Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by LordofBrewtown

  1. I don't really want any new mechanics.  I think the vassal system works well enough to add Houses though.  What I would like to see:  

    1) A revised Gameboard/Map:  From a thematic standpoint, they really chose some weird locations (Vale, Storm's End/Cape Wrath), and it's distorted.  This is especially important if they add more houses.  Specifically focus on Westerns (keep the Essos add-on separate, for idea below).  Make it work for more houses (add the Dreadfort, upgrade Storm's End - make Baratheon starting position).  

    2)  Add House Tully (Dark Blue), House Bolton (Pink) and maybe House Hightower (Grey).  I'd be fine with just the 2 houses added/no Hightower, or Frey is possible; but, map is tight in that area.  Plenty of room in the North for Bolton though.  

    3)  New set of cards with characters based on time of Robert's rebellion.  Start the Targaryen's in Dragonstone and King's Landing.  

    4) Extra set of cards to "catch up" the new Houses with the other houses for the standard decks and Dance.  Preferably, update some cards for Stark since they shouldn't have Bolton or Blackfish in that deck after adding those houses.  

    5)  The only new rules I'd like: something allowing use of normal house cards for vassals as alternate to the vassal house cards and/or a new start/"quick" 6 round scenario similar to Dance for the 10 or 11 houses.  Also, an option with Targaryen starting on Dragonstone, Baratheon Storm's End, and no Essos board.  

    6)  Last option would maybe be a new vassal deck if they don't incorporate rules for house cards.   If they go with new vassal cards, from a theme standpoint, use the "minor" house characters that changed sides a lot: Plenty of Freys for this, Alester Florent, Spicer/Westerling.  


  2. Yeah, I was really hoping for each of the Great Houses to get its own faction. A separate House Tully faction would have been awesome as well. A "timeline neutral" look would have been very cool. I can only hope.

    Agree with this (had been hoping for since the CCG days).  I don't really see a need for a separate NIght's Watch faction (especially without a Wildlings or Others faction); but, I understand there is a fan segment who enjoys them.  I would have kept it to the 9 Great Houses.  

  3. Been away from the boards/game for a while - interesting stuff.  Have to voice my first "Ned" type disappointment with the preview though:  So Eddard can single handedly take down an army (see strengths in the challenge preview)?  Would it really have been that hard to keep all "army" characters a higher strength than unique's?  All you have to do is not use the trait, and give the card some other generic name (captain, Knight, commander, champion, man-at-arms).  


    I know it's not important to most and kind of nit-picky; but, I was really hoping with the change in the strength and gold curves, FFG would improve on this.  Those small things can really add to the flavor.  

  4. Interesting news.  My thoughts on what we know:  


    The good: 

    Two more factions:  I assume Arryn and Tyrell.  Three (Tully) - 1 house for each region would have been perfect; but this is better.  

    Elimination of Influence:  Taxation phase and increase in gold effects made this unnecessary.  I actually preferred the CCG/Westeros early days when characters had to be knelt to pay all event costs.  

    Increase in Gold Curve:  hopefully coincides with a wider range of character strengths too.  

    Elimination of Moribund:  Excellent.  Looking forward to new timing.  

    Reduction of Keywords:  I'm hoping they eliminate the house specific keywords, and just keep renown, stealth and maybe joust or deadly.  


    The Bad:  

    They still have Agendas.  I fall on the side that believes these are extremely hard to balance, and don't really open up the game as much as others think.  


    Draw Cap:  My gut says it is a mistake to eliminate this.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  The only way this works is if they get anti-draw effects that are as "cheap" as draw - in the past, any anti-draw cards have been overcosted for the ability/effect.  


    Plots:  Having played in the early days when 2 copies of a plot were legal, I think it's a mistake to go back to this.  



    Other items I'd like to see:  


    Far fewer house specific events.  Most events should be neutral in nature.  Each house should only have about 1/4 of the number of events that are house specific as they do now.  Hopefully, these are the 'slots' eliminated to make room for the new factions, or they can be replaced with more unique characters, locations or attachments.  


    I hope they keep a limited number of dual-house cards.  I would generally make the ladies/wives, and kingsguard types dual house.  


    I hope they keep the sub-houses as traits (House Bolton, House Florent, House Harlaw, House Hightower, etc).  In that vein, I'd like to see the 8 "main" houses treated more as regions, and for their cards to get a "House X" trait as well (give Eddard, Robb, Jory Cassel & Maester Luwin the "House Stark" trait) and have card trigger of the "House X" trait.  




    Prized keeps the risk front-and-center, and can never be ignored. While I think the two mechanics try to do the same thing, create a built-in drawback and/or balance to very powerful cards, I think Prized succeeds in a way Doomed never could. So I don't think there can be a whole lot of "like Doomed" comparisons between the two mechanics, and I don't think past experiences with Doomed in the CCG will be a good predictor for the experiences with Prized in the LCG.


