Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Skowza

New FAQ

Recommended Posts

I think martell got hit so hard since its icon removal can real shut down naval decks hard. Without these changes it would be hard to run a competative naval deck i think. Basicly in my mind they did it to open up more desgin space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

darknoj said:

I think martell got hit so hard since its icon removal can real shut down naval decks hard. Without these changes it would be hard to run a competative naval deck i think. Basicly in my mind they did it to open up more desgin space.

What is a naval deck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kr4ng said:

darknoj said:

 

I think martell got hit so hard since its icon removal can real shut down naval decks hard. Without these changes it would be hard to run a competative naval deck i think. Basicly in my mind they did it to open up more desgin space.

 

 

What is a naval deck?

 

A deck that relies on characters with the new naval enhancmenet introduced in this cycle. I think Darknoj has a very good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CCG, which house you referring to, and as a martell player i definitely feel like a guy who is dating a girl and she's really upset and keeps saying "if you don't know why i'm upset, i'm not telling you" i have no idea where the banhammer came from or wh,y but i can posit why martell got a neutering based on the cards they restricted- kings of summer, scourge, orphan

Step 1: kings of summer agenda
Step 2: make it Summer
Step 3 out-draw opponents
Step 4: land orphan, scourge and summer market on field at same time
Step 5: abuse summer market, orphan and scourge to nullify opposing characters. Once opponent only has 2 cards in hand game is locked .

now i never saw a deck revolving around this but maybe an international player introduced the deck and ran rampant with it, who knows. but the posiblity is there. that being said  losing the scourge and game of cyvasse kinda sucks especially since i was running the venomous blade as my restricted card >.>
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CCG, which house you referring to, and as a martell player i definitely feel like a guy who is dating a girl and she's really upset and keeps saying "if you don't know why i'm upset, i'm not telling you" i have no idea where the banhammer came from or wh,y but i can posit why martell got a neutering based on the cards they restricted- kings of summer, scourge, orphan

Step 1: kings of summer agenda
Step 2: make it Summer
Step 3 out-draw opponents
Step 4: land orphan, scourge and summer market on field at same time
Step 5: abuse summer market, orphan and scourge to nullify opposing characters. Once opponent only has 2 cards in hand game is locked .

now i never saw a deck revolving around this but maybe an international player introduced the deck and ran rampant with it, who knows. but the posiblity is there. that being said  losing the scourge and game of cyvasse kinda sucks especially since i was running the venomous blade as my restricted card >.>
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  Hadn't been here a while & stumbled upon this.  

Agree that the Refugees were a great call to put on the restricted list ( & I'm a huge Ned/theme deck guy).  I haven't played in a while; but, these changes actually have me excited to play.  

 

I think almost all of the new restricted choices are good (Cyvasse & Retaliation are overdue).  There are only a couple that I question the need for - was it really necessary to restrict Kings of Summer & Kings of Winter (I generally hate agendas - these just didn't seem that bad to me)?  Also, I'm not sure it was necessary to put The Scourge on the list (or both the Scourge and Orphan - 1 or the other might have been sufficient).  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed, kings of summer was actaully probably a great agenda for draw (a big weakness for martell), i didnt run it anyway, but  it would be nice to get a house specific agenda , and some of my cards unrestricted…. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I should express my feelings about the new FAQ, I would say, that it's new fresh breeze in the deck construction and I welcome such restrictions. However, I would like to express my concern, or better say discourage, about grossing of RL. A litterally hate building decks with a big sheets of paper to check every card, if I can put it into my deck, and thus spend more time checking then creating new deck. I know, that the situation is not as absurd as could be seen from my post, but I feel it near close that state. So from my point of view I find such a "benevolent" usage of RL unfortunate. I prefer some kind of limitation on the amount of cycles of CP avaible (like, let me say, you can build deck from only 5 cycles plus core set and all deluxe expanstions), then this kind of semi-ban. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aqwarty said:

