Danigral said: The problem with blanking any non-specific agendas at all through game mechanics is that if treaties or City of Shadows agendas are rendered useless, that doesn't just hurt strategy, but automatically makes a decks built around them illegal. Treaties and City of Shadows create an exception to deckbuilding rules that say playing "House X only" cards out of house is illegal. I also agree that it would also severely cripple the Brotherhood or Night's Watch agendas, and just like that, players would no longer choose them, making a large amount of the available cardpool of two cycles effectively wasted. I totally see the other side, but a unique character isn't unbreakable/blankable in the least. Other strategies have to be protected by counter-strategies, so why shouldn't agendas? If my entire deck was based on GTM draw and my opponent controlled all my GTM's, is that design's fault? I guess I just don't buy the story that we can't print balanced agendas that actually have a drawback OTHER than what is printed on the card *shrug*. No other card in the game starts in play (other that house card, which doesn't really have a direct ability) and is untargetable. It is just my opinion that they would be easier to balance if they had the same inherent drawbacks as every other card in the game. ~when you whippersnappers see so many agendas banned or changed (which hopefully you have seen already with at least 2 in the LCG era counting the Wildlings/NW erratta as 1), you will understand I LOVE the idea of agendas - for the reasons stated very well in the above posts. Just over time I have seen how they have actually happened, and it isn't pretty. There are exceptions (Dobbler's, for example is VERY well balanced at least in the current environment), but many get changed. *shrug* maybe it is just the past 4-5 years of designs...if the effects were lessened it wouldn't be as much of a problem...but that wouldn't be the aGoT we love (swing cards)! ~But, maybe I don't understand game design much, having only made 'Worlds' final cut in seven different brands of games, playtested four, and won titles in two.

All good thoughts. #1 - I LOVE what FFG has done with Melee. Christian did it to help improve the sales (as his job as CEO) and it worked. As Dobbs said, it has gotten whole metas into the game (not seriously competative metas, but still). And it is sneaky-smart to make the overall champion HAVE to play both, very few people have the ability to say no at that point. Melee has never gotten as many people as Joust, and that is with quite a few people who play Melee feeling like they have to (I am there every GenCon, I hear it repeatedly). #2 - MOST people like competative Joust more than Melee. It is just a fact. Kennon, seriously. Seriously. I don't know one person who JUST plays competative Melee, no matter what the prizes are. That isn't to say it sucks. People enjoy it. Some people. Just not as many. #3 - so therefore, someone made a newsletter and only did it on Joust. Using limited resources to reach out to the most people. *shrug* You guys in your podcast made you decision to include Melee (at least a little - even you guys spend WAY more time on competative Joust). Good fo you. Then a population of your listeners see the title and most likely either don't listen in, or fast forward through that part. All fine, all logical decisions all around. You guys are weekly, and I can't beleive how good you are about finding material. I was just defending the original post and decision since that is how I would do it (Kennon first asked about why no Melee), so sorry if I got carried away I still love ya, K-dog! Good posts! I don't FEEL like I am stinking and full of worms (which seems WAY more negative than anything I have said), but maybe I am My only issue is that people like Drakey say all you need is people skills, when I have SEEN people who come from bigger metas (or have different thoughts on ethics in a game) have an advantage in large events...that isn't people skills to me *shrug* (and Luke HAS been on fire, he went through about 6 months it seems w/o a post, and now we get long, well-thought ones regularly...what was different...?)

I was really just making a point on the agenda that blanked agendas. I think having something controllable would work (character most likely, the most easily controlled card in the game), but something uncontrollable would make many agendas totally unplayable which I understand. This kind of proves the point though, when you can't control a card with another card of the same type...doesn't that seem off a little? I can't think of another type of card that has that issue *shrug* And Rogue, are you seriously comparing Brienne to an agenda? If so, I don't think you have read a word of my posts. My issue is that agendas start in play, and are untargetable. Fairly different than the approximately 900 ways to deal with Brienne. Unless you want an agenda that doesn't allow actions during challenges...that would be fun! And that is the basic difference in the power levels of agendas, vs. plots (the 2nd hardest card to balance in the game, since as you said you choose it and don't pay for it), vs. perm cards you have to draw and pay for.

Dobbler said: How many Melee titles were won by newbies (that were part of a championship)? I can think of 1. The Melee title in MN was won by Kennon. The Melee title in Iowa was won by Butzlaff. Neither of them are newbies. And its not like a Joust title or two over the years haven't also been won by newbies. *Sigh*, the melee bashing starts to get old after a while. Seriously, there are GoT Metas where all they play are Melee. I heard from people in California and people in Oklahoma where they are Melee only metas. Most people consider Erick Butzlaff one of the best players in the game. He has never won a Joust championship at Gencon. But his skills shine in both the Joust and Melee formats, and as such he has walked away with the overall championships the last two years. Oh, I do it mainly to kid. I will just remind you that Melee attendance before they changed the rules always ran at about 33% of the Joust. *shrug* If you like it, more power to you *shrug* Won't stop my from shying away from it, and it won't get people talking about it any more (look at the threads below this one...how many talking about Melee card power levels again? ~Or did I miss the thread asking for more powerful Martell melee cards?). Erick is considered one of the best players...because he is good. His record in Joust in major tourneys shows that. Do you think Nate isn't good because he never won? Doubtful. ~I don't think Erick would enjoy you saying he is only considered good because of his Melee record (although I don't want to put words in his mouth).

