Jump to content

9thimmortal

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,254

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 9thimmortal

  2. Posted

    LoneWanderer said:

    Doesn't work like that, unfortunately.

    You still have to kneel 1 influence for each of the neutral characters on the board (i.e. 1 for Leyton, and 1 for each of his little Maestery chums). Just because TPTB will bounce right off half of the available targets doesn't mean you get a discount.

    Right, and you can't have your own.  So it severely limits your deck-building in many decktypes. 

  3. Posted

    Alando said:

    KOTHH does provide a sort of card advantage, as you can remove income locations and setup weenies, and put more powerful cards in their place. Deck advantage.

    As someone who has played it quite a bit, I would say this isn't really the case.  Maybe on locations a little, but considering the lack of set up you still need weenies to survive early-game.  But, I see the point.

    I though Dobbler WAS Fat Jon Finkel? 

  4. Posted

    Kennon said:

    Of course, that old Knight of Flowers wasn't limited to "Once per phase" like Jaime (and since it's a Challenge Phase ability, this is effectively "Once per round"), plus KoF's discard was based on his STR versus the other character's strength, rather than Jaime's power vs other character's strength. Even with Infamy its slower and much more risky to power Jaime up. He's obviously in a similar vein as that old Knight of Flowers, but KoF was leagues ahead of him in strength.

    QFT X 1,000.  He isn't that great, and if you can't control him in the time it takes for him to be remotely as good as Venomous Blade...well, your deck has issues lengua.gif

    ~None of this will stop me from making fun of Kennon for not playing Lanni in forever BTW...yet still getting to write the Lanni box intro.  gui%C3%B1o.gif

  5. Posted

    Rogue30 said:

    Twn2dn said:

    Maybe the problem isn't that the downside for this agenda is too small...but rather that there aren't enough other agendas that can compete?

     

    No, the problem is power creep. Maester's Path is like having up to 12 agendas. Because of this, the power creep after this set is so ridiculous, that I have doubts - should I teach new players? Besides, playing against this agenda is really tiresome.

    Totally agree.  Search is hard to find (although getting easier), and this agenda is the biggest toolbox the game has probably ever seen *shrug*

    Printing more agendas might help slightly, but it would result in serious power creep if they were as good as this one.

  7. Posted

    I think Targ dedicated burn control is still close to the top, as is the big location deck (that Dobbler loves so much).  When I build a deck, or see the decks that are doing well, my first reaction is that burn would really put a crimp in that deck's style.  Easy attachment control, decent draw, and kills dups/saves dead. 

    They did take a hit from the Maester Agenda however (although they run it well as well), in that attachment control (traditionally their strength) is now out of every house. 

  8. Posted

    Originally, there were all sorts of rules about what your card could and could not be.  House-specific was a definate no-no.  Otherwise you would have seen at least one Lanni one lengua.gif

    But I am glad it changed.  There are plenty of amazing cards that champs have not made, and it is still up to FFG and the playtesters to make sure it is at least remotely balanced. 

    ~Heck, even the agenda was balanced, which means the players are actually better designers than the designers gui%C3%B1o.gif

  9. Posted

    The problem is that it is SO easy to use.  Even other decks still have 5% of their deck as a Maester deck.  Is that really a Maester deck...yes and no I guess.

    I haven't really picked up a deck in a month or more, and I would have to blame this as much as anything.  Wildlings were the same way.  At least Brotherhood had enough of a drawback (and now a huge drawback being Ghaston Grey and other played cards) that it wasn't just splashed in every deck. 

    *insert normal 'Rings Agenda Rant here' (available on demand)...*    lengua.gif

  10. Posted

    Mathias Fricot said:

    Its functionally a Retaliation!

    +4 gold for you (since they net 2 as well)
    claim 2
    zero initiative, which is a little like going second, but worse since it might be advantageous for them to go second.

    I would run it over Retaliation! for the chance at dropping another Frozen Outpost or Scouting Vessel.

    Of course you would - there is really little downside, and in a high-draw, higher-cost deck it wins for sure.  It woudl be power creep for sure (an auto-include, replaced by another auto-include - many people running both). 

    ~And Stanton, please do!  It woudl be quiet around the house for a change lengua.gif

  11. Posted

    Penfold said:

     Is there anyone here who believes that you need to have a playset to build a competitive deck? I understand the desire to make any deck at all, but in my experience most new players who want to compete ask what houses are strong and the cards needed to make a competitive deck. They go right for the competitive deck and then expand outwards. The non-competitive players are happy with a core set or two and an expansion and slowly work their way towards acquiring whatever the newest stuff is.

