Dobbler said: Nothing will stop the problem of scouting. But I think it is not only reasonable but also fair to not let people sit over your shoulder in a game. Allowing someone that sort of advantage doesn't level the playing field at all. It gives someone a distinct advantage. Not if everyone can scout, right? Then everyone IS on a level playing field (other than slow players or decks, which is within someone's own control). Or am I missing something? Barring individual scouting, but allowing (i.e. not being able to stop) meta's from discussing the decks they just played against certainly gives a distinct advantage to those with a meta...~say, those darn Missouri people. Allowing scouting of all sorts levels the playing field much more than stopping it solo but not being able to stop it with groups...

Stag Lord said: mig - you shoudl ahve seen it with the warships? That was AWFUl and a total NPE - like rings alluded to above: it shattered the immersive feel and made it very, very clear you were just playing cards. Gossiping Freaking Bard. I'm surprised he hasn't been reprinted yet (though it was really the Longship that was the distasteful part). ~Don't give them ideas!!! I actually liked Gossiping Bard as a pretty Nedly card (although, you know me, it shoudl have been Marillion and unique). But it was really hard to balance due to all the trait stuff this game uses (which I love, other than stealing effects).

Dobbler said: I was specifically talking about the scouting that happens when people are watching games that aren't their own games, specifically when the people watching the game are not eliminated from the tourney. Again, doesn't stop the problem. 1. I watch the games next to me while playing. Still scouting. 2. I have a meta of 10-12 players at Worlds. They talk between rounds. I basically have built-in scouting that can't be stopped other than a bunch of TO's following every player around between rounds. Sorry, I would rather level the playing field by allowing everyone to scout, than give a certain segment of the players a benefit by outlawing scouting for some instances but not others. *shrug*

Dobbler said: There is really no good reason to allow scouting. There are many good reasons to disallow it. You mean other than the fact that it is impossible to stop? That it rewards people who happen to live in larger metas? That trying to stop it would create WAY more problems and bad feelings (how do you define it? Who makes that call that you are scouting and didn't just let your eyes wander to the table next to you while your opponent was deciding what to do?) than watching could ever do? Seriously. Someone show me ANY way to stop scouting, and I will move over to that side. Unluckily no game company (Wizards, Decipher, FFG) has ever been able to come up with one, so good luck I agree with all the points that it is bad. And, to be honest, I agree with all the points that it isn't that bad (who wants to play, and then run off with blinders on instead of watching people you enjoy playing a game you enjoy?). The kicker to me will be that it is impossible to stop. On taking draws, that is also pretty much impossible to stop, but it is harder to cover up

longclaw said: rings said: that was the year Ghost of HH was born. Just think how things would have changed if we took the ties...? ~Yeah, you may not have had a 5 hour wait at GenCon 2008 without me Ghosting my opponents every turn! Nothing was as bad as that one Samwell Tarly though...I mentioned his text should have been "add 10 minutes to every game".

They are always a wild card it seems (other than year #2 when they were probably the favorite). Luke came out of nowhere really his year. I think these decks (in NYC) are taking people by surprise as well.

I agree that I HATE intentional draws, and look differently on anyone who goes that direction. In 2006 GenCon I had to play John Bruno for the right to get in the final 8. We would have both made it in if we took the draw (how he figured it, and he is the Mathlete). We didn't think about it twice (other than joking about it) even though we were very good friends that helped each other with decks and strategy constantly. I ended up barely winning (he lost on his own Wildfire, which allowed me to win 15-13), and that was the year Ghost of HH was born. Just think how things would have changed if we took the ties...?

bloodycelt said: I would like to counter the "need of weenies" against fear of winter. I ran a deck that may have had an average flop of 2-3 cards, most of the characters that were actual characters had costs of 4 and 5. Furthermore the cheap 2 cost characters would not be good to play on setup. However since i ran a lot of redundancy and the best kind of expensive characters (as in they can take care of themselves fairly well) and protection from death (Power of Blood), Fear of Winter was not a major problem for me. I am a little confused here. Having 2-3 characters (3-4 after the marshalling phase) is death against Fear of Winter. Unless you are playing Power of Blood of course (I should have been more specific and said weenies or Power of Blood w/ a ton of noble crests in the deck). 2-4 two claim challenges equals board reset if you are only flopping those few characters, especially since dups and Bodyguards are not setup (something else I would love to see changed...attachments wouldn't be broken on the flops, that is for sure). We are probably on the same page - you are right that Bara and maybe Stark built in a certain way doesn't need weenies as much.

