Ah, well never mind then, characters only. Hm. Obviously I didn't build a Neutral Faction Deck.

Neutral House reduces the OOH cost by 1 so I was wrong when I said they would have been cheaper for actual putting into play, but essentially they are the same stats with the added flexibility of possibly being attachments.

Darksbane said: A neutral Holy Brotherhood deck running the streets, crossroads, and dorne for resources. Why didn't you use the chambers? They would be cheaper than the crossroads and more versatile if you were facing a deck you thought might have location destruction (such that it is).

The new restricted list I think changes things a little now don't you?

Has anyone thought that maybe they gave us this as an answer to our questions about rotation? I can see that by including specific cards on this list they could keep broken combos and stuff way down and potentially not ever have to rotate. Just restrict a card or three every year or so and occasionally move a card or two to the banned list from the restricted list? It seems like a definite possibility to me at least.

KallistiBRC said: So I'm not sure how these two rules live together. (They're both still in the FAQ). Does the "if able" mean you don't have to fulfill as much of the card effect as possible? Or is it that you have to choose and discard 2? I've submitted for an official ruling and I'll let ya'll know what I hear. If I had to guess I would go with number two. Or maybe both. But definitely number two. BA says choose 2 cards, and JB says discard 2 cards. At least in AGoT each card is drawn or discarded singularly, so I must do each as a separate thing until I reach the cap the effect places on me. If I am directed to choose 2 of something and there are not two to choose I can fulfill that at all.

Dadajef said: I don't understand why they have changed again the Doppelganger to abuse him with rats or descendant ? + all problems this card pose. And why they have not put the Doppel in the restricted list if they keep the card so powerful ! I'm pretty sure they were not changing Doppelganger, so much as making sure people realized he still had the rest of his text. I think it was a clarification of the previous errata. And Doppelganger is awesomely good, but I wouldn't call him overpowered. Essentially he just lets you stack your deck with 3 additional copies of the best non-unique card in play or can afford. This is a very strong card, but not broken by anything I've seen, nor part of any combo that just kills the fun. I suppose it may find its way on to the Restricted List if a lot of the Regionals are being won with Yog-Sothoth decks and he makes an appearance as a lynchpin of all of them.

Yes, I was sort of clarifying it a little bit more for AUCodeMonkey.

Very interesting reviews, thank you. I agree that CoC is the simplest of the games to learn with AGoT being the most immersive and strategic. I think that most questions that come up are answered in the rulebook and recent FAQ, though sometimes you have to really look at the question from a very stripped down level to understand what rule is applying. Wargame/Minitures are definitely easier to play because of the closed system, but I like the freedom this format has more. In the end I just have more fun with this kind of game. FFG has been really good about answering questions submitted to them through the "Rules Question" link at the bottom of each page here. If it isn't a weekend you can probably get a response within about 24 hrs. I've gotten them in as fast as five minutes. Cheers.

See what happens when you don't play for years?

Peaslee would have brought everything back. There is a single response window for everything that happens in a story's resolution. This window may have multiple responses but it is still a single response window. You could trigger a dozen different responses and then Peaslee's and he would still go off bringing everything that had gone to the discard pile that phase, including those characters that went there after him.

The way I like to think about it is that effects in AGoT work precisely the way we operate in the real world. If you want to do something to a card to keep it from doing something else you need to do that thing first. I don't get to go back and put my parking break on to stop my car rolling down the hill, if it has already rolled down the hill.

The games are similar in that what the cards say is, generally speaking, all that you take into account. If a card says stand a character but does not say it removes it from the challenge, all it does is stand the character. Similarly when a card says remove a character from a challenge, but does not say stand the character, it remains knelt. The icon issue is the same, that taking away an icon that the rules say is needed to have the character declared as a participant, it simply means it can no longer be declared as a participant in further challenges (important when you are facing decks that stand characters and are capable of participating in multiple challenges of a particular type in a single challenges phase. The main difference from a rule perspective between the games comes into play with things like summoning sickness, timing, and blocking.

Hm, that also kind of answers the Repo Man Infernal Obsession question. The take control effect on IO is a passive based on attachment to a character. As soon as it is removed the passive no longer grants control of the character so it immediately reverts to the owners control. Then you would proceed with the attaching the IO to a character on your side of the board, the Repo Man and returned character would be legal targets.

Now that is intriguing.

Not at all. I don't believe in an optimal deck and I don't strongly believe in a strict tiering of decks. A deck that is built to optimize your play style is going to perform better, for you, than a deck that you are constantly struggling to play to its strengths. If you don't have the ability to look three steps ahead and remember multiple things at a time a deck that really depends on triggered effects and has a lot of moving parts (Targ Shadows Burn anyone?) is not something you are going to do well with, even when you face a deck that it is objectively better than. Similarly if you are a control player aggro decks are frequently not going to work for you because you will be having to fight your own instincts during the game and that leads to making bad choices. ~except for Rush decks. Anyone can win with them since they require nothing more than being able to top deck your cards.

