Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Skowza

GG = NPE

Recommended Posts

playgroundpsychotic said:

I think that location hate isn't necessarily the answer although after looking through some cards it seems to me that one thing missing from the game are cards the help mitigate location effects. There are a variety of cards that specifically ward against Characters, Attachments and Events. There is no "Paper Shield"-like event that specifically stops a location trigger.

Theres always Nightmares.  Its also a versatile solution to any number of non-TRV character problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we can see, the house having problems is Baratheon. And I think the problem is on their yard, not Ghaston Grey.

But they have the tools to fight, indeed.

Asshai decks can run Confession and Pyre of the False Gods, even Altar of Fire if you feel like winning intrigue. That's not a silver bullet, that's a build wich have been deeply reinforced by the Lanni box (Shadows and Spiders, Terminal Schemes) and it wasn't that bad a build prior to LotR.

Sallador is crazy in house location control, expensive as hell and ally, sure. But Martell can't discard him as easilly, their only way to do it before he activates is dissention, and well, martell can't run cyvasse, condemmed, HciT, Paper Shield and Dissention, or they can, but they are paying for it in many ways (setup, unconsistent draw, etc), to prevent VB killing him, Bara can run Fiery Kiss and dupes, to maximize his presence they can run King Bob's Hammer and Marya Seaworth.

Even Rush Builds could run 3x Dragonstone Watchtower to get easy points out of GG.

My point is,  I feel location control is more than enough, after Fleeing to the Wall and Favorable Ground, if you can't fight locations then  it is a build issue, not a card pool one. Another neutral addition to the list, stronger than Condemned, or easier to play than Price of War or Favorable, would make Location heavy builds even more risky than they are now. And GG isn't even a location heavy build, just a star location build.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skowza said:

Theres always Nightmares.  Its also a versatile solution to any number of non-TRV character problems.

Nightmares is worthy but its also not a response. GG isn't as risk free as some like to portray, it has a hefty cost to use it. Greyjoy is fairly dangerous to a GG deck not just because of location hate but they can cancel the trigger itself with a few cards.

Having something generic that stops a location effect could set the Martell player on edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

playgroundpsychotic said:

 

Nightmares is worthy but its also not a response. GG isn't as risk free as some like to portray, it has a hefty cost to use it. Greyjoy is fairly dangerous to a GG deck not just because of location hate but they can cancel the trigger itself with a few cards.

Having something generic that stops a location effect could set the Martell player on edge.

I think a reasonable compromise is to have a "cancel a triggered effect by a location" in play.  Perhaps a unique location or character that can do that.  There is very little out there that can do that specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staton said:

 But that's why we are complaining about the deck. I don't care if its super strong and broken, as long as I can play answers to that deck without having to choose a certain counter deck or certain house. Maybe you are OK with that, but I am not. Which is why I bring up my concerns. However, how about we just use your approach for every card or deck that pops up. How about we unban and unrestrict every card. I mean the cards aren't broken if EVERYONE uses them, right?

Also at what point did anyone say that GG couldn't be beat? No one is saying that! I hate how no one here ever bothers to read a god **** thing. Oh more noobs QQ'ing about some card that I personally don't feel is too strong. So I'm just going to assume they think it can't be beat and needs to be banned. What a bunch of scrubs. Well how about you read my arguments and then try and address my individual points. Or better yet how about I use this deck against a Baratheon deck you have. Then after the game I'll say "GG baddie. Too easy."

