process being our starting point. We have since developed certain techniques that are far more effective than MTG's processes.

Going into this set specifically, I knew we'd be risking this type of mistake. To again be perfectly honest, this type of mistake is far less important now than it would have been several years ago. We're not running a giant money tournament. We're focusing more on local play and encouraging casual play.

It would have cost far more to try and avoid this, and ultimately the set would have suffered. We simply optimized the equation given the resources we had and took necessary risks while doing this. I stand by the techniques being used...they are far more effective than might be immediately apparent.

I hope I don't offend you with my frank reply. I just want it to be understood the decisions being made are complex and that Captain Hindsighting the process doesn't add any value. You can always say more could have been done.

Well put.. With all of that being said.. Looks like it should be banned.. But Like someone else said, Why even ask the community if in the back of your mind you know that you just need to ban it?

What kind of errata on MOTM do you think would keep it functionally how it was inteded to be without allowing for the brokenness?

Is it even possible to errata it within the rules you have set forth? If not.. then the answer is obvious.. ban it.

I am not easily offended and I would rather you be frank. :-)

joshlytle

12-02-2010, 03:22 PM

Well, I just replied above as to why I opened the discussion with the community. Also, I had envisioned errata that would be a good compromise: limit the trigger to once a turn. By doing this, we do kill any combo. Honestly, if I hadn't screwed up I would have added this clause from the beginning.

It would allow the card to do what it says for the most part, but kill the combo. It would still suck, but at least this would be the least sucky way to errata.

KingOfBadaBing

12-02-2010, 03:28 PM

Some of my thoughts and conclusions were inspired from the discussion. Also, the discussion acted as a refresher course for both me and the community on the pros and cons of these options, as well as the ways we have dealt with this in the past that may have been forgotten.

I also think it's better for the whole process to be a dialog. Ultimately we're going to have to make the call on our end factoring in all the considerations. But discussing it openly I hope makes the reasoning for the final decision clear. My reasoning is consistent with the spirit of The Spoils, and I like keeping things consistent.

Fair enough. I misinterpreted your post that I quoted above and read it as though these were already factors when you started my thread. My mistake and apologies.

TriAdX

12-02-2010, 03:29 PM

Hmm well.. I see that as being something that might confuse future cards that work similar but you ACTUALLY want to happen multiple times per turn.

Wiatrogon

12-04-2010, 06:38 AM

When will we know what happens with MotM?

Tanek

12-04-2010, 03:28 PM

In two years at the next tournament

TriAdX

12-06-2010, 09:36 AM

Tanek: In two years at the next tournament

Or we can keep a positive outlook...

capdeck

12-07-2010, 11:55 PM

Actually it is a very interesting question: when do the changes come?

We started The Spoils at our store a month ago and people are already worried about Meat of the Mountain. We planned to start constructed play next year, so people could be tempted to build decks that are no fun to play against. Also the same combo could come up in limited play already. We are having drafts and sealed events once to twice a week, so it isn't unlikely that a broken combo spoils all the fun (pun intended ^^).

Asuryan

12-08-2010, 01:24 AM

Agreed, I'd like to see this resolved as soon as possible. We've got our first constructed tourney tomorrow, and I'm just hoping nobody (else) here has Meats.

I don't think it's a problem in draft or sealed.

Hordak

12-08-2010, 07:38 AM

TriAdX

12-08-2010, 08:20 AM

Josh already laid out what the plan is; do your players really need an official article on the issue to refrain from playing with a known broken card?

EDIT: Maybe sarcasm isn't the best tactic there, but we know what the outcome is with MotM so why wreck the tournament experience until something official-looking is published?

I agree here (minus the sarcasm) I would mention to your players that the card is on its way to banning or major errata so suggest that they dont waste time trying to build it because it might get banned tomorrow. This might help curb it. You could also just suggest a local ban on it until we get word.

bumble

12-08-2010, 08:30 PM

17 Dollars........I mean 'Ban it'

Plague

12-09-2010, 12:34 PM

I don't think you should ban the card until after a bigger tournament so we can see if it's the best deck or not.

joshlytle

12-09-2010, 01:46 PM

I don't think you should ban the card until after a bigger tournament so we can see if it's the best deck or not.

The reason we'll ban it before hand is because it's being banned for having an unintended and unfun effect on the game. It has nothing to do with how dominant the decks built around it are. Even if the deck didn't win all the events, it would still be banned due to the fact that the game would be a lot less fun.

It was a mistake, and we're going to correct it.

kallisti

12-09-2010, 01:54 PM

The reason we'll ban it before hand is because it's being banned for having an unintended and unfun effect on the game. It has nothing to do with how dominant the decks built around it are. Even if the deck didn't win all the events, it would still be banned due to the fact that the game would be a lot less fun.

I'm not sure I buy this. If it weren't sufficiently powerful, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Billionaire, Randolph, and Misappropriation Machine combo together to allow you to destroy all your opponent's resources, which I think qualifies and unintended and unfun. No one's talking about banning that combo, because it's not remotely viable.