LaughingTree said: NEW TOPIC on Tournament Etiquette: Intentional Draws What do people think about two players at the end of a Round Robin Swiss taking two intentional draws when they know that both will advance to Top 8 if they take intentional draws? Grrr...meant to put this in the last post, no edit function FTL! Again, not something I would do, but you can't stop it really (I have seen TO's try). Better to just accept that some players will do this. Sucks to be on the lower end of it, but long story short win your games and you will be fine *shrug* Again, most of this I wouldn't do personally - although I can't say I have never looked at the matches next to me after being done with mine due to enjoying the game more than the tourney - but if you can't stop it, you have to just deal with it (sort of like legalizing pot...something I don't smoke but whatever).

Deathjester26 said: Again, this isn't so much about scouting for me, as it is about feeling comfortable when I'm playing. I personally get all kooky when I feel like people are processing every decision I'm making, but that's my own problem. I know I feel this way, so I try not to watch other games too much, or for too long (just in case someone feels the same way). That's just what I try to do because that's what I like, but I certainly don't expect everyone to do the same. ~Just don't win then! As someone who has been on every side of the table, you get way more watchers when you are up near the top...

I am just glad there was a tourney, and it sound like - from educated, good players who like the books AND game - it is okay. Stag Lord is always a good voice of Nedness coupled w/ a good player - so if he is okay with it, then I am. I still am worried it rewards weenies too much, but hopefully a healthy fear of Targ will counter that.

I guess I am on the opposite side of things. Scouting is basically impossible to stop, and really IMHO shouldn't be. People come to these tourneys to play aGoT, live aGoT, talk about aGoT, etc. Between games are you really going to run out of the place? Then it gets to be a case as well of 'who has the most friends?'. If you are not directly watching games, then if you have a lot of friends playing you will know what people are playing regardless. Isn't that a negative to the person who came from some remote place like...Wayne, Nebraska...? ~Luckily I have too many **** friends... Yes, that sucks if you are playing some sort of cool combo deck. But, as Ktom said on another thread - that is the playing field, deal with it (I shortened it, hopefully that was the jist). Hopefully your deck is good enough (and you are a player) to win regardless. Or make a deck that is consistent and can win even when they know it is coming. On the correcting of mistakes I agree (with what sounds like the majority) is that if it is required (like the plot deck thing), then it is okay. I also try not to talk to people that are playing.

I think they are a good meta choice to be sure. Weenies are coming back, along with duplicates - burn is good vs. both. However...I never trust Ktom when he says someone is good - he would win with any house, so that isn't good proof He is, however, the perfect driver for a complex house like Targ right now.

Stag Lord said: Deep down i'm still a Ned and rally to the banner of the Lord of Brewtown. The strongest NPE's i've experienced are where the card game mechanics dominate and the immersive experience is gone. So - unstoppbale combos like ktom's Septon deck, or Ktom's Alannys deck, or ktom's....Hey! Wait a minute...... Although, there is nothing sweeter than beating an NPE deck...as my experience in NYC a few years ago is still one of my favorite aGoT moments (Sith and the Septon deck repeatedly hitting the one card in the deck that stopped it). I think a very few mechanics define it for me. Not playing is a big one - so kneeling (I still think dups should be able to cancel any triggered ability as well). Milling has the potential to be, but luckily really never has been. At one time trait manip was close (i.e. turning characters into Warships and discarding them...). But like Stag said, anything that TOTALLY removes you from the world and feel of what we are to be playing get that way. FFG has done a pretty good job overall, with a few hiccups.