thereks quite a bit of discussion since my post and i have not had a chance to read it all yet, but i want to reply to you staton. my comment above was not intended to be a direct response to you. i did use hyperbole about it being unbeatable. that was for a specific reason of drawing out the discussion below that it is not unbeatable. i do stand by the broader point of my post that instead of complaining about the card of the month, be willing to play it first. new powerful cards enter the environment. that keeps the game interesting and varied. one last point about the variety, i agree this is a good thing about agot. it also means every deck cannot have an answer to all other decktypes. there are uber character, aggro, rush, multiple variety of control, targeted kill, choke, cancel, combo, and burn decks. those are a good number of options. some are going to do better against a larger number of other types. that is alright in my book. they cannot all have exact balance in a fluid environment. not all can compete at tier 1 levels. that is ok too. defining tier 1 as a deck type that almost any player can pilot and win against 75 percent of other competitive deck types necessarily limits it to 2 or 3 deck types that are always changing as new cards enter the environment. that is the nature of the beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I agree that not all decks with be competitive due to various popular decks at the time. However, this isn't a popular deck, this is a card. One single card that invalidates entire deck types. Not just certain decks, but entire TYPES. That is bad for the environment. Especially when there aren't RELIABLE answers to said card. I have played both with and against this deck. I'm not just looking at paper. I've played dozens of games at this point, again both against and with the card. Its ridiculous the amount of effort you have to put into dealing with the card unless you are prepared to specifically play a deck type that will beat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rave said:

Hmmm... This depends.  Control decks are just as weak to the early game as rush decks are to the late game.  Condemned by the council and Price of War are cards you would primarily see in fast decks, when Martell is at its weakest.  The Martell cancels everything you do scenario doesn't usually work until you are already locked down and Martell is playing the game the way it wants to.  As a contrast, Martell with GG against Baratheon with 4+ renown guys going first with a 2 claim plot doesn't mean GG is pointless against Bara rush.

I haven't really seen a Martell deck that is weak in the early game.  They have great weenies and solid cards other than GG - which is why IMHO it is more worrisome.  It isn't like you don't draw GG or it is controlled that is game over - they have efficient characters and many other control mechanisms...and they only spent one card and one gold to put it out.  GG just kind of puts it over the top, especially in combo with VB.

Lastly, this isn't just an issue with Bara as too many people are saying.  It is an issue with any deck that relies on larger characters, or characters with attachments, or characters in general lengua.gif

Again, I just think every house has pretty good control for characters, especially through plots.  Locations, despite the handful of cards mentioned here, usually are deck restricting in the very least, highly inefficent for most (and have to be triggered).  None of the location control I have  seen mentioned changes my mind *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rings said:

 

Rave said:

 

Hmmm... This depends.  Control decks are just as weak to the early game as rush decks are to the late game.  Condemned by the council and Price of War are cards you would primarily see in fast decks, when Martell is at its weakest.  The Martell cancels everything you do scenario doesn't usually work until you are already locked down and Martell is playing the game the way it wants to.  As a contrast, Martell with GG against Baratheon with 4+ renown guys going first with a 2 claim plot doesn't mean GG is pointless against Bara rush.

 

 

I haven't really seen a Martell deck that is weak in the early game.  They have great weenies and solid cards other than GG - which is why IMHO it is more worrisome.  It isn't like you don't draw GG or it is controlled that is game over - they have efficient characters and many other control mechanisms...and they only spent one card and one gold to put it out.  GG just kind of puts it over the top, especially in combo with VB.

Lastly, this isn't just an issue with Bara as too many people are saying.  It is an issue with any deck that relies on larger characters, or characters with attachments, or characters in general lengua.gif

Again, I just think every house has pretty good control for characters, especially through plots.  Locations, despite the handful of cards mentioned here, usually are deck restricting in the very least, highly inefficent for most (and have to be triggered).  None of the location control I have  seen mentioned changes my mind *shrug*

 

 

I don't actually play Martell, so I will concede here.  I can only go off of what I've seen and played against.

But do you believe that early game Martell is so good at stopping challenges that triggered effects based off of them are a lost cause?  This is the point I'm trying to get across, that I believe this isn't the case.

