Jump to content

Twn2dn

Members
  • Content Count

    1,273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Twn2dn

  1. Guys, I gotta say I'm getting very excited about Red Saturday. Who's with me?! This is the Red Saturday roll call. Post here if you plan to attend!
  2. Traitor said: As a new (to AGOT, though not gaming in general) player who's been lurking for awhile, I have to say that I agree. The tone of the posts lately while I've been lurking have been pretty horrifying. In fact, I'm not sure why I finally decided to make an account today. I've frequented quite a few message boards in my day, but rarely have I seen things as gruesome as that Penfold/Damon thing. Some of the posts on the House of Dreams thread and the Hurricane Sandy thread are are shocking as well. So tell me, as someone looking to get into the community… are people here friends or at least friendly? I'm getting pretty skeptical. The negative posts on this forum are definitely not representative of the community. In fact, having met some of the negative posters I would say it is not really representative of them either. For some reason, these have been more common than normal lately. I suspect it is less about sentiment though and more that actual substantive discussion has been low due to upcoming world's and the typical forum silence that precedes a big event.Also, I think its important to realize that, in the past, these forums were the primary venue for discussions. As options grow, and many of them focused on content (three podcasts, several discussion websites that offer insightful articles, etc), it is natural that this "social center" for the online community will be at times more gossip and less substance.
  3. @Ktom: I typed out a post in response to your most recent response, but the forum software ate it. The basic point, since "TL,DR" are popular these days, was that I agree the environment will evolve the way you described. The one addition I would add though is that I suspect as "NPE builds" emerge, there will be responses to those builds as well. Whether that's new ways to play old cards (S&D, etc.) or future designs that interact with opponents' locations (discard/bounce being the main one). It may even be the case that some HoD decks emerge to combat HoD decks…Tunnels of the Red Keep to combat a Dragonpit-centric deck, for example. Separately, but related, the nice thing about this agenda is that even if certain builds become very strong, they will likely have a significant in-house flavor. Unlike Wildlings/NW, Brotherhood or other neutral builds, this forces an emphasis on in-house mechanics.
  4. Dobbler said: In concept, HoD is a wonderfully inventive idea that I'm sure was intended to open up the metagame for new and inventive decktypes. In design, it ended up as an agenda that will often be used as a "slap" on because 99% of no-agenda decks can add it without thought or modification and it only enhances the deck without a single pretense of drawback. This I agree with, but with two caveats. First, this seems to me a somewhat US-centric meta conclusion. In other words, the agenda will be "slapped" onto existing builds only because the game lacks a critical mass of anti-agenda effects. In metas where NCF, Damon Dance for Me and other anti-agenda effects are more common (read Europe), I will hazard a guess that this agenda will NOT be an auto-include.Second, why is slapping on an agenda always a bad thing. In the first sentence, you suggest that this may open up deck building and make decktypes more inventive. If more options are created by "slapping" an agenda onto a no-agenda build, I vote for the approach that leads to more creative, dynamic and interesting decktypes.
  5. @Ktom, Dobbler: Guys, I think we may just disagree on how we evaluate opportunity costs. My below response is in part due to my stubbornness, but also because I feel this is a worthwhile discussion and appreciate your insights in helping represent player views. First, the opportunity cost of all agendas is NOT the same. That's like saying the opportunity cost of running restricted card X rather than restricted card Y is the same. If I choose to run The White Book or the Night's Watch agendas, then I am giving up the ability to run The Maester's Path or Knights of the Hollow Hill. Whereas I'm not totally convinced that The White Book provides a net advantage over "no agenda," I'm fairly certain that in most cases TMP is better than no agenda. In short, the measure of opportunity cost is a measure of the MAXIMUM benefit that one gives up…otherwise it wouldn't be called a "cost." If you accept that the power level of agendas varies, then I don't understand how you can conclude that the opportunity cost is equal. But if you see all agendas as equals, or if despite their differences you remain unpersuaded that opportunity costs differ, then there's probably not a lot I can do to convince you. We just adhere to a different logic. Second, regarding HoD not having a (sufficient) cost, let me separate out two threads of argument here: 1) There's an assumption by some that HoD has no cost, which is factually inaccurate. However small or insignificant one might feel the cost is, the reality is that HoD has a cost, as others have stated above. Moreover, the card was (presumably) playtested significantly with the existing cardpool and the costs were presumably deemed relevant. Had FFG wanted to add an additional cost, they would have. As it stands, the existing cost was considered sufficient. 