Jump to content

sWhiteboy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    323

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sWhiteboy

  2. Posted

    I was the one who started the discussion on IFR+Corpse Lake.  I gave two examples to try and explain what I thought was the ruling (which KTOM agrees with).  Other than the, "influence paid for cost is not a triggered efffect" example, I also gave the example of using Seasick to cancel a triggered effect.  When you cancel a triggered effect with Seasick, the cost is not refunded because the cost is not the triggered effect.

    You want FFG to reverse the ruling that a Cost is not a Triggered Effect?  I just don't think this will happen.  The best you can hope for is an Errata on IFR, which wouldn't happen until the next FAQ update.  So, send FFG e-mails if you want them to errata the card, but I wouldn't be to hopeful.  Until they do, it works exactly how KTOM explained it a couple posts ago.

  4. Posted

    They have been up all day.  Some people have posted that they can't view the site from the computer/browser they were using.  Apparently, smartphone internet has been working pretty well for most people.  I can see it using Google Chrome just fine, but others say it isn't working in Chrome.

     

    idk.

  5. Posted

     We should probably start a dedicated Eastern NC meta thread.  The NC group has blown up from like 3 people to 20+ in the past two months.  We should let it be known on this forum in case people come looking.

     

    EDIT:  Yeah, Kevin, he is talking about Branagan.

  7. Posted

    Staton said:

    2. If you were to cancel it, it would go back into shadows where you could then kneel 2 influence again to trigger him.

    I thought you were only allowed to trigger an individual Response 1 time per trigger.  Does this not hold if the Response is cancelled?

  10. Posted

    Rave said:

    To be good, you can hit up cardgamedb and look up decklists, and ride the coattails of other players.

     

    I would never take a decklist from cardgamedb.  Why?  Because even as a new player, I realize that many of the posted decks suck.  Decks can be posted by anyone.  If a deck database were more restrictive on who they allowed to post decks, then it might be useful, but that just seems elitist.

    Prior to the Small Council articles on cardgamedb, there has been very little in the way of helping new players outside of a meta.  Where are the articles from the World and Regional champs?  They are easily the best source of information, but I've seen little from them in the past year that I've been checking out this game.  When I played M:tG around 10 years ago, there were always articles being written by champs where they would give a decklist (either from the deck they were playing, from other popular deck-types of the time, or from that hidden gem that few people knew about), and then explain in great detail exactly why they chose what cards they used, and what caused them to not chose other cards.

     

    EDIT:  I think rotation should happen, but I believe that FFG should make a Base set (deluxe expansion style) so that we don't lose important basic cards (such as the Ravens).

  11. Posted

    alpha5099 said:

    If the sets are not available, but still legal, that just seems to me to go against the spirit of the LCG model.

    I don't have a link to the original press release from when FFG switched the game to an LCG, but it said that the reason that some cards only had 1 copy per pack was because they wanted to keep a rarity system.  They just didn't want the system to be as bad as it is in CCGs.  So, having limited quantities of some cards IS in the spirit of the LCG model.

     

    Still, I would guess that FFG never expected the card game to get as big as it is, which is why stuff is now selling out.  So, we'll just have to wait and see what they do.

  12. Posted

     I have to disagree that FFG wants to kill all combo decks.  It seems to me that they just don't want combos that are too easy to abuse.  You can still do uber-maester decks, you can still do Satin-Mill decks, and you can do the Sand Snake combos.  FFG just makes the combos a little harder to do, which I think is perfectly fine.  In my opinion, no combo should take less than 4 cards; especially in a game like AGoT where you tend to draw quite a few cards.

  13. Posted

    ktom said:

    dh098017 said:

    Bomb said:

     

     

    I just want to point out that I don't follow as to why this was ruled by Nate differently here than how it was addressed in the FAQ.  I presume what is in the FAQ was decided to be less confusing?

     

     

     

    Or, there's the whole, "he's a human" angle. Perhaps he just made a mistake when going through the logic last time :)

    I think it's more likely that he made the ruling thinking primarily about the question being asked, but updated the FAQ upon reflection on all similar situations and the way they have been ruled in the past. That idea may be supported by the fact that the clarification in the FAQ is consistent with the historical rulings. To many of us old-timers, the ruling Nate gave for this thread was the inconsistency, not yesterday's FAQ.

     

    I feel like this happens with many of the questions that people ask Nate.  They want an answer and Nate wants to give one, but neither person takes time to think about ALL the possible things that could happen from that one answer.  I know that I recently saw a Nate answer that contradicted itself within the same answer.  Nate is just a man...I'm assuming a busy man.

  14. Posted

     


    Sure, toolboxing: there's no way to toolbox for viable deckbuilds for all six houses, though, which is why reading the meta is so important, as is the versatility of the toolbox card. Deck A can plan for deck B, and even fit in stuff for deck C, but then there are decks X, Y, and Z, which bring their own problematic cards. Not to mention some cards you can't do anything about, even if you know they're coming. Perhaps GJ will become more popular then because of its plethora of cancel.

     

     

    At that point, it isn't Rock-Paper-Scissors. At that point, it is exactly how it is supposed to be. A deck shouldn't be able to handle everything that is thrown at it. If it can, then there is a serious issue of balance.

    This is more like Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock.

     

     

  15. Posted

    Kaworu said:

     

    Bob limited to 3 times is bad, with 5 times per fase he attack and stop once every challenge and is good, but 3 times is vey bad, core Bob is better now.

     

     

    I fail to see this logic.  Standing Bob can still participate in 4 challenges each turn, which means he can grab 4 possible power (as well as add 3 strength to 4 different challenges).  Core Bob can only participate in 1 challenge each turn, which means he can only grab 2 possible power (and only add 3 strength to 1 challenge).  The only way that Core Bob would be better is if you had 2 to 3 cards to stand him with.

  17. Posted

    If you're worried about At The Gates being a dead card, then include another Maester.  Murenmure will fill that extra slot fine.

    Also, why are there 3 Frostfang Peaks, but only 2 Corpse Lakes?  Corpse Lake is your win condition; the Frostfang Peaks aren't doing anything without having a Corpse first.  I'd switch that around.

  23. Posted

    Kennon said:

    playgroundpsychotic said:

    Again, Griff is useful but effects to make him stronger do not exist in Targ. Imagine him played OOH in a Baratheon deck.

     

     

    Hmmm..... Not sure why I would want to do that. His ability brings very little to the table out of Baratheon. Which attachments are you desperately wanting to recur in Baratheon?

    Griff says that it has to be a Targ Attachment.  So, no Baratheon Attachments are going to recur.

  25. Posted

    Kennon does sound alot like Will....lol ;)

    How did you not include Quentyn's Guard in the Top 5 of Where Loyalty Lies?  To me, that card is a three-times auto-include in Melee Martell decks. A 3 STR for 2 cost with Deadly, Stealth and a Bicon; it also has the Army and Knight traits, AND is a non-unique.  That's rediculous.  ****, it's even good for 4 Gold in a Joust game.

     

    EDIT:  You were discussing the Agenda Characters, wondering if you can play a Unique Character that has already become an Agenda.  I don't have an answer to this, but wouldn't this same type of ruling apply to the Chamber cards, such as "King Robert's Chambers."  If you play King Robert's Chambers as an Attachment to your House card, then it is an Attachment.  So, why couldn't you then play a second copy as a Location?

    Another thing to think about is how you can play the Alliance Plot card, while you are using the Alliance Agenda.  But neither card is technically a Unique.

×
×
  • Create New...