If I should express my feelings about the new FAQ, I would say, that it's new fresh breeze in the deck construction and I welcome such restrictions. However, I would like to express my concern, or better say discourage, about grossing of RL. A litterally hate building decks with a big sheets of paper to check every card, if I can put it into my deck, and thus spend more time checking then creating new deck. I know, that the situation is not as absurd as could be seen from my post, but I feel it near close that state. So from my point of view I find such a "benevolent" usage of RL unfortunate. I prefer some kind of limitation on the amount of cycles of CP avaible (like, let me say, you can build deck from only 5 cycles plus core set and all deluxe expanstions), then this kind of semi-ban. 

Personally, I will quit playing this game if they banned all but a couple of CP and the core set and do a stupid rotation. That is what Magic is, and that is precisely why I quit playing Magic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woooooooow.  Just a few months ago I was wishing things like refugees would be banned.  Can't believe I'm seeing it happen so soon.  This might get me back on octgn.

Regardless of whether or not you think these cards were "OP", there's no denying they were all staple cards for their houses which were appearing in more or less every single deck, and as such I'm glad they were restricted.  It's annoying to sit down to build a deck and have certain parts of it more or less chosen for you because you know that those cards are just too good to ever not use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really prefer to have an excessive restricted list istead of any kind of "rotation". The new list shakes up the environment by removing easy options. And by using scissors instead of the sledgehammer that rotation usually is.

And if I really, really like a card - like Meera - I can still play with her, just at the cost of not being able to play with other restricted cards.

Seems all fine to me.

And also, they restricted Tin Link ! Yeah !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flipperlord:I'm not sure, if you get me right. I didn't mean any kind of rotation, but restrict your deck to be made of 5cycles out of 8 avaiable. It doesn't mean that you cannot choose from all cp's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aqwarty said:

 

Aegon: See and i really prefer some kimd of rotation instead of this half-solution, which leads to kilometers of restricted cards….

 

 

Half solution ? What "solution" would rotation bring ?

Rotation is a mess in all regards: It just randomly removes entire chapter-pack cycles instead of problematic cards. Entire aspects of the game would be lost and big holes left behind (such as cards in later chapter packs referring to mechanics whose foundations were removed by the rotation).

"Kilometers of restricted cards" ?

You could just throw all the cards removed by a rotation into the trash bin, as I did with hundreds, if not thousands of cards from the old AGOT CCG. You will likely never be able to use them again, unless you find someone who likes to play a dead game just between the two of you. There is no indication there will be ever more than one "format" in this game, so unlike in MtG, cards rotated out are completely, utterly useless trash. Please note that restriction does not remove cards from the game, as you can still choose to play with a restricted card if you really want to. 

That's why I prefer a huge restricted list anytime to any kind of rotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aqwarty said:

Flipperlord:I'm not sure, if you get me right. I didn't mean any kind of rotation, but restrict your deck to be made of 5cycles out of 8 avaiable. It doesn't mean that you cannot choose from all cp's.

The NYC meta tried this as an experiment: core, house, any two old cycles, and the current (unfinished) cycle.  It had little effect.  The same decks were still strong, only small tweaks had to be made.  I think the liberal restricted list that FFG came up with will be a more positive change than the kind of rotation we tried and you are advocating 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is a pro-rotation post. I apologize for further devolving this thread. 

AegonTargaryen said:

aqwarty said:

 

 

Rotation is a mess in all regards: It just randomly removes entire chapter-pack cycles instead of problematic cards. Entire aspects of the game would be lost and big holes left behind (such as cards in later chapter packs referring to mechanics whose foundations were removed by the rotation).

 

 

I think that's kind of the point of rotation. It rips out a chunk of cards and then players have to figure out ways to then fill the void. Hopefully new and exciting deck types can fill in the void.  Think of it kind of like evolution. For the most part it's slow and boring, but every now and again you have  a big space rock smash into the earth and throw things out if whack.  And then new variations get to fight it out for dominance. 