    The completionists and the long term competitive players are the ones that look at getting a full playset.

    I agree, but you would be surprised at how many people are this way.  When I owned a game store the # of legal cards was directly related to the number of new players you could get to try the game.  I don't know if it is the overwhelming part of things (go to the FFG store right now, imagine you are a new player, then see how many LCG 'products' you have to buy), or the fact that people want to be able to choose, or what. 

    All I know is the relationship between # of cards legal, and # of new players willing to get into a game, have an inverse relationship.  *shrug*

  13. Posted

    Funny, since I have played a lot of those plots!

    Snowed Under will get my vote, and it has always been a favorite, especially if you also play some good 'coming into play' characters.  It was in my GenCon deck I THINK, so I could hit one of their largest cards (many times, it is very hard not to kneel for a full turn), plus hit a Scavenger so I can draw three next turn as well (or Messenger, or etc.). 

    I played Attack from the Sea for quite awhile, and have played Valar D in certain decks (Martell, duh).  Attack isn't that good anymore, but for awhile the 4/5/1 stats were nice.  Now we have 4 gold plots falling out of our ears :) 

    Right now I would stay the trait manipulation one (sorry, I am horrible with names).  Dissension is already a good card, and can be combo'd here (especially w/ Refugees giving a 2-for-1 effect).  It can give other traits that might matter as well if you don't have one in hand (Wildling, Lord, Knight, etc.). 

  15. Posted

    thekingg said:

    Though this is just my 2 cents worth.

    Brooks, hard to compare the recent winners to Valar.  They can (could?) run Threat for one-sided, unsaveable resets...so don't need Valar (one thing Maesters don't have, is a really good protection vs. Valar - which is a plus on the Valar side I agree). 

    I don't disagree with your point, just how you got there.  ~It is like saying 'well, GJ decks can win without knights, so any knight related card must be balanced' or the such... lengua.gif

  16. Posted

    LaughingTree said:

    Let's be real about the LCG model.

    The LCG was never designed to be 'cheap' or affordable. A cheap or affordable card game model is Illuminati:NWO in its current form or Munchkins from Steve Jackson games.


    The LCG model was simply meant to reduce the variable cost of a game with randomized boosters by making standard monthly boosters with static card lists. So people could predict how much they would spend a month. That doesn't mean those monthly costs don't add up over time.

    The LCG model was always a large escalating cost model. I think many people might not have really understood this.

    On the first topic, power creep vs. no useable cards is a problem that any game with as many different "buildable parts" is going to have to some degree. No game that expands as frequently as collectible games do (and LCG model is still a collectible games model) has ever completely figured out a solution to this.

    That is WAY to cerebral my man!  lengua.gif 

    Yeah it is $1,000 to get in the game now.  That is still a chunk of $$.  Again, it isn't broken now, but what about in 2 years?  Three?  

    No one asks what they expect the 'LCG model' to look like.  They ask 'how much to get in the game' or even 'how much for a playset'.  That is going to get more an more onerous over time, and as you said, power creep gets worse and worse.  Either rotation or restriction of competative play is the figured solution (see: every successful card game still in existance, including an FFG aGoT one you might remember - both basic rotation and even the reset button to LCG). 

    On two different formats, that just doesn't usually work.  Even in games with 50 times more players (say, MTG), it is hard to have multiple formats when the company involved does a fair job of supporting them all.  Substitute Hasbro cash-tourneys w/ FFG and I doubt it is possible *shrug*  Obviously multi-player vs. single player barely is the same game, and they are both doing well - but two different single player formats would be different (see: Highlander).   

    P.S. usual disclaimer that I don't think this is a problem yet.  Just something when we see Season 4 of aGoT on HBO gui%C3%B1o.gif

  17. Posted

    Very interesting discussion, with good points all around.  ~Except Stag Lord's.  gui%C3%B1o.gif

    1.  I like the seperate list for plots.  I am all for variety, and truth be told you see 5-6 plots as 90% of all plots played.  And, I can't even blame FFG (not that I usually do) since they are super-hard to balance (~don't worry, I won't go into my 'hard to balance plots, impossible to balance agendas' rant again). 

    2.  I think Valar should be part of the environment.  I just would also like to see other options for mass-removal - Mathlete's plot, Winter Storm were old ones, or new ones like a plot that effectively has three military claim but only hits weenies/allies/non-uniques or something like that. 