Assume that unless the tournament you are going to says that it is CCG/LCG mix that your cards are illegal. Always best to check with the tourney organizer. Regards to it being unfair... didn't the CCG game have a rotation policy or was it all in from day one? I don't honestly remember. I would look at the LCG as rotation. Sucks that you spent that money on something that is no longer legal, but pretty much every CCG goes that route sooner or later (or spot banning cards that create broken combos or NPE's). You have to ask yourself why are you getting back into the game. Is it to enjoy Lovecrafts universe and FFG's mechanics while spending time with some cool people? Or is it to dust off the cards and destroy and humiliate opponents? These two questions do not preclude LCG or CCG, but if you know why you are playing you'll be better able to determine what kind of decks to build, who you play with, and how best to ensure you are both getting something enjoyable out of it. Letting players use your CCG decks is a good way for instance of keeping your cardpool without losing opponents, and both of you having a good time.

Nah. The card text on IO refers specifically to the card it is attached to. The second it is unattached it ceases to be a concern. There is no way for the rules to allow it to be discarded because of something happening to a character it had been attached to when the card specifically states is attached to. The character immediately reverting control once IO is unattached or remaining under your opponents control until after Repo Man's effect fully resolves is another matter though. A case could be argued both ways. I need to check my copy of the FAQ about gaining control, but CoC does not have a moribund rule like AGoT does, so I'm not sure how IO being removed is solved in a rules way to allow it to remain under your opponents control with no game mechanic forcing it. An argument could be made that reverting control is part of resolving Repo Man's effect. I do know that IO has no current rulebook or FAQ entry that would make it be discarded though.

You do get the added benefit of running a kneel supported deck though. If you are kneeling out your opponents strongest characters you should be abel to control a lot of what they do, especially if you run Toll Gates in addition. Your kneeling for losing on defense is easily offset by your ability to kneel their own characters, extra easy if you are using flogged and chained in your deck. Your kneeling for losing kneels one of their own characters as well. I'm not claiming you would have a tier 1 deck, but it would be a fun Nedly deck with some Shagga overtones.

I use True Power in my Targ deck in conjunction with Seductive Promise as well as to stimey Baratheon's Fury Plot (which despite Errata is STILL one of the best plot of the cycle I think).

Well that is super sweet. Glad to know that the gang at FFG is on the ball. And Shades is awesome. Meereen is going to be a must have in any Dragon based deck.

FATMOUSE said: If you look at BotS, there's no doubt the card is unbalanced. It's arguably the most powerful challenge control event Martell has ever had, and it costs nothing. Could it be balanced? I think so. Maybe you have to kneel a character or two and then stand all participating characters or something like that. Now is BotS good for the game? Personally, I don't think it is. I'm not sure when and how Martell went from "I get stuff when I lose as a defender," to "Nope, no one wins, aka you can't win, because I'm the 'annoying' House," but it did, and I think the concept of "I get access to everything because I'm that kind of House" needs to stop. Getting rid of BotS would be a good start. I fundamentally disagree. Martell gets an event that neutralizes a challenge while all the other houses get an event that allows them to win some very specific thing that is important to them,. Kneeling characters for it? Then it becomes the weakest possible ugly step-sister of Lethal Counterattack. This really sounds like a case where the card bothers you, not something that is demonstrably bad for the game or unbalanced. Facing Burning on the Sand versus True Power or Misinformation, I'd take Burning on the Sand every day, all day. Martell can't use their tricks against me for losing the challenge, nor do I have to face any claim.

How do you figure? It is only discarded if the character it is currently attached to changes controllers. Taking control of the attachment and detaching it would be functionally the same thing per the rules. That means IO is detached when the character comes back to you so its discard effect cannot resolve. If this were AGoT I would guess it would be a different issue. Their moribund would make the whole process a bit easier to understand (though the concept of moribund itself is a little hard to wrap your mind around).

If those were the ones Time 2 Roll was talking about then I agree... though he did say SKaven and Lizardmen which would mean Slaan and Abhumans. There are also the Squat, though they should be with the Imperium, these days. Should be some interesting decisions they will be making. Of course who knows when this is coming out (assuming it is). I mean do we really expect them to design more than 1 LCG a year? We have LotR coming out in 2011. so it is at least 2012 before we see an un-announced LCG I would imagine.

What? Seriously? I need to be a member of the sight to view decks and stuff? That is just not going to happen. I'm not signing up for any site that won't let me determine if it is worth my time and effort. *sigh*