No announcement yet.

ORCs Case Changes

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ORCs Case Changes

    Let's get the thread started ladies and gentlemen...

  • #2
    So far case changes seem pretty weak imo, added a little bias to plaintiff witnesses and added a new witness but that's about it from what I can tell. Gomes seems interesting but feels more like a plaintiff witness?


    • #3
      Tony Gomes sounds like a narc.


      • #4
        First impressions are that Gomes is a pretty great swing. I can see legitimate reasons for both sides to call him. However he's not game changing enough to the point where I can see teams using him much at ORCS (unlike Sam Mitchell last year.) I think polish with existing call orders will be prioritized over having to learn a new witness. I wish he was in the case from the start to be honest.


        • #5
          Case changes have made food and the cat both very viable defense theories (with almost any call). Gomes addresses every key point from both sides (cat, food, training, distance from Elias, the reach, both sides of the guidelines, drinking, etc, it's a long affidavit). I think that alone makes them a strange call, because no matter what your theory is, and no matter what the other side's theory is, everyone is pretty much guaranteed to get their biggest point out. Theories were already moving towards a chicken wings/ reach combo, and these changes have made that hit a lot harder, especially because you can now cross Hawkins on chimpanzee's sense of smell.

          It's also nice that defenses no longer just have a duty to train- because plaintiffs absolutely were not always attacking training, and shouldn't have to.
          Last edited by EgregiousInvention; February 24th, 2019, 10:08 PM.


          • #6
            I concur with RedRupee1 in that Gomes brings an interesting take on the case to the table, but not so interesting so as to match the caliber of a new witness like Sam Mitchell. To be quite honest, I think AMTA did a pretty solid job with the mid-season case changes. Based on the 2018-2019 Case Stats thread's numbers in the tournaments after the changes and before regionals began, there was, ultimately, almost no advantage either one side. Although AMTA's recently released case balance memo presents a slight balance toward P, I don't think that they necessarily WANTED to change the case very much. I think through their relatively small changes to most witnesses, they made more defense theories viable as a means of tipping the balance slightly away from P, but generally, I think that many teams will continue running their same theories that they had perfected and polished by regionals, and that these ORCS changes are largely there just for the sake of having ORCS changes.


            • #7
              I think most middle-of-the-pack programs will stay away from Gomes, but some of the consistent nats competitors with the talent needed for the turnaround time, as well as smaller programs trying to bite off more than they can chew, will take a stab at Gomes. Though I do generally agree that Gomes isn't an "must-have" call by any means like Mitchell was. Gomes (and these case changes as a whole), doesn't really add anything new to the fact pattern, especially where pretty much every witness is viable.

              I do find it interesting that they never ended up changing Grace, instead opting to change the fact pattern around Grace and forcing the witness to react and preempt those changes. I'd be willing to bet that the lack of changes was at least a factor for why teams decided to call Grace less, especially when Clark became viable during the mid-year changes.