Awesome - other than that Epic Event my favorite of Robert as well. Still bad-ass on the throne (many pictures focus too much on his being fat, w/ women, etc. IMHO).

Great info on all sides, and congrats to all the players. Sounded just great. I am glad to hear the assessments of Fear/RBD/Blockade. I am not glad to hear of all the meta'ing against it - well, more specifically how you have to meta against it. I don't mind having to meta, but putting in weenies isn't my cup of tea and might led too much into a Rock/Paper/Scissors scenario w/ Targ or the such. The good thing is that I think you can put some plots in for every situation and still be okay...good to hear! Again, sounded like a blast, and great to see Stark winning. Really, with them being the only house both with the Core Set and their own expansion...they better be decent! Good to see Targ played well too.

Narrow Escape. 'nuff said. One of the most useful cards in the game, and on my short list of events that should always be legal (Paper Shield, Interrogation, PTTS/PTTT/Tears, Ransack).

I usually still try to use the very first one. They are nice and basic, and don't have that silly taxation phase That being said...I have a I&F one signed by George RR Martin (Lanni), so that gets used a lot!

Staton said: I'd just like to say we have done a really good job at having some great discussion and not just shouting back and forth. ~We're all grown up now! ~Screw you Stanton! (and yes, I played the Stanton card). Remember when we had that 4/3/4 plot that ended up having no drawbacks? That was pretty annoying for the couple of weeks it was going. While I don't think this is on par with that situation, I think it has the ability to be. I playtested the plot cycle (usually FOW, RBD, Blockade) against some of my other decks last night (Lanni Shadows, Martell, Bara) and it was pretty impressive. Disclaimer: I hadn't 'meta'd' against this deck yet. I had the board cleared, a minimum of 6 power, and my opponent discarding 4 cards in the next plot cycle in 80% of the games (4 of 5). In the other game the 'opponent' had one character, Epic Stark had 10 power, and then the 'opponent' discarded 4 cards in the plot phase. It was crazy. I always have been a big believer in just making a better deck, with little meta vs. the strongest decks out there (i.e. I have never meta'd against Lanni kneel) - but this this is really the first time I will have to keep a deck 100% in mind while making mine that I can remember. And it doesn't feel good.

kpmccoy21 said: Just because I don't like the current play environment does not make it broken or bad for the game. Personally, I thought last fall and winter were low points of the LCG with the King's Landing Expansion skewering the game too much to the control play style, but that's just my play preferences not coinciding with the then current environment. That doesn't make the environment at that time bad. I think the complaint against Fear is other people experiencing similar dislike with the new direction they think the game is going. When Stark wins GENCON, lets start talking about banning/nerfing the agenda. Every summer Stark that has a strong build, everyone starts worrying about it being bad for the game, yet they never even make it to the final game. Some other heavy control build keeps them from being even close to contenders. Lets revisit this if that changes. 1. I agree the first turn win hasn't been shown to be consistant - as stated I think the game basically being over turn 1 (no characters, the start of next turn going down to 4 cards and your opponent has 6-10 power) is much more of a worry. I am not an expert on the decks yet, but this seems to not need a lot of luck to pull off. 2. I think you are very wrong on the first paragraph above. Maybe if YOU don't like the current play environment it doesn't make it bad for the game, but when a majority of players don't like it...sorry to say that is bad for the game (you didn't like last year, and trust me a lot of people left during that environment). This isn't the case yet, but I see a definate NPE trend starting with this combo, or the fact that you have to play around your opponents "un-cancelable always on time plots" with subpar counters. 3. I do agree with the second paragraph. I would really like Stark to be strong and playable. They haven't had a ton of Worlds success (Dobbler's 2nd place the highest I can think of?), and I would love for them to win. However, I don't want them to win like this...or with the old Traitor deck. Kind of like I don't want the US to win the World Cup based on us being able to use steriods and no other team could. Stark isn't the only house BTW that can use these tactics...just probably the best at this second due to Agenda (GJ being a close 2nd due to saves). 4. Lastly - I have said it 100 times - plot and agendas are the two hardest cards to balance. Especially agendas considering they are impossible to target (almost). This Stark deck uses a set of plots and an agenda that only can be countered by playing a certain kind of deck I believe (and could be wrong), and that is the worry. "Play this deck or go home" is no fun. All that being said, I wouldn't mind nothing happening. It would show its power (or not) at Worlds which is only two months away. Obviously Bara can beat it, so it isn't...um...unbeatable!