2) I think the argument you make, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding, is that having a drawback inherently adds some type of balance, even if that drawback is extremely unlikely to factor into the outcome of the game. I have heard this argument elsewhere, and this in my opinion is a BIG reason why we have many unbalanced/overpowered cards. Event X is balanced simply because someone can cancel it by discarding their hand; location Y is balanced because one can't have neutrals in play at the same time. Such cards are allegedly balanced just because there is a downside printed on the card. I find this argument unpersuasive. As card pools expand, the "downsides" are significantly mitigated…for example, more in-house character options become available so that the "downside" of Bear Island is significantly mitigated. The much better, and in my opinion only, approach to design is to balance a card against how it will most likely to be played and thus how it will impact players and games, NOT how effectively the downside deters someone from playing the card. If a drawback is likely to be relevant only 10% of the time, and the benefit is significant, then the overall environmental impact the card has will ultimately be MUCH bigger than another effect that bestows only a slight advantage and has no downside. In the end, I view HoD as a card that offers an advantage over no agenda but NOT an advantage over running another agenda. In fact, excluding a handful of options, such as Tunnels in Lanni or Dragonpit in Targ, other agenda options will probably make a deck MUCH better. Even if one assumes that new locations may be released that improve the power level of HoD, keep in mind that as more locations are added to the card pool, more plots may be added that remove/impact those locations as well.
  6. (Note: Tried to quote OrangeDragon, but forms conspired against me….) This is an example of what I mean in my above post. You have to look at the "net" advantage you gain from each agenda, and compare HoD against that. Here's my personal comparison (some may disagree)… HoD: Assuming the most expensive card in the game, The Ten Towers, you gain 1x search, 3gold, and immunity of your location of choice the whole game. Against decks without much non-plot location control (most Targ, Lanni, Martell and Bara builds), the immunity means very little, but against Stark and GJ the immunity is potentially very strong, assuming the opponent draws into their location control. The immunity is also ignored by plot effects, so while I feel the immunity is important, I personally feel it will only be a factor in about 20% of games. TMP: Average of 5-6x search effects for non-Martell; average 7-9x links in Martell maesters. The big downside is that you have an auto-loss if you take too long to win (no modified wins/losses), AND you get an auto-loss if your maesters all die before you can win enough challenges. KoW: Most games your deck will discard a card at random each turn from the opponent's hand. In my experience, this usually means 4-6 cards at random throughout the game. Against an opponent running the summer agenda, this agenda's drawback is only a consideration of you have more cards than the opponent, which I find is rare in Greyjoy/Stark winter. The really big drawback is that Wintertime Mauraders/choke/Meera's blanking/etc. are all worse when it is summer. In other words, the big drawback is less the agenda and more loss of card effects. KoS: Most games, the agenda effect will net you 4-6 cards throughout the course of the game. In the infrequent cases that your opponent plays winter (let's say 1 in 5 games at most?), there is a hugely crippling effect if you allow for winter to stay out. Assuming you have a 50-50 chance to prevent this, we're talking about an overall 1 out of 10 chance that you suffer the drawback. I feel summer Targ actually has much better odds to keep it summer against a winter deck (b/c attachment recursion, character control, etc.) , so the real downside for them is probably closer to 1 of 15, with the vast majority of cases Targ simply drawing off the summer agenda. KotHH: You miss out on 5 gold for setup, plus an average of 4 card setup. You gain 8g - 14 gold (assuming a game lasts on average 4-7 rounds), as well as 2 influence. While you are particularly vulnerable to Fear of Winter and early rush, you are uniquely positioned to leverage the powerful effects of First Snow of Winter and a couple other plots. This agenda has a very high return on investment, so long as you can make it through rounds 1-2 without losing too much board advantage. I believe that reasonable people will disagree with some of the estimates on numbers I present above, but these are a starting point, and my purpose is merely to show that the vast majority of the popular agendas have more of an "upside" (offer a net advantage) than a downside. Of course, the risks/drawbacks matter, but in the vast majority of games are insignificant. The biggest drawback is not the 1 in 5 chance that you will face an opponent running the opposite season, but rather that you picked a season deck when you should have picked a TMP deck or vice versa.