    I sure hope you are correct.  I think I would agree with your assessment *IF* there was no way to make your opponents cards prized.  However, my initial reaction is that making cards like the Blackfish that allow you to give your opponents the prized trait is a huge mistake.  That was one of the big problems with doomed (& that catastrophe of a cycle) - your opponent was playing a completely different game than you & there was no way to defend against it.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  This mechanic sure doesn't make me want to start playing competitively again.  

  6. I think that a big part of the problem that some of us are having is that it isn't really clear what the format would be, and ultimately, what the 'main' purpose of the event is.  Is it to put on a big event similar to Chicon that anyone can join & fosters community spirit; or, is it an 'invitational' meant to get champions or 'famous' players together?  

    I'm not really sure that you can do both.  At the very least, one aspect has to take precedence over the other.  

    Personally, I wouldn't be interested in travelling to an event that separates the field into categories, with one 'pot' appearing to be the 'popular' or perceived 'better' players, and the other consisting of what could be perceived as 'filler'.  Especially considering that the criteria for who gets put in 'Pot A' seems to be fairly subjective at this point.  Is it just past champions, or players who have made or than 1 top 8 at worlds, or famous board names, or just players who certain metas get along with better than others?  That kind of separtation is something that I do not believe would have occurred at any future Chicons if AJ was still playing & running them. 

    I realize this still seems to be a work in process.  

    If the primary purpose is really to guarantee that Nate & a select few other champions or 'famous' players can attend & play (thus driving the prestige & demand for attending the event)), I would suggest e-mailing those players first and nailing down a date before going any further (determining format, etc).  

    If you really had your heart set on the invitational/tourny of champions concept - by all means go with that; but, realize that no matter how much effort you put into trying to make the event fun for everyone and inclusive - by it's very nature it is exclusive.  


    Might I suggest that if you do plan on separating the field into two brackets, you come up with extremely transparent  & objective criteria,  & publish it to the community.  That may help alleviate some of the skepticism regarding splitting the field into brackets.  


    It's a lot of work to put on an event like this.  So, regardless of whether I attend or agree with the format of the tournament, I do still commend the effort & wish you good luck in putting it together.  




  7. mdc273 said:

    LordofBrewtown said:


    I'm very disappointed to see House words on a lackluster or 'just OK' card.  In my opinion, the House Words for each house should be reserved for one of the 2-3 best events a house has - or at least the event that you see most commonly used.  That would be one of the more easy ways to please Ned type players (IMO), or bring the Neds & Jaime's together.  



    They can always just reprint a better version. They do it with uniques. They even did it with Dragon Knight. It's not like that combination of words and punctuation is now forever unusable again. Maybe they'll realized they botch it and try again next cycle.

    I certainly hope so.  However, history of this game - going all the way back to CCG - shows that they generally have only made different versions of uniques.  Even when they've made a new version of a non-unique, it seems to have been by accident - a failed editing check on name vs intent.  Also, none of the house words have ever really been spectacular.  Fire & Blood was the best, & Winter is Coming was good/prevelent in the first year of the CCG, Ours if the Fury & Hear me Roar sucked, as did We do Not Sow & Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken.  The CCG plots were OK - but none of these have really been the staple auto-includes of house decks.  

    I'd certainly like to see them use the iconic quotes more via reprint - here's hoping FFG changes their pattern in that respect.  

  8. I'm very disappointed to see House words on a lackluster or 'just OK' card.  In my opinion, the House Words for each house should be reserved for one of the 2-3 best events a house has - or at least the event that you see most commonly used.  That would be one of the more easy ways to please Ned type players (IMO), or bring the Neds & Jaime's together.  

  9. -Istaril said:

    With regards to the "ideology" section of the cast, I'm going to have to agree with Greg on several counts:

    Creativity *is* limited by competitivness. You build a deck with the goal of reaching a win condition. You can build your shagga deck ignoring the restricted list, if your only goal isn't competitive play - but the minute you enter competitive play ("organized play"), you're acknowledging a desire to win which constrains deck building. I do think you're right in saying the restricted list won't spur a great deal of creativity; people are equating a little more variety at the competitive level (at least until the waters settle) with creativity.

    I also prefer using the Restricted List to errata. I follow your argument, but I dislike anything about a card I have to remember that isn't printed specifically on the cards. I think that's a burden (especially to the new player). Restricted lists are information outside the cards, but they're at the deck-building point when you have time to double-check, and not "on the table", mid-game information you need to remember.