    3.  While we are at it, why are locations so unbreakable (plot-wise) and characters are?  Really?  There should be a couple more options on this side, since there is exactly one location removal plot I can think of.  Catastrophe I loved.  Something that just zaps a location 3 cost or less if you win two challenges.  Return a character to hand to return a location to hand.  Stuff like that.  I never have figured out why characters die so often (like the books) but locations don't (unlike the books). 

     

  18. Posted

    LaughingTree said:

    Restricted list is a much better solution than ever phasing out blocks. Better to "phase out" OP cards than whole blocks that people spent hard earned money to purchase.

    Sounds nice, but unluckily DOESN'T solve:

    1.  Power creep vs. no useable cards.

    2.  Buy in $$ amount for new players which are the lifeblood of any game.

    (again, this is more 'when the time comes' discussion - but right now it is, what, $1,500+ to get 3X of every card...it is STARTING to defeat the LCG model)

  19. Posted

    LOL Star Wars CCG, virtual sets, fan-based stick-on 'cards'.  Super LOL Decipher. 

    My point has been proven.  lengua.gif

    (BTW I love Decipher games, Star Wars was one of the best gaming systems ever, and LoTR wasn't far behind.  Too bad they sucked hard at implementation so they lost 90% of their clients on huge properties after 5 years or less.  Impletmentation issues like no rotation/restriction of cards...and CFO's stealing millions). 

  23. Posted

    Shenanigans said:

    Fat Jon Finkel said:

     

     The Champion cards are coming back?  Ugh, I hope not all of them.  Flea Bottom Sucks.

     

     

    Don't worry, I'm sure it'll be changed enough to be playable. ;)

    At GenCon, you described Flea Bottom to me as "like River Row" so I can see them just making it into something like that, but with 1 cost and a 2-reduction

    ~Hey, don't blame us that you got rolled by the development team... gui%C3%B1o.gif  Wait...I just did too.  Never mind!  happy.gif

    (and thanks, TWn for the kind words)

  24. Posted

    Fieras said:

    EviLaz said:

     

    Building a deck with the entire card pool is not only challenging, it's exciting and fulfilling.  Having to select from a limited selection of blocks makes deck building and competition more predictable. 

     

     

    I disagree.  Having more cards to choose from means you see more auto includes.  Every deck has refugees, and street of sisters, and you always see carrion birds, and valar and all that crap.

    If those blocks get phased out, you will see MORE variety rather than less, I would say.

    Totally agree.  Going forward,a  card has to either be:

    1.  So unbelievably good, it replaces another REALLY good card in the deck.  This is called power creep.  lengua.gif  The replaced card never sees the light of day again.

    2.  Not good, so they sit in the binder for the rest of your life.

    3.  Are a new combo/subtheme.  Good if only can be combo'd with a select few cards.  Bad if easily combo'd - this gets harder and harder for playtesters to catch (or FFG to listen to playtesters and change). 

    As I said, FFG has done a pretty good job of #3, although with issues (see: the banned/erratta'd Agendassilly, other cards like Prince's Plans that shoudl have never been printed as is).  So I am okay.  Just the more you throw in the pot, the more issues you have with power creep or broken combos.  The fact that NO successful gaming company (that I know of) has ever gone 7+ years without some sort of rotation says something. 

  25. Posted

    Twn2dn said:

     

    As cool as it would have been to play a Westeros Bleeds intensive Brotherhood deck (where Beric and Ghost  are CBD), I don't think the loss of CBD is a big deal. I haven't seen any competitive decks lately that play Westeros Bleeds, etc. Outside of Targ + Threat, I can't think of anything, and Targ's going to burn her anyway. Obviously less protection hurts, but doesn't seem like it hurts all that much in this case.

    Seems to me the biggest downside is the Ally trait. That's kind of a bummer, but makes sense to me balance wise. This effect on a 2-gold neutral character is incredibly powerful. I really doubt the ally trait is going to keep very many people from playing it.

    Threat is pretty well played, and it is just another plot effect that can hit her (yes, along with Bleeds and a few other events).  ~And, if they don't change 1st Snow, that one as well, and that REALLY sucks gui%C3%B1o.gif

    The Ally trait is pretty big - tempo is a decent amount of the game, and being able to hit w/ Oakheart/Varys (much less dissension) is pretty big. 

    But, like I said, I am just being emo...overall I am happy that FFG decided to reprint them.  ~If I have issues, just man up and win another one (I had my chances). 

×
×
  • Create New...