  7. @Dobbler: I'm really confused about why you say opportunity cost means nothing. You are correct that this argument holds true for every agenda, but that isn't an argument against my point. When I look at a Martell, Stark, Targ or Greyjoy deck, I usually am NOT considering a no-agenda build. I think you, of all people, would understand the inherent advantages of the existing builds that run agendas. Every game that you and I have played and that I have seen you play has involved a build with an agenda. It may be that you frequently run agenda-less decks in your games with local metamates, but based on your competitive track record, I would assume that you understand agendas typically add more to your deck (positive benefit) than risks (drawbacks). I very much respect your opinions, but frankly I don't understand what that opinion is. So far, I think we agree 100% that every agenda has an opportunity cost, but I'm at a loss for words as to why you think this is unimportant. This is a matter of opinion, of course, but I think it makes very little sense to focus on this agenda in a vacuum, as it does with any other card in the environment. I do, however, think there are valid arguments to be made against the agenda, but those should factor in the context of the environment and the game. Simply put: Does the "net advantage" (perceived benefits of the effect minus the risks/drawbacks) of this agenda exceed the "net advantage" of other popular agendas?
  8. dcdennis said: Shikaku said: dcdennis said: I think you forgot to include something for me in your last post. Fixed a gentleman and a scholar are you. I owe you one beer for every tldr you give me btw now and worlds. +1
  9. The big cost is the opportunity cost. You are unable to play any other agenda in the environment. Consider: how many decks int the top 16 of GenCon, or the top 25% of any tourney over the past year, ran no agenda AND no character agenda? This is a HUGE drawback. Despite the theoretical drawback that most agendas have, the reality is that many of the drawbacks typical don't matter much. (The maesters path is the best example, but Knights, seasons, and shadows all have "drawbacks" that do nothing most of the time.) Also, I would not downplay the significance of Search and Detained. That remains one of the best plots in the game, and was the restricted card in the winning GenCon joust deck this year.
  10. UPDATES Location: Cranberry Cafe in Manhattan, 115 W 45th Street, New York, NY Card Pool: A Roll of the Dice will be legal for this event. For those interested, that means the new world champion agenda, the House of Dreams, will be legal!
  11. Stag Lord said: Yeah - we'll definteily have a Long Island get together on a Monday in november to get some prep in. I'll get an eamil out to the group Thinking now I may have confused "Jack Merridew" with the DC player named Jack who attended GenCon last year. We really need to get a bit more Long Island - Manhattan inter-meta play going. Stag…you should post your meetups on the NYC Game of Thrones Meetup page.
  12. dcdennis said: DC seems to put on 2 events in addition to the official regional each year (feb and oct.). Average attendance btw 15-20. That being said we attempted an alternate format a month ago and had our lowest turnout ever (14). I can tell you that several NYC players originally planned to attend the most recent tourney, but work got in the way for two of us, so the third bailed. That said, I suspect you are right that non-standard tourney formats are less attractive from an attendee point of view. Not that it wouldn't be fun, but competitive players tend to focus on the typical competitive format. If the standard format were to be restricted in some way, those players would (mostly happily) adapt. But barring any official announcement, the same players are less likely to be enthusiastic about participating in the unofficial format.
  13. jack merridew said: I'll be there competing for the Sansa Stark award, hopefully with some ill conceived deck like Martell Dayne, Greyjoy Holy or Lannister Knights Jack, really great that we will see you up here. Its been too long…missed your humor at GenCon this year!
  14. Just curious, who all is planning on traveling/attending? I suspect we'll have a record number from the NYC area, but fewer travelers overall. I'm expecting around 10 from NYC alone, but I've heard that Erick and Corey are unable to make it due to Thanksgiving holiday plans this year. Who else from DC/Boston/DE are planning to attend?
  15. AGoT DC Meta said: dcdennis said: …return to hand instead of return to top of deck. To me this makes it infinitely better. Of course there is still the chance that the card gets poached to an INT challenge, but thats better than being dead and/or clogging your draw for next turn. Taking it back to hand could be a passive on a plot or location or something. I don't think they need to change the whole mechanic. If it were changed, though, I'd rather it just have the additional rule, "then you may shuffle your deck." Ugh, just lost my original post, so here's the short version…. I like the idea of a Robb Stark or another unique character with stalwart + renown and the text "Any card that would return to the top of your deck as the result of stalwart instead returns to your hand." It would allow players to create the stark version of a jumper deck…mass kill effects and cards coming in and out of play. Edit: This forum software is extremely frustrating. I tried posting, then got an error "OMG, someone posted a reply since you starting writing, so you may want to reconsider!…blah blah" That happened three times, and ultimately I accidentally hit "cancel" instead of publish and lost my original post. (At least they worked out the bug with Chrome that was removing all text following a double back-space.)
