Jump to content

Ivanstone

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    197

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by Ivanstone

  1. Posted

    mdc273 said:

    If City of Spiders is copying the effect, why does the other not refer to another City plot besides City of Spiders? If the other is self-referential text, doesn't it refer to City of Spiders now?

    The currently revealed plot is in not considered to be in your used pile. So yes you can effectively double tap with City of Spiders assuming you've used no other City cards.

  2. Posted

    mdc273 said:

    I can't believe anyone would attack the actual game mechanics of Magic. That's like attacking Citizen Kane as a movie. You're talking about a game that is considered one of the best games of all time and is what originated the whole card game craze. Of course the mechanics are dated, they're 20 years old. On the other hand, they have been pretty much unchanged since the advent of the game and yet the game is still the most popular one out there. Hell, most of this game is based off of Magic mechanics. They made a decision to NOT use LIFO (a decision I disagree with). They made a decision to have only one Marshalling phase (magic has two). They made a decision to not have characters actually hurt each other (in Magic they do). There are so many comparable aspects of this (or any) card game to Magic that it's difficult to not give Magic credit for it's obviously outstanding mechanics. Magic plays incredibly well as a gaming system, whether or not the cards are being designed well. The AGoT system is a hot mess compared to the simple elegance of LIFO.

    I'm not sure I would compare Magic to Citizen Kane. First, the movie is more interesting than a game of Magic. Second, I would more likely say Magic is more like Birth of a Nation and GoT is more like Schindler's List. The former is important in the development of card games (or movies) but there's something repellant about it. The latter certainly stand's on the shoulders of its predecessor's but made something much more uplifting.

    As someone who started casually playing Magic again (stopped because of money) my opinion of the game is unchanged. Its not a bad way to pass the time but its still a game about resource and card starvation. You get one card a turn and you're not guaranteed resources. I imagine a well tuned deck avoids these problems but such a thing costs money. Game of Thrones is a game where resources and draw are guaranteed thus placing more emphasis on player decisions. There's also a great deal more depth to it than Magic. Amongst other card games I've played (Warhammer, Netrunner, Star Wars, Vs, Vampire), Magic is worse than all of them.

    Magic continues to be beloved for no other reason than inertia. Its a solid enough game and its well supported and advertised. The lower complexity level of the game may also appeal to more casual players.

    GoT's still could use a lot more clamping down on certain things but even as I get frustrated with a few gaffes here and there, the cards are generally more interesting now than in older chapter packs.

  3. Posted

    mdc273 said:

    As for post-challenge events, absolutely. I play Stark so my first thought was instant Bear Island or instant Harrenhal, though, haha. It would be pretty amusing to get a Guilty out of Stark… Interesting. Wow, that actually fixes one of the biggest weaknesses of running events in Stark…

    Its advantageous to play epic battles with this agenda with the additional upside that you can search for them for the next round. If you draw them normally you run the risk of losing them before next turn's plot phase.

    From a purely thematic perspective, a Black Sails deck that uses Kingsmoot would be cool.

  5. Posted

    mdc273 said:

    With regards to challenge control, you are no more vulnerable to it than any other deck. You do "lose" more (which is inaccurate as you just don't gain what you wanted) when challenge control hits, but that weakness is not inherent to the agenda. The agenda does not create a feedback loop by which challenge control can unwind your deck.

    Your comparison to TMP is a good one, but I was not looking to compare it to existing agendas in this straight up analysis. I intend on creating another thread that looks at the comparative power levels of agendas at some point.

    I made the comparison to TMP because they're agenda's that derive card advantage from winning challenges. Other agenda's require challenge wins but are often power related and are easier to meet. Black Sails has the most difficult challenge requirement of all agenda's (discounting some chargenda's) requiring specific characters doing specific things. Granted the end effect is very good so I won't say its unbalanced. Its a riskier deck type than something like KotR in my opinion but its better than simple draw.

    It also occurs to me the agenda is well suited to running post-challenge events. There are a few good ones available but if some interesting events are added to the game this could increase Black Sail's power since it will quickly search them out.