Plague

12-09-2010, 02:19 PM

Exactly and the WritBile combo is not a fun deck to play against and we are not talking about that and that is also a good deck. I think that WritBile is as boring to play against as the MotM combo so if we are just talking about boring decks to play against then we should talk about the WritBile deck to.

TriAdX

12-09-2010, 02:43 PM

I think the overall idea is to ban a card that enables for an overpowered un fun interaction.

It takes both...
If a combo is completely not viable but completely discouraging to play against.. I dont think a banning is called for..

If a combo is super viable and easy to get but players completely enjoy trying to stop it and it makes for a fun game.. I dont think banning is called for..

its when both interesect that you need to look at it..

Super Viable and completely discouraging to play against is a bad thing.
Bannings!
completely not viable and players completely enjoy it and it makes for a fun game.
Casual Fun Time!!

Plague

12-09-2010, 02:55 PM

So people enjoy the WritBile combo?

La_Sin_Grail

12-09-2010, 05:17 PM

So people enjoy the WritBile combo?

I enjoy playing against writ/bile combo. I don't really like playing it, though. The thing is, once you actually know what's happening, you know how to win and you know when you've lost and can scoop.

I don't think that Josh is worried about combos that take so much to put together that they're allowed to be rigged, just the cheap, efficient ones that actually prevent a reasonable game of the Spoils from being played. Obv, I'm not him, but this position would make sense.

TriAdX

12-09-2010, 10:59 PM

So people enjoy the WritBile combo?
No. People don't. It's not banned because it's not very viable. Remember it takes both to ban.

Plague

12-10-2010, 02:20 AM

I think that the WritBile combo is a viable deck. I think that the MotM deck seems ratter easy to break but you will need item destruction but i don't see that as a problem it's like the combo decks in magic for an example Dredge, Belcher, Ad Nauseam Storm and many many more. With that said my point is that it works there and i enjoy playing there and i have no problem here either we just need to adapt to the new meta and if the deck always win anyway we need to fix the card but not before that.

tgrtrax

12-10-2010, 02:34 AM

ok why was EO banned? cause it was 'an unfun playing exeprience'.
to me this deck is just as 'unfun'. ban the sob before we run off the new players along with any that we may pickup this coming season. if we wait till origins and gencon i will run the deck at both and you can see just how 'unfun' it is to play against.

Plague

12-10-2010, 02:47 AM

I really hope that they will wait until after GenCon so we can see if it is the best or not and then people in my area has more time to build the deck so i can beat them.

Plague

12-10-2010, 02:50 AM

And if players think this should be banned ban it in your stores until after GenCon and then we will know if it will be banned or not. That's my opinion.

joshlytle

12-10-2010, 11:14 PM

And if players think this should be banned ban it in your stores until after GenCon and then we will know if it will be banned or not. That's my opinion.

GenCon is over 8 months away...and I'm pretty sure this issue will be resolved this weekend.

TriAdX

12-10-2010, 11:51 PM

So I found a legit reason to not ban motm.

So tonight I was cracking open my boxes and in my last freaking pack I open up a FOIL .... And its a motm... This means it can not get banned...
:( :D :mad: ;)

La_Sin_Grail

12-11-2010, 11:51 AM

GenCon is over 8 months away...and I'm pretty sure this issue will be resolved this weekend.

If it's resolved this weekend, that means it won't be legal in its current state. Given what Josh feels about errata, this is obviously going to be banned. If it weren't still on the table at Gencon, that would mean it's not still able to be played in its current incarnation.

Plague

12-11-2010, 03:21 PM

Played the deck that was on page 3-4 or something like that and we all tought that the deck was kinda easy to play against.

La_Sin_Grail

12-11-2010, 06:00 PM

Once it gets banned, Hans will probably be happy to divulge his decklist, and then we can see why it really needed banning.

Weesie

12-12-2010, 10:21 AM

Played the deck that was on page 3-4 or something like that and we all tought that the deck was kinda easy to play against.

Agreed, I've play tested a lot recently against 2 different versions of the deck posted here and my playgroup walks all over Meat.

But I've changed my mind about the card being left alone and think it should still be banned. In a local event with say 3-4 rounds and no final it takes a loss and loses out to the more solid build that beat it or didn't even play it going 4-0. The problem comes in when we have big events and half the field is playing meat all of whom are good players. The deck is going to crush lesser players and I don't see a good player beating the odds 7+ times, even if you know how to handle it.

tgrtrax

12-12-2010, 04:49 PM

Matthera184

12-12-2010, 08:45 PM

play it against someone who knows what they are doing and can run the deck correctly. i can and do win turns 1-3 more often than not.
but i may have found its weakness. and it only takes one card. makes me happy. the only thing is that it only slows down the deck not beats it. still working on that.