Rogue30 said: rings said: Heaven help us if we reward balanced deckbuilding that doesn't rely only on a starting-in-play-untargetable card. ****, then we should immediately design some agenda that blank all currently revealed plots. It's outrageous that player can actually start the game with the plot he likes. And sometimes he can even put a character into play! That's unacceptable. Players should not rely on this. Isn't there plots that blank plots? Seems like I have seen them before...hmmm... So, we have had cards that blank characters (that I have to draw and play) and locations (that I have to draw and play) and the text or income of plots (usually using a plot that doesn't have great stats as a negative for me playing it). And that is cool. But blanking a card you don't have to draw or pay for? Blasphamy!!! And on balancing (goshdarnstud) I would still have to build a deck that wins. Just running an agenda should never win a game for you...or lose a game for you if you are a good deckbuilder *shrug* But I get what you are saying

baragwin said: LordofBrewtown: I think you're right that much of our disagreement just boils down to personal preference. For me, agendas are a great way to reduce the you-got-your-golden-tooth-mines-and-I-didn't-so-you-won aspect of the game. I'm fine with luck deciding a game here and there, but the randomness of card draw is a real problem in the current environment. I see agendas as the best way to solve that problem. I think it is pretty easy to target things like this, however. I know it is only one example and you just said it off the top of your head, but there is plenty of location control, and heck location steal for a few houses. (heck, I would say the easier way to control GTM would be a decent location removal plot or more characters that target locations, rather than something MORE powerful) GTM is easily one of the top 3-5 cards it the game, but there is ALWAYS going to be a top 3-5 cards in the game and balancing them through Agendas (how currently printed and ruled) seems counterintuative. *shrug* Heck, I would love to see an agenda that said 'blank all other agendas'. Heaven help us if we reward balanced deckbuilding that doesn't rely only on a starting-in-play-untargetable card.

The Nick-ler said: as it stands, it looks like i will not be making it. best of luck to all who attend. Boooooooo Nick! Horrray rulings that knock Luke out of the tourney!

I loved the newsletter - thanks!!! ~I think they concentrated on Joust because it is popular, and not just played to get the overall champ title Although, having total newbies win a few regional melee titles does show that it is the better format for...um...something. (I just like getting Kennon worked up - I hope he wins a Joust title soon so he can stop acting like he loves Melee so much and it is skill-based) I don't mind the conflicting side on TLS and the restricted list, but some of the 'logic' is a bit flawed. The part about the champ card especially - the restricted list just came out and there are only X number of champ cards even available, and I don't think one person would say any of the others are remotely as generically powerful. Some of the other points I certainly see, although I thought it was a good regional season...~I thought Stag Lord was done talking about it?!?

Oh, and from Core I am You Writ Small is great for a surprise and then kill/win (especially in non-Military challenges).

Pretty much. Plots are a huge part of the game obviously. But you can get control through other cards as well - obviously Castellean is REALLY good (why it is a restricted card in competative play), and the Cache is great (drawing). But, also Lanni's Pay their Debts and all the kneeling cards. You keep them down with your superior draw until Wildfire/Valar (hopefully mixed with some saves on your best people - either with duplicates or Bodyguard) hit. Good luck!...~wish I was being spanked by my wife...

I like the Spawn. The Dragon scares me in that he has the same level of power as HP and I hate playing Dwarves The Spawn has good power, good health, AND a pretty good ability.

Dobbler said: I don't think we will ever see the Maester's Path reach Wildling level proportions when it comes to the competitive scene, but I do expect it to be popular. I agree with this - Wildlings had the combo of a awesome draw card (Val), income (effectively +2 gold a turn, or a -5 on a great army many turns), strength boosts, and stealth in one convienent package. On top of that, there was just good cards printed to go along with it. Maesters have a great plot, some interesting draw/control mechanics but not the overall crazyness of Wildlings (or even worse Wildlings plus NW).

Rogue30 said: Also having a 4/3 unique who blanks all agendas is not a good idea - in case of Siege you can ruin whole opponent's deck and it kills an idea of agenda. What, this is a bad idea? With all the control out there in pretty much every house? Somehow my Siege opponent decided to not play any other icons and only wants to do one challenge...and now is mad since he didn't? ~Dammit, I wanted to build an unbalanced one-trick deck and your unique 4 cost character is ruining that!!! ~Someone destroyed/stole/blanked my Golden Tooth Mines, they ruined my whole deck idea and killed the idea of having draw! Dammit!!! Not sure why agendas should be so favored, considering the lack of effort in putting them into play. People are trying to seriously tell me that a free beginning in play card should be untouchable, yet cards I pay in both income and draw for should be removed with the greatest of ease? Um...okay! I vote yes to 30 agendas (although like Stag said, probably 5 of them will be Tier one, that is reality). I vote yes to cards that hurt running agendas ('negative' cards) so you can't 100% rely on them. And I vote yes for cards that reward you for not running them or for your opponent running one ('positive' cards) to help meta. Shouldn't have to choose in my mind if we are going to have them.