  16. Just posted this idea on another thread, but wanted to throw it out here too because I think it's relevant to the discussion. What if rather than changing distribution (or possibly in addition to changing distribution), FFG announced a new restriction to deck building? Players were restricted to Core Set + house expansion + cards from any 2 past cycles (their choice) + current cycle. This would force players to build decks with cards they may not otherwise use while also encouraging the use of newer cards, which would comprise a larger portion of any given deck. I suspect that such a restriction would force deck building away from the "optimization of mechanics" (burn, blanking, kneel, 1-round rush, etc.) and toward more thematic deck building with much more variety. Every time a new cycle came out, past cycles might get a slight boost…for example, a new card like Illyrio may encourage a Targ player to look back at old cycles with a lot of ambush (or shadows) that they may not have otherwise considered, whereas a card like Dragon Egg may encourage someone to pick an entirely different 2 cycles.
  17. Glad to hear Greg on this episode. I too am ready for some sort of significant limitation on the card pool, whether that's rotation or more restrictions to deck building. I still like the idea of limiting decks to 2-3 blocks + expansions. Maybe the best way to do it in order to encourage the most recent block is restrict a deck to Core Set + house expansion + cards from any 2 blocks + current expansion. This way, if there were only a few chapter packs out, then players wouldn't have to choose the current expansion as one of their blocks. This would also make the chapter packs more attractive in that new cards would probably represent a larger portion of any given deck.
  18. Ktom, I have similar feelings about joust, but I feel there is a lot of unexplored deck building variety with melee. I like your suggestion of a larger, less frequent release, but I'm not completely sure about the frequency.
  19. Wow, when I left home on Sunday for a trip the forums were ghostly quiet. What a difference four days makes. This thread disturbs me. While it raises my curiosity (an understatement, actually), and I am typically in full support of transparency especially as it relates to customer engagement, I feel an “outing” like this (if it in fact is true) is problematic and counterproductive. The biggest problem, I think, is that an alter ego or pseudonym is meant to protect the author from personal attacks that have arisen in response to expressed “alternative” views. Moreover, though I haven’t seen it explicitly stated, the undertone from some posters seems to be advocating for some sort of official reprimand. Not only is there little justification for this – such a reprimand would be the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we want as a community, because it would likely have a chilling effect on the part of FFG and their employees at a time of unparalleled openness. In short, this “outing” (if in fact it proves to be accurate)will ultimately harm the community’s efforts to build bridges and encourage FFG to be more open. But putting the problematic aspect of this post aside, I think one can make a strong argument in defense of Penfold’s somewhat controversial posts, assuming he is Damon. I’m not saying I agree with these posts…in many cases I completely disagree: Finite raised such an example in his post on page 1…I wholeheartedly agree that Corey and Erick acted responsibly in their collusion at World’s last year. That said, I feel it important to point out the following: Comments made by an “alter ego” posting under a pseudonym are not necessarily the views of the “real” individual. We all have many identities – and we may choose a different identity depending on the situation. For example, when I go to work, my identity may be one of professionalism, reliability, trustworthiness. But this identity may be too difficult to maintain 24/7. Sometimes, I prefer to let loose, play AGOT obsessively, have a few beers, and allow my “gamer identity” to take over. To use an extreme example, an investment banker or surgeon who works long hours may spend the little free time he has getting trashed and sleeping around. He may be more productive or attentive during his day NOT despite the irresponsible alter ego, but BECAUSE that inebriated, promiscuous alter ego allows him to blow off steam. We may question his ethics, but just because he is chauvinistic in his off time doesn’t mean he’ll refuse to work with female colleagues or fondle a woman on the operating table. Simply put, an alter ego is just that—an alternate to the primary identity. In addition, I strongly believe (and I think most libertarians would agree) that a variety of views are important to drive innovation. Different views inform different approaches and spur creativity. Assuming Penfold is Damon, we are talking about someone who reflects on the game and its direction; if he doesn’t see an important perspective adequately represented on the forums, it seems to me it would be his obligation to represent that view. I draw the line at inflammatory or overly negative language, but online forums always lean a bit inflammatory, and I don’t think he’s crossed the negative threshold (though I can see how Finite may feel otherwise, given the comment about banning someone who colludes).