Also rotation doesn't have to be random if its planned out.  The designers could save and tweak certain aspects they like. Instead of ravens controlling summer/winter, and crown attachments could, and maybe you could create crazy combos that work when it's both summer and winter at the same time.

Anyway I find I'll quit if my cards become not tourney legal argument kind of short sighted, since a large portion are already simply tourney useless.  With every new chapter pack cycle there are new cards that obsolete older cards or at provide an equivalence to those cards that are lost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly like the idea of the extended restricted list. It really opens up a lot of space in deckbuilding.

I'd quibble with some of their choices though. Bear Island? Far from an auto-include, and even in HoD it was hardly tearing things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aegon, i didnt say to trash that card. but i do not think you try to understand others.

 

vaapad, we tried this too. core, houses, and five cycles excluding the naval first cp. and it changed quite a lot. so even i speak from my personal experience. we had to choose to include refugee or retaliation… and above that we had the old restricted list. i found that more versatil and more creative…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alando said:

 

I certainly like the idea of the extended restricted list. It really opens up a lot of space in deckbuilding.

I'd quibble with some of their choices though. Bear Island? Far from an auto-include, and even in HoD it was hardly tearing things up.

 

 

Nice to know that there are others with this sentiment. Bear Island is a little baffling: let's take a perfectly balanced card with it's own drawbacks and restrict it. Why? Probably only because of n00b-rage against it with HoD. But they didn't touch Tunnels, which is probably better than BI HoD. Again, why? Because Lanni has been out of the top for a while now, most likely. (Sure it's still hurt by losing it's refugees, but they have other cheap chumps…) This shows either partiality or a little ignorance of the competitive environment from FFG.

It's funny it takes a year of rage from the entire community to finally get Tin Link restricted, but only 2 months of rage in a non-competitive time of year to get Bear Island restricted. Casual players should not dictate the competitive environment, but that's what happened in this case imo.

Peace out.

Danigral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danigral said:

Alando said:

 

I certainly like the idea of the extended restricted list. It really opens up a lot of space in deckbuilding.

I'd quibble with some of their choices though. Bear Island? Far from an auto-include, and even in HoD it was hardly tearing things up.

 

 

Nice to know that there are others with this sentiment. Bear Island is a little baffling: let's take a perfectly balanced card with it's own drawbacks and restrict it. Why? Probably only because of n00b-rage against it with HoD. But they didn't touch Tunnels, which is probably better than BI HoD. Again, why? Because Lanni has been out of the top for a while now, most likely. (Sure it's still hurt by losing it's refugees, but they have other cheap chumps…) This shows either partiality or a little ignorance of the competitive environment from FFG.

It's funny it takes a year of rage from the entire community to finally get Tin Link restricted, but only 2 months of rage in a non-competitive time of year to get Bear Island restricted. Casual players should not dictate the competitive environment, but that's what happened in this case imo.

Peace out.

Danigral

 

If you listen to Damon's interviews, he basically says that since there are more casual than competitive players he designs for casuals. BI is an easy, strong casual deck. If the designers are focused more on casual play, then it really is no surprise that BI was restricted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bear island is not balanced, outright murdering any army in field each turn- not balanced, the restriction that you can't have neutral or in house stark cards may have been dificult years ago but now its an easy restrisction to get around.i didnt't think the scourge was that powerful by itself, especially considering you can ignore its effects with discarding cards. Bear island is much stronger than the scourge in my opinion, taking icons doesnt stop winning dominance, character abilities, or solve the problem of a character on field, bear island doesn't have to worry about that automatic 1 character a turn attrition is worthy of being restricted,.
 as for the tunnels, losing the refugees makes that deck incredibly less strong, no more free +3 or more strength tri cons, and many of their low cost character only have 1 icon and its often an intrigue icon, far less scarey than the refugees. mt friend plays a deck like this and i lost outright to it almost every game because  a single refugee was stronger than the red viper. the tunnels is still strong but its manageable now

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...