To me, the combo with the Epic's are the larger problem. You pretty much guarantee (with the right build) quite a few (2-4) military wins at two claim, and a 2nd turn RBD to hit their hand for 4 cards. Dobbs almost winning first turn seems like a problem to me, because I can see that happening with regularity to be honest...or at least the game is over for all practical purposes. I don't see that with Lanni kneel *shrug* (see: Lanni not showing well right now), although more ally hate would never be refused in my mind To Ktom - I agree that it is part of the meta, and we should all suck it up That being said, there is no problem in my mind complaining about the game when something is overpowered enough, or moving in a direction peope (i.e. me, and at least some others have agreed) isn't as much fun. The great thing about aGoT is that most people play to have fun. My point was IMHO this card/combo/strategy makes the game less fun, and I am worried about the direction the game is going in. Let's face it, cards have been made that just are not good for the game - banning is serious and I hate it (and to be honest, I don't support it in this case yet), but if it makes the game more fun for pretty much everyone...why is it so bad again? Is it a 'slippery slope' argument? Stark Traitor decks at one point were bad for the game, and I didn't cry when they left. To be honest, I really haven't had an issue with any bannings - knowing that in the back of my mind each one has made my playing experience more fun.

Really? Wow...that makes those decks even more tough. I guess that blanking plot is pretty close to the only really viable answer now (other than 'joining them'). IMHO of course. That 2 claim really hurts. While I used to really agree that a Outmaneuver/Outfox plot is already good for the environment, I am not as sure these days. I think it is mainly due to the lack of consistant control cards, although that may change. That lack of control meant that Valar and Wildfire are the only remotely strong cards to control the board outside of a couple of houses. If First Snow and the other Wildfire (the discard one...Winter Storm?) were legal I liked those plots. But now...not quite so sure. I am very against weenie decks. I just don't think they are fun to play, or play against. I have said it 1,000 times (I know, shut up already rings!) I want to play Blackfish and dragons and Jaime...not Stark/GJ free/1-cost chud #822. So I am always loath to see strong decks that break these cards that really have little to no drawbacks to playing them. Just think these are bad for the game. The inherent weakness of uniques should result in a more powerful card...but many non-uniques are priced low for their abilities and there isn't enough hate for negative traits that they could have (i.e. ally, or low strength, or no crest - that would be a good one!). 4/6/1 "Chuds Suck Plot" All characters without a Crest are knelt and cannot stand during the standing phase.

The Agenda and Plot actually look pretty game-changing (BTW you have to unclick agendas and plots to see them). I have a feeling Blood of the First Men might be in every deck I play along with the unique Wildlings.

As people who know me, um...know...I am the worst rules guy for a decent player of all time. How does the plot phase work on City of Secrets (or whatever one let's you 2 shadow cards)? You still get those in addition to your 1 character drop, correct? There are lots of good neutral shadow cards to try to flop (and at least a few good ones for each house). While I see people's thoughts on this hurting big characters (which I HATE), it also helps them in that you should get more 'bang for your buck' out of your one card. I haven't seen the deck at work, especially w/ Epic cards. But I agree that putting a couple of Epics in your deck might help, some shadow cards, maybe Forgotten Plans, and some 0-cost characters (pesronally I like the house ones, and Gilly makes every deck usually). Either that or take the first couple of turns off (locations, the only CBK guy out there Coldhands) and Valar. Looking at the cheap GJ and Stark cards, Threat doesn't do a lot. Or, as I have said all along...REPRINT FIRST SNOW DANGIT!!! I loved that plot... Good thread!

Yep, pretty cool deck. I agree that Bara wins or goes home in 1-3 turns, so there really isn't any reason to not run 3X of any card that you want. Congrats again!