  6. Posted

    mdc273 said:

    I am getting at nothing and simply making an objective statement on what cards are impacted. Your point, however, is what I was hoping someone would make. These are not negatives, so what is the negative of this agenda other than being unable to play a different agenda?

    I am of the opinion this agenda should've appeared no sooner than CP3 of the cycle. The downsides are obvious. First, you're vulnerable to mill. This can be addressed by recursion (a subtheme of this cycle) and power rushing. Second, you're vulnerable to challenge control. With TMP you have some ability to resist control and you're not required to win on the attack with a specific character. Black Sails requires you to win on attack with a naval character. This can be addressed by having a variety of naval characters but its too earlier to tell how good these characters are. Further, it might be possible that each House is designed with a Naval "gap" in their icon spreads. I think that's where the truly vulnerable part of Black Sails will sit.

  7. Posted

    I'm not sure what you're getting at with the impacted cards list.

    For example, Maege Mormont can not be impacted by Black Sails because you will never use the two of them together due to Maege's limitation.

    Khal Drogo could be limited but if a Targ Sails deck comes together its highly unlikely it'll have any Dothraki beyond the ubiquitious Jhogo and Refugees. It could be even possible that the Targ variant of this deck might be a poor military deck further limiting any Dothraki in the deck.

    Even the best card, At The Gates, may not be too limited since Maesters and Naval decks may not work together properly. Admittedly some of the better Maester's (ex Luwin) work well in any deck. Further, I wouldn't be bothered by seeing a new Chain attachement that works with Naval challenges.

    I think the only useful card that is genuinely boned by the Black Sails is Riders of the Red Fork. If any get stuck in the Hold, they're likely stuck there.

  8. Posted

    Current Naval character count:

    Neutral: 1 (+1 forthcoming)

    Bara: 1 (+2)

    Lanni: 2 (+1)

    Targ: 2 (+0)

    Stark: 2 (+0)

    GJ: 3 (+0)

    Martell: None

    Supporting Plot: 1 (+1)

    They've had worse roll-outs for new agendas (cough chargendas cough). There's probably tonnes more to come.

    I'm also not bothered by its potential weakness to mill. If only certain other agendas had some inherent liabilities.

  9. Posted

    I still think GoT is the best card game. Its not the only game I play however. I play other card games (CCG, LCG, deckbuilders, etc) as well as board games. I think Netrunner and Star Wars look fine but neither have multiplayer options which I think are huge flaws. It could be that because I play a variety of games helps keep from getting bored. Still GoT remains a favourite. Its joust format is good and has multiple multi-player variants without requiring any contortions to the cards themself. Hell, with Star Wars the only thing I'm looking forward to is the asymetric multi-player that's supposed to come out with the first expansion. I think perhaps the only thing GoT truly needs is a solid expansion (not CP cycle) with some additional game variants.

    PS Are you not enthralled with the Black Sails? Yeah, it might be better left with a full expansion but there will still be a tonne of naval cards in the early CP's.

  13. Posted

    flipperlord said:

    Wow, I have a perfectly valid post, and you guys expect me to articulate every detailed card interaction between these two cards… if you fail to at least understand my point, then I don't care about your opinions to be honest lol

    Yes that is exactly what I expect you to do. At minimum at least try to explain how an offensive strategy (kneel) vs a personal response (standing a character) interacts. Its still quite possible to stand a character and not be able to use it effectively. Kneeling an opponant's character is very rarely not useful.

    Should we restrict Darkstar? He can withstand multiple attempts to kneel it, is a useful defense against Intrigue and works well with other defensive cards (which Martell has no end of). The stripey bastard is practically a one-man anti-Lannister army. He probably bribed Littlefinger to screw up the 7 kingdoms. Clearly needs restriction.