Which decks do you find all of the available location control inefficient for?  All that comes to mind for me is not having event slots in certain decks, but then I would just run Pyromancer's Apprentice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pyro has already been covered.  He's up against a deck then will probably run resource heavy to guarantee replaying it's nobles and advancing it's own board position, so holding the one gold required to negate the apprentice is no problem, then his effect is a response without and influence cost and HCiT fixes that too.  Price of War, Condemned by the Council and Pyro are NOT answers to GG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrdet said:

 

Pyro has already been covered.  He's up against a deck then will probably run resource heavy to guarantee replaying it's nobles and advancing it's own board position, so holding the one gold required to negate the apprentice is no problem, then his effect is a response without and influence cost and HCiT fixes that too.  Price of War, Condemned by the Council and Pyro are NOT answers to GG.

 

 

The fact that I have 3 cards in my deck that can destroy GG is an absolute.  The idea that your opponent might have gold left over or He Calls it Thinking is not.  I blew up a Lannister Iron Throne with Pyromancer's Apprentice on wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rave said:

Arrdet said:

 

Pyro has already been covered.  He's up against a deck then will probably run resource heavy to guarantee replaying it's nobles and advancing it's own board position, so holding the one gold required to negate the apprentice is no problem, then his effect is a response without and influence cost and HCiT fixes that too.  Price of War, Condemned by the Council and Pyro are NOT answers to GG.

 

 

The fact that I have 3 cards in my deck that can destroy GG is an absolute.  The idea that your opponent might have gold left over or He Calls it Thinking is not.  I blew up a Lannister Iron Throne with Pyromancer's Apprentice on wednesday.

But...isn't Apprentice a character ability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imrahil327 said:

 

Rave said:

 

Arrdet said:

 

Pyro has already been covered.  He's up against a deck then will probably run resource heavy to guarantee replaying it's nobles and advancing it's own board position, so holding the one gold required to negate the apprentice is no problem, then his effect is a response without and influence cost and HCiT fixes that too.  Price of War, Condemned by the Council and Pyro are NOT answers to GG.

 

 

The fact that I have 3 cards in my deck that can destroy GG is an absolute.  The idea that your opponent might have gold left over or He Calls it Thinking is not.  I blew up a Lannister Iron Throne with Pyromancer's Apprentice on wednesday.

 

 

But...isn't Apprentice a character ability?

 

 

Yeah, you're right.  I played it when he didn't have gold, and it was knelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rings said:

 

I agree it is WAY under-priced, and all the moving parts are still good cards.  It isn't a combo deck.  It is a strong deck, that is close to unbeatable for certain builds (Bara rush, new Cercei decks, any deck that relies on large characters).  I agree with everyone who has made that point.

 

Thanks for a lead in on one of my recurring rants!  Definitely undercosted.  Remember how in the early cycles of the CCG, probably 90% of locations had to kneel to trigger the effect?  That alone slowed them down/limited them to 1 use/round, and made them much more susceptible to being negated (through location kneel effects that were much more prevalent, & Attack from the Sea was a good plot at that time PRECISELY because so many locations had to be knelt to trigger effects).  

Getting away from that has been a real problem IMO.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 First of all I just wanted to point out I don't know where I am on the subject of GG.  It is most definitely a problem, but I don't know if it should be banned, restricted, or left alone for FFG to print answers to it.

 

I just wanted to point something out.  Those of you who have listened to the most recent 2 champs 1 chump podcast you might have noticed that dobblar referred to something over and over again that I think is very relevant here.  He said that no more than 12 slots in your deck shouldn't be filled with cards that you can't play on the set up.  I know that there are many ways out there to build decks, but this is a pretty good rule to follow.  If your building a deck under the restriction of 60 cards (which I always do) then you know if you put in too many cards that can't be played on the set up it can be very difficult to get a reliable start in your game, this is crucial in the tournament setting.

 

What do you notice about the cards you need to use to take care of GG?  Most of the cards are attachments or events, and that's if you have the ability to use those cards at all.   In fact, martell has so many answers to events and attachments that you have to run multiples if you plan on getting rid of GG which would mean you would need to run at least 6 (I would run more).  The benefit of the 6 cards you have to run is that they are usable against other types of deckbuilds you will play against in any given tournament, but the problem is that it is still a hinderence to deck building in general, especially if you are running multiple copies of cards to take care o 1 low cost card in a deck that you might run into.   So Now whenever I build a deck I have to use event and attachment slots to deal with GG instead of using those slots to make my build better.  60 cards is a major restriction, but one that IMO needs to be followed for most deck builds.  What percentage of a deck needs to be  teched against for GG?  Is that fair?  I honestly don't know.