Yeah, I forgot to mention I didn't watch the Tudors, but she seems like a great choice to me. They have done a pretty bang-up job overall - heck, I even want to watch Conan now

I guess considering the original material of this post, I haven't really heard a good argument on why there couldn't be cards that negatively affected agendas more? Why is it so important to have a starting card that can't be targeted? Seriously, I am just wondering. I think having a 4/3 unique that blanks all agendas would be super cool. Or a nuetral 2/2 guy with one icon that gains an icon and then doesn't kneel to attack/defend? It would actually open up game play and the feeling of 'meta' (~that Dobbler loves to try guessing), which is a good thing...no? Again, if there are cards that punish you for using a certain house card (a starting card that doesn't really give you anything, other than access to certain cards) - i.e. the traitors - why can't there be something similar for having an agenda (a starting card that DOES give you something, albiet sometimes with a possible downside)? Maybe this is mutually exclusive to Erick's point on agendas (I swear I read it, just mis-understood I guess!), but I think you can have both - a more robust agenda system (with careful playtesting) and cards that make them a little more risky. *shrug*

~Whew, you need an editor! I have stated my love/hate relationship w/ agendas. I think they are easily the most difficult card to balance in the game (far out-stripping plots). Any card that starts in play, and is close to untargetable as you can get, is putting a VERY big burden on unpaid playtesters w/ time constraints and the ability to be overruled (justly) by the publisher. Of the cards that truly needed to be banned/changed in the last 5 years, agendas (or how cards worked with agendas) were the lion's share of them. They are really cool to open up further gameplay and customize decks - as Erick said very well. It is great to think about not just your house, but your agenda. However, if their ability is card draw (or the equivialent) or income, they have to be seriously looked at since both of those break the games basic balancing mechanics. The worst of the Wildling ones was income. The worst of the others (Defenders back in CCG, Summer and Maester now) is card draw or similar effects. *shrug* I don't know. We have had them for quite a long time now, and they are part of the game. I just don't know if they are a needed and helpful part as currently produced, tested, ruled, and how they translate into cards. I tend to agree there needs to be more 'hate' vs. agendas rather than just cards that rock when you have a certain one out. ~Hell, if they can make anti-Lannister traitors you can beat me down with, why not anti-Agenda ones?

The problem is that Martell can protect its Summer a lot better (by protecting vs. Birds w/ Blade and various events). It is a BIT of a rock/paper w/ GJ Winter, but not that big - you usually outdraw GJ regardless. On the Path, I agree - right when it was spoiled I said 'this goes in every deck w/o an agenda'. And it does. My main worry is that (as SL said) it is going to be MUCH bigger after a few more are out. They are already pretty good ones, and more and more playable Maesters.

Looks like they cast Marge Tyrell: insidetv.ew.com/2011/06/23/game-of-thrones-casting/

There was a CCG, but I don't think Barnes and Noble ever carried it. The LCG and the 'Card Game' should be the same thing as far as I know (I haven't seen the B&N version). As long as it says FFG as the publisher, they are the same for sure. Good luck!

Twyin's Protoge please! Oh, wait, I forgot - Lanni can't have any other houses strengths (Targ's attachment control), other houses can only have theirs. Probably needed a small ~ next to it

Another very positive review/article on Grantland (seriously...I keep coming across them on a sub-site of ESPN??? Albiet one dedicated to both sports and pop culture). www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood-prospectus/post/_/id/499/the-game-of-thrones-guarantee They killed...um...The Killing as well, which is too bad, since I wanted to watch that (set in Seattle).

The Targ Summer sounded a little like Dobbler's maybe? Using R's Hill to push at the end - it rocks especially using your opponent's come into play effects (ESPECIALLY Viper's BM). Great TR Gualdo - thanks for sharing, sounds like a great tourney! Congrats to you and everyone who played...

I love Direct Assault (certainly not a rush card, however). But it is good out of Stark too, which makes it hard. Jeez...I really don't know. I would say King's Hall as the most solid card, and Core Mel as the most bomb card. She isn't as fragile as other 4-costers since if she died you have a plot that brings her right back. KoF is running a close 2nd - he is both a Lord and Knight (and 3 cost) which helps him edge out Robert (which I agree with LoB is really just as good or even better since kneeling doesn't hit him).

Oooo...Thinking plus Iniatite. Nice. I knew it in the back of my mind, but good to be reminded of that combo. I was a big fan of Twyin's Protege plus Writ Small back in the day...

LordofBrewtown said: Stag Lord said: I really wish they'd give the agendas a rest at this point. Amen! Agreed! On one hand, I enjoy the choices that they give us. But boy are they hard to balance.