Quotidian Misfire played in response to DG being played is a low cost, low threshold solution for a turn. Combine that with some tactic recursion and other "stuff" and you've got yourself a deck!

tgrtrax

12-12-2010, 09:18 PM

ok so you do that and i just let my 2 cards go to the yard, then say 'done go' let you do whatever and go off the next turn.
someone made one of those decks to try to beat me and i just waited him out. the thing is that to beat the deck you have to sacrifice winning against other decks. you need to put too much stuff in the deck that are not good otherwise. also the above puts you in purple main and that is just too slow to beat meat.
thanks for playing, next solution.

oh and i had someone else playing meat and tried to beat it with diffrent builds. i still havent come up with a good build to beat it. (but we thing we found something. we just need to build it and playtest it against meat and other decks to see if it has a chance.)

you know what. keep it legal until after gencon and i will clean up. i have a build that can win turn zero against another meat deck.

Terazeal

12-12-2010, 11:01 PM

Asuryan

12-12-2010, 11:56 PM

Why not just errata Dwarvish Grimalkin to read:
[G][G] - When this card enters play, draw a card.
Or
[G][G][G][G][G] - When this card enters play, draw 2 cards.
Or
[G][G][G][G][G][G][G][G][G] - When this card enters play, draw 3 cards.

Unless I'm not getting something, this should fix the problem.
So with 9 threshold, you draw 6 cards when it enters play...?

Terazeal

12-13-2010, 12:37 AM

So with 9 threshold, you draw 6 cards when it enters play...?
Notice the "Or"s.

wormhole surfer

12-13-2010, 08:17 AM

Why not just errata Dwarvish Grimalkin to read:
[G][G] - When this card enters play, draw a card.
Or
[G][G][G][G][G] - When this card enters play, draw 2 cards.
Or
[G][G][G][G][G][G][G][G][G] - When this card enters play, draw 3 cards.

Unless I'm not getting something, this should fix the problem.

hi everyone

i like this reword of dwarvish but we could limit the number of times MOM triggers in a turn for a player

i'd rather one of those 2 ways instead of ban MOM

bigwillbigwill

12-13-2010, 08:22 AM

MotM is still extremely potent without DG. Even if you only got 1 trigger off Meat with the Grimalkin it still allows you to continue digging through your deck and laying resources. I have been pushing for the removal of this card for going on 5 months now. I look forward to seeing what the metagame becomes when this combo is gone.

Asuryan

12-18-2010, 09:27 PM

The banning is now official. (http://www.thespoils.com/spoils/view.php?pg=article_mom_banned)

:)

Plague

12-19-2010, 10:28 AM

It's worthless that you ban the card without seen how it goes in bigger tournaments.

Bizze

12-19-2010, 10:44 AM

It's NOT worthless. It's not just about the bigger tournaments. In the bigger tournaments, there will be good players that may find ways to counter it using dedicated anti-meta decks.

In all other tournaments, MotM decks will win everything and doing so by playing ONE 30 minute turn while new players sit there and wonder what happened to their new and exciting card game.

I think this is the best for the game.

joshlytle

12-19-2010, 03:36 PM

It's worthless that you ban the card without seen how it goes in bigger tournaments.

I've addressed this point a few times already, but I will do so again so it's absolutely clear. This has nothing to do with how the deck will perform in tournament play, or how dominant it will be. There is no need to see "how it does" in this case. The interactions it creates were completely unintentional, are far too powerful in non-fun ways, and would lead to a competitive environment that would not be as fun as I'd like the game to be. It is these reasons that have contributed to the ban.

If you think it's fun to play against an uber powerful deck over and over, attempting to deal with it through a few narrow counter-strategies...then this decision won't be something you'll enjoy. I've played enough MTG environments like this and they are exceedingly frustrating. There is a lot of skill in such environments, but the skill isn't much fun. It involves playing the percentages and maximizing certain obscure advantages...and is not the best way for a game to behave.

Plague

12-19-2010, 03:53 PM

I think that this combo only makes the meta change and thats why i think it's fun even if the combo is boring and if so scoop if you do not have an answer on your hand and spare yourself. And if it's because it's not fun ban the WritBile combo to because it's boring as hell to.

tgrtrax

12-19-2010, 04:48 PM

WritBile will not play one turn for 30-45 min. that is why MoM is banned. the same reason EO was banned...it creates an unfun playing experience. but if you want to come to Megacon, Origins, Gencon or Dragoncon i will show you how unfun it is to play against. i am planning on being at all 4.
thank you

Plague

12-19-2010, 04:57 PM

No im not going to any of those because i live in sweden so it's a bit to far away but i have the deck so give me a decklist i can lend out and play against.

The WritBile deck is still unfun to play against and i did not know that there was som time limit and so that was needed to be forfilled for a deck to be unfun.

Bizze

12-19-2010, 10:55 PM

Linus, you are missing some vital things:

* MotM can go off in turn 1. This essentially means an FTK deck where you have your starting hand plus two resources to respond to it. You may be able to build a dedicated anti-meta deck to counter it, but most decks will lose then and there.

* Writ-Bile steadily climbs towards more resources and higher Influence and when it reaches a certain threshold, it can unleash its combo. But there are several ways of disrupting the combo on the way to it. It never wins turn 1 or even turn 2 or 3. You may be defeated if you're a new player against a Writ-Bile deck as well, but at least you got ample time to do something and after the game you may think about what went wrong and how you can improve against that build-up.