 

I have used GG in my martell decks and I can tell you that I will be using it as long as it is legal.  It is so easy and so good.  The card essentially lets you stall the game until you can win it, even if you have a terrible flop this card allows you to come back.  Why would I not put that in every martell deck I build?  The card is so good I try to look for cheap efficient ways to play it out of house.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrecking Ball said:

What percentage of a deck needs to be  teched against for GG?  Is that fair?  I honestly don't know.

 

Well, like you say, those location destruction cards are useful against any deck. Some kind of location removal is pretty much essential nowadays. If you don't hit GG you can hit an Iron Cliffs, or an Aegons Hill etc. And the GG deck itself is spending a lot of its 60 cards teching towards nobles. Triple Edric and Myrcella at least (who are mostly useless without GG), probably some of the more expensive ones too, which will slow down their setup. Plus a lot of people in this thread have argued that the GG players will use HCiT or Paper Shield to protect GG, using up more deck slots.

Full disclosure: I am using a GG deck in the current octgn tourney. But if I win it's due to my skillz, the location itself is fine guys, honest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrecking Ball said:

 He said that no more than 12 slots in your deck shouldn't be filled with cards that you can't play on the set up. 

Can I read this to mean that out of 60 cards, 12 or less can be un-playable at setup. Therefore, 48 or more need to be playable on setup? Sorry, but the wording was confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AceManUSC said:

Wrecking Ball said:

 

 He said that no more than 12 slots in your deck shouldn't be filled with cards that you can't play on the set up. 

 

 

Can I read this to mean that out of 60 cards, 12 or less can be un-playable at setup. Therefore, 48 or more need to be playable on setup? Sorry, but the wording was confusing.

Indeed! It may not seem like a big deal but thats 1/5th of your deck already and thats not counting all the high gold cost locations and chracters youll be running.

At the end of the day its all well and good to say GG is OP and theorize on solutions/restrictions to it but the real judgement will have to be passed after we see it in serious tournament play. If we start restricting cards based on apparent power level without giving it alteast One chance at a real tournament then every strong card will end up going the way of TLS, which makes puppies cry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this 12 cards that can't be played in setup rule of thumb, is that just referring to events and attachments? (Sorry, haven't listened to the episode, no offense to the great work they're doing but podcasts just aren't my cup of tea.) I would assume high-cost characters probably also make sense, as how often are you going to get a 4- or 5-gold character in and still have a good set-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I would say probably anything that can't be played during Setup at the beginning of the game. :P

 

For the record that's any Event without the Shadows Crest, any attachment without the Setup keyword, and any character or location with a cost above 5 gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ban the **** thing. It's totally insane in any respecrt.

I played the other day with a "Martell kothh with the lot"  (GG,red vengeance, cyvasse, prince's plan, orphan, scourge) . It's just nonsense. I would tie Damon Stone to a chair and make him play against that deck for 6 hours a day. Its even more insane, given the strenght of the maester agenda, to give maesters control to the only house that actually abuses already of that same agenda. Please get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rave said:

Yeah, you're right.  I played it when he didn't have gold, and it was knelt.

~Yes, very consistent way to spend 3 to get rid of something that costs 2, was already used at least once, and was conditional that they used all their gold.  lengua.gif  But, you get a bad character as well...so there is that. 

j/k, but there is a reason that Apprentice is rarely used. 

Back to your question though - yes, I think that Martell can consitently stop people from using triggered abilities.  But, even if not, it is so cheap that I don't think their deck suffers much if you get your 1-for-1 removal done.  Big upside, very little downside plus good control with protection from Valar as as sidenote  happy.gif

Mathlete has it though, I think Aegon's Hill is a very strong counter for Targ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...