  14. Posted

    flipperlord said:

    My post obviously compares both LL's and CotR's relative strengths against other cards in the card pool… the two charts that I wrote illustrate that lol… I briefly stated that LL beats CotR just as an aside, which i obviously did lol…

    You did no such thing. For example, what are the advantages of Targ being able to stand their own characters? They have a narrow field of characters that kneel for effects (as mentioned before its 8). What advantages do they receive for being able to participate in multiple challenges? Targ has more Renown characters than given credit for but it exists largely only on expensive characters (mainly  Armies). What about other beneficial challenge effects? What are the resources required to continually stand? Are they easy to play? They do have competition for other cards? Targaryen's influence curve still requires careful management.

    What are the relative advantages for being able to offensively control the opposition? How easy is it to perform? What advantages do you gain for doing so? Lannister may be suffering a little in their recent card pool but they still have diverse options for kneeling opponents. This is backed up additional control effects (ex Pentoshi Manor) and a healthy amount of characters with Deadly and/or Stealth.

  15. Posted

    Twn2dn said:

    Separately, I think both Long Lances and Street Waif are good examples of why it's probably better to put powerful effects (and card advantage effects in particular) on unique cards rather than non-unique cards. 

    I think its worth mentioning that Targ only has 8 characters that kneel for effects. Two are reducers. Two provide recursion. Two are really bad (Merchant and Ascetic). The last two provide modest utility (D.Handmaiden and M.Aemon).

    By way of comparison Greyjoy has 12. Some are pretty lame but Alannys alone would be terrifying. Throw in Murenmure, Wendamyr, Moqorro and the Ice Fisherman for more potency.

  16. Posted

    Bomb said:

    Out of curiosity, do you know if these were using Long Lances and Street Waif and recursion to their maximal effect?  KotHH can be built several different ways.

    Offhand, no. Quill and Tankard's Stahleck report said there was no "frenzy" of netdecking. Ratatoskr did use Long Lances with Waif's and Marwyn. Only found two other decks. One that did use the combo (didn't make cut), one that didn't use the Lances (Top32). I couldn't find Martin Herman's Top4 deck.

  17. Posted

    mdc273 said:

    With regards to the deck winning worlds, it's one tournament.

    At Stahleck there was 18 KotHH and 5 TMP decks run out of Targ. 5 of those made the top 32, 4 of them getting eliminated first round. One KotHH made the top 4. Its clearly beatable.

    I recall someone mentioning that some people were definitely net decking. You still have to play it well.

  18. Posted

    mdc273 said:

    One consideration for why there has been no change to it could be that FFG doesn't like attachments, but that's just me hypothesizing.

    A Poisoned Spear and The House of Black and White were CP's that revolve around attachments so I would say they still like them. No similar CP has been announced for A Song of the Sea but that doesn't mean that there will be no new attachments.

    FFG has been taking the slow approach to stripping away the Maester's power. They may decide to do nothing simply because Reach of the Kraken and A Turn of the Tide feature cards that are anti-agenda.

    I'm not sure removing Tin Link is the best idea but I don't have a problem with its removal either. Maybe just ban/restrict it for the next regional season just to see what happens.

     

     

  21. Posted

    dcdennis said:

     Seeing as how this is the first time it has ever happened, it doesnt really bother me. However, if future final tables play out in a similar manner containing non DC folks (like that would ever happen :P), and those folks are not disqualified as well, then I will take this year's decision in a much different light. They have now set the precedent, here's hoping they stick with it, whatever 'it' is.

    I do have one question. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellholt Engineer can potentially provide an unlimited combo if used by two players. Did this ever occur in any game? FFG has taken a dim view of unlimited combo's recently.

  22. Posted

    Twn2dn said:

    Let me ask you this: Would people be complaining right now if all the players who brought the same deck lost all their games rather than won? I doubt they would.

    Regarding your note about Matthieu not needing friends to make it to the final table, my understanding is that some/all of the 3 disqualified finalists won preliminary rounds in which they didn't have friends at the table. Just because you have a lot of metamates in a tournament doesn't mean you will play at the same tables as your firends. And if you do, is that really grounds for penalizing those players?