    100% Agree.  I think my own play-style exempifies this.  I would often play Ned decks or some new/different theme deck, but, they wouldn't do well.  Then, eventually I'd get tired of the smackdowns, and build a deck that conformed more with the 'hot'/dominant cards or deck types of the period, and start winning a lot.  But, I often really didn't/don't like the play styles of the Jaime decks as much, and then wander back to Ned/Shagga decks - & then the losing starts again until I get tired of the smack downs, & go back to Jaime style decks.  It's a giant circle.  


    First podcast I've listened to in a long time.  Interesting take on everything - especially the point regarding Winter/Summer agendas possibly getting better by being restricted.  


    Best comment - "Maybe all agendas should be restricted".  

    Now we're talking sense.  





  10. Wow.  Hadn't been here a while & stumbled upon this.  

    Agree that the Refugees were a great call to put on the restricted list ( & I'm a huge Ned/theme deck guy).  I haven't played in a while; but, these changes actually have me excited to play.  


    I think almost all of the new restricted choices are good (Cyvasse & Retaliation are overdue).  There are only a couple that I question the need for - was it really necessary to restrict Kings of Summer & Kings of Winter (I generally hate agendas - these just didn't seem that bad to me)?  Also, I'm not sure it was necessary to put The Scourge on the list (or both the Scourge and Orphan - 1 or the other might have been sufficient).  



  11. L4L:  I think you omitted the details for the objectives (placement & #) in the Tribes skirmish.  


    Jack:  Regarding Steel Rain - I've purposely avoided that skirmish because I thought it might proceed as your game did - without objectives, why attack?  

    Also, I do think that the terrain placement can be a negative to skirmishes.  That's why the only skirmish I've tried so far is 'Casting the Net' (uses board setup for Clash on the Kingsroad).  However, so far Stark always seems to win this skirmish.  It's been pretty close each time; but, it seems like the Lannister courier has to be cavalry to have enough movement to exit the board by game end, and generally has to move too far ahead of other units (exposing themselves to attack) in order to be in position to win.  My mistake may have been not choosing a red rank cavalry as the courier.  

    One thing I did notice for Casting the Net is that it suits Marq Piper very well (especially as the Lannister) - his leadership cards' ability is awesome, & you have the extra cards to discard by round 2.  Additionally, he allows you to choose the Tully River Riders for extra units - and 'Riverborn' opens up the board to the other side of the river.  


    RE:  commands - not sure, but I've been playing that you can order only 2 units on the 3 unit card if that's all you have

  12. Would anyone else be interested in something similar to the Premium Banner booster pack; but for some of the Ally houses?  This thought/need came to me when thinking of a Stannis vs Renly scenario (Killing Fields skirmish).  

    Bara vs Bara can be done easily enough borrowing either a Stark or Lannister base deck; but, Banners would make it a bit easier to tell sides apart.  Specifically, some Stannis/R'Hllor banners with the fiery red heart would be welcome.  

    Stannis/R'Hllor banners would be my highest priority; then Umber & Clegane (since 2 commanders exist for each) - though I'd like Mormont, Caron & Estermont also.  

    I'd purchase a booster banner pack if it contained some of these.  

  13. Those are 2 expansions that I haven't purchased; & the details of the skirmishes could affect my decision.  

    Can someone list these, and provide an opinion on how fun these were to play if you tried them?  

    Any other details?  For instance, I was fairly disappointed with the 'Steel Rain' skirmish in Lords of the River:  not very interesting, and also was disappointed that the individual skirmish cards didn't provide for any Rivers as possible terrain - that makes Marq Piper's and the River Riders 'Riverborn' trait worthless in skirmishes.  

    I'm hoping that there's another 1 Commander per side skirmish (like Casting the Net); and I'd also like to see a Skirmish allowing 4 or more commanders per side.  


    Thanks for the info.  I've tried a couple now solo - playing both sides (which can obviously affect strategy).  That said:  

    Paying the Piper - Lannister won - & I agree it seems easier for them.  Though I was using a red Greatjon unit (I hadn't seen the FAQ yet) - & the immobility really hurt Stark.  I think the fact that Stark's cavalry units are all green except for Karstark makes it really hard for them to capture any currently held Lannister objectives.  

    #19 Road to the Rock:  Lannister won.  This was a fun scenario with the moving merchants; but, I think Lannister has an advantage.  I think the Stark VP's per merchant token need to be 4, (or maybe 5) to even this up.  

    BP#1 Fighting Fire with Ice:  Stark won via instant victory condition - but hard to tell if this scenario is even or lopsided, Stark rolled incredibly well, Lannister incredibly poorly - even the random fire spreading greatly favored the Starks.  I can see this scenario going the other way.  


    I'd really like to see a bit more variety in the battle plans than what is available now:  it would be nice to have a couple more 3 round (short game) plans, and some longer ones (6-7).  Also, vary the # of commanders some more (maybe some plans with 4 commanders per side, but fewer non-commander units & fewer cards/dice).  Right now, most everything is in the 4-5 round range, and 2-3 commanders per side with 3-4 non-commander units per commander.  