  20. SAVE THE DATE! New York will host this year's 8th Annual Black Friday Joust Tournament on Saturday, calling it "Red Saturday." The date has been moved from Friday to Saturday to accommodate travelers who traditionally attend this annual event. Location has not yet been finalized--2-3 options are under consideration. The venue will be accessible by public transportation. More details will be announced on these message boards and at www.Meetup.com/Thrones as the date approaches. As New York's largest joust (1v1) event of the year, participants will have the opportunity to take home a variety of prizes, including the Red Saturday Trophy. COMPETE FOR CONTROL OF THE REALM! The event will follow standard FFG guidelines for a 1 vs. 1 “Joust” competition. FFG lists full rules for competitive play on its website (www.fantasyflightgames.com). • Five preliminary rounds of “Swiss” styled 1 vs. 1 pairing, with cut to top four or top eight (depending on turnout) for quarter- or semi-finals. • All A Game of Thrones LCG cards released by or before November 1, 2012 are legal for this event, excluding those “banned” for competition in FFG’s most recent FAQ. • The event will adhere to the most recently posted FAQ on FFG’s website, posted here: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_minisite_sec.asp?eidm=10&esem=4. CASUAL MELEE ON FRIDAY, NOV 23 For those who are in NYC on Friday, November 23, we will hold a casual melee tournament at 1:00pm. This will not be part of the official tournament, but we will have some limited prize support (and bragging rights throughout the year). This is a fantastic opportunity to connect with friends you rarely see, and will likely involve a late-night trip to a nearby restaurant/bar. For questions about either event, prizes, or legality of cards, please post here or contact Dan with the NYC Night’s Watch at NightsWatchNYC@gmail.com.
  21. Card design should be judged solely based on… 1. How many real choices they create without significantly complicating/disrupting fundamental mechanics. 2. How flavorful and thematic they are. The first point must factor in the environment. For example, Tin Link is bad because it, combined with the Maester's Path, significantly limits overall deck building options. As a distant second reason, it is not flavorful in terms of how it reflects the source material, even if it is thematic in how it focuses on maesters. Similarly, the original Jaquan is poor design because it is so powerful that a competitive deck must include it or specific cards to deal with it. With specific regard to agendas, "balance" remains an insufficient criterion since everyone has a different, highly subjective definition for balance (me included). As a concept, there is nothing inherently dangerous with agendas, in terms of whether or not they will limit choice. It certainly seems true that they can be both flavorful and thematic, and there are some indications that they might add choices…for example, trait based decks tend to be easier to run with agendas, and treaty type agendas (including the shadows agenda) seem to add quite a bit of diversity.
  22. Scud-O said: The real point is that Femme Fatale should be considered a one-shot for the Runner. You drop it and use it when you need it, therefore it should usually be saved for late game, to make a "surprise run" on an otherwise impossible server. If it comes out early, the Corp needs to make sure they limit its effectiveness, and sometimes trashing the targeted ICE is the right play. Not sure I agree here. Seems like late game you will have the ice breakers in place, and 9 credits goes a long way to breaking ICE. Seems like it would be better to take advantage of the effect over the course of the game, so getting it out early is better so long as it doesn't compromise your ability to run. I agree with mdc273 here. The cost to play the next level of ICE is only one additional credit, so unless trashing it makes the difference between being able to rez a needed end run the next turn, seems to me its much better to leave the ICE rather than opting to trash it. At a minimum the runner still must pay credits to bypass.
  23. 3x Red Herring and 3x Ash will make for some very expensive runs. Both would be great in Jinteki and NBN, factions that tend to allow runners to get through the ICE at the cost of net damage/tags.
  24. Just curious what others think. My personal view is no…bypassing still costs 1 credit, which is the same cost as the penalty for the corp to play an extra piece of ICE in front of the server. Of course, if you can find a way to trash the Femme Fatale, the ICE remains strong. As a follow-up…is there ever any reason to trash a rezzed piece of ICE?
×
×
  • Create New...