    The big reason these decks compliment each other, in my mind, is that they are control decks… three Targ burn decks would also compliment each other, as would three Lanni Kneel decks running Flogged and Chained, or three GJ decks that run Valar and lots of saves. In these cases, each of the decks would feel 'broken' because of the added synergy of players running complimentary card effects/plots. And if three players work together to burn the opponents' characters, kneel the opponents' board or valar away every character on the board that couldn't be saved, that should be entirely within the rules. With this new ruling, I'd say now that any two players who work to kill a character of mine are colluding… at least, that's how I interpret the precedent set on November 9. 

    That's not how I would interpret it at all. My interpretation is, if you and a bunch of friends show up to a tournament maybe you should just not worry about helping each other. Its a competitive game. If I want to help my friends I would play a co-operative game. At minimum, give the appearance of propriety. Whilst the ruling might've been excessive, I don't think the DC meta gave the appearance of propriety either. I don't entirely disagree with collusion in GoT (its thematically correct at least) but the tourney rules do rule it out. Even if you believe the rules are written too broadly, its still very easy to obey them and costs you nothing  to do so.

     

  23. Posted

    Twn2dn said:

    I too will avoid FFG's competitive melee tournaments (will continue to participate in joust) so long as the rules remain opaque. And I will advise new players who join our meta of the risks of putting too much effort/devotion into melee. If they want a serious tournament, they had better focus on joust or find another game altogether.

    If you and a bunch of meta-mates travel to a tournament how do you approach the Melee? Do you make a bunch of different decks and just have at it, crushing friends and enemies alike? To me this at least preserves the appearance of propriety. Speaking on behalf of friends, we wouldn't build the same decks (boring) and we're just as likely to turn on each other as someone else. I still need to extract revenge for losing Epic Spell Wars recently.

    Alternatively, do you try to game the system a little to squeeze out some extra love for your friends? Is that wrong? Maybe. Are you poking the bear? Yeah, you're poking the bear. And its not always sleeping.

    Its not like its needed to have friends to win a melee tournament. Matthieu was one of only 2(?) Europeans in attendance and he still made the final table.

  24. Posted

    imrahil327 said:

    Not really, no.  The Bolton 'theme' is more about the side-switching characters, such as the 3 big cheap armies (Bastard's Elite + 2 others), and the newer Bolton cards that you mention, although they have the Bolton trait, don't encourage this theme.  In fact, the Bastards Boys DIScourage you from playing the Boltons mentioned, since their response doesn't work if your opponent gets a hold of one. 

     

    Bolton's have methods of regaining control of their cards. For example, your opponent controls The Flayed Men. You could do a challenge with the Boys and if you win, TFM's passive to switch sides initiates and then you can trigger the Boys response to raise claim. Alternatively you could use cards like Roose Bolton, Dubious Loyalties or Abandoned Fort to re-establish control. Alternatively, use text blanking or trait manipulation to remove the Bolton trait from opposing characters.

  25. Posted

    Tourney of Stahleck said:

    bad card design? yes imo. simply because of the lacking drawback. also from now on, every new location with a cost of 2+ (meaning with a good ability) has to be checked if too strong combined with HoD. so the design team has sort of restricted themselves.

     

    It has a drawback. It limits the amount and size of cards you can declare during set-up.

    For example, my current agenda-less Dragon deck has 12 cards at 4G, 8 cards at 0g and 11 cards at 1g with 46 set-up cards in total. It currently has an ok set-up ability since I can drop a 4g character and still drop 2-4 lower cost cards. If I was to use HoD my set-up capable cards drop from 46 to 34. Is that good? Sure, I get a guaranteed location but its the character's who lay the beats. So how does that help?

    Bear Island gets thrown around a lot but Stark has legions of high quality, higher cost characters. You don't have to use them but you're already changing your deck to use lower cost characters. This leaves you vulnerable to cards that hate on lower cost, lower strength characters. Perhaps even non-unique hate since most Houses have little depth at the lower card slots.

     

×
×
  • Create New...