  15. golem101 said:

    However I'd like to see an "expansions' expansion", sort of like Miskatonic Horror for Arkham Horror, fleshing out the minor factions inside the Great Houses already published (Mormont, Umber, Clegane, etc.) to put them on par with the more complete ones like the Tully/Vale barbarians. Thusly we could field some serious subfactions with the multiplayer rules seen in the Baratheon big box.


    I really like this idea.  I

    n that regard, I think they didn't execute their intitial commander choices, or at least the Wardens expansions the best.  For instance, in the original 5 Lannister commanders, I would have chosen either Tytol Brax, Gawen Westerling or Forley Prester so that another commander who was actually with Jaime's host was present.  Likewise, I might have subsituted Harrion Karstark or Wylis Manderly for Maege, or included Robett Glover intead of Galbert so that there was actually a commander who was present at the Green Fork for that battle plan (and saved that BP for a Bolton ally expansion).  


    It's a little tougher to flesh out the Lannister sub-house themes - though you could add Raff the Sweetling (or Dunsen, Polliver, or the Tickler) to complete Clegane.  

  16. Reading through these threads, I read some comments that the first BP tends to favor Stark.  Do you find many of the BP's are like this, or just some?  I'd be curious as to which are the most lopsided and which the most fair.  


    Also, which are the most fun?  I haven't played much yet; but, my first impression is that the BP's with objectives seems more fun than the ones where eliminating enemy units count for most victory points.  I haven't seen the Bara plans or skirmishes yet - but that's the one thing I don't like about the skirmishes - they're all mostly based on eliminating enemy units.  

  17. jack merridew said:

    Well ithink targaryen makes the easiest case for another big box expansion


    Seven commanders are easy, Daernarys Targaryen, Ser Barristan Selmy, Ser Jorah Mormont, Khal Drogo, Aegon Targareyn, Rheagar Targaryen, Jon Connington


    Units are easy, Sellsword calvary, Unsullied Infantry, Dothraki Calvary, Dothraki Calvary Archers, Newly Made Knights, Freedman, and Brazen Beasts




    But the actual scenerios would be rough i think greyjoy would be the easiest but i think its more likely to have a Tyrell Ally expansion like Tully, Knight of Flowers, Mace Tyrell and Garlan Tyrell, another easy one would be a Frey ally expansion, with Black Walder, Hostern and Rheagar

    Nice Ideas on Targaryen.  Grey Worm would make a nice commander to pair with Unsullied Infantry, or Dany's Bloodriders would work too (Aggo paired with the Dothraki Archers).  What about a Dragon Unit for Targ?  

    I think I'd prefer a Greyjoy Expansion before Targ - simply because of all the battles they've been in so far, & I'd like to see a new board with more water/sea & some ship type battles against Baratheon (or maybe Tyrell later).  

    Eventually, I'd hope Tyrell was not just an ally house - as they have a lot of potential commanders (Paxter Redwyne, Randyll Tarly, Mathis Rowan).  


    Frey & Bolton Ally expansions are the next best easy small expansions (Ramsey with a Kennelmaster unit, Roose Infantry, Steelshanks Cavalry).  

    I'd probably go with either Stevron or Edwyn Frey instead of Rhaegar, along with Black Walder & Hosteen.  


  18. rings said:

    2.  In that same vein, someone said having strong synergy is a good thing.  I agree with the sentiment, just not the execution.  If strong synergy always makes the game better, then why don't we just start with ALL of our cards in play?  Fun! 

    Funny - that's the same reasoning I usually use to say that draw effects are way too prevalent/undercosted in this game.  

    Agree though.  

  19.  I fail to see what Agendas add to the game.  As Rings pointed out, because they start in play and are not targetable, they are the hardest to balance.  Yes, they can (& some have) been done right.  However, do they really add anything to the game that couldn't be done with other card types?  I just don't get the idea that they somehow open up the game/add anything new.  I certainly didn't notice that when they were first introduced as a card type.  Maybe, it's because, as others have said, they have not been done 'right'.  

    However, I'm still not a fan.  In my opinion, the game would certainly not be any worse if there were not any agendas. 

  20. JCourtney said:

     Are all the Great Houses represented yet in AGoT or is there still plenty of expansion left in this game?  I count nine and not six houses. 


    Agreed, & I've long been calling for 9 Houses.  However, it's clear that FFG does not want to add any more houses - prior interivews/information made it pretty clear that they only added Martell in the CCG days at Martin's rather strong suggestion.  


    I think it would be rather easy to support 9 houses (with just a few dual-house cards); but, it's clear at this point that its not going to happen.  

  • Create New...