Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
-Istaril

The official board FAQ thread

Recommended Posts

So for those of you who don't spam re-fresh the AGOT news page in the hopes of an FAQ, the new article "Truths found in the Fires" gives us a new FAQ and new Tourney Rules.

 

The biggest changes are the errata to The Long Voyage (Neutral House Only) and the change to Melee scoring for tournaments... The article states that the goal was a lighter-handed "minimalist" approach to the restricted list, and I think it's succeeded; with a few additions they've blown the meta wide-open again, without us having to completely rebuild all of our decks. Given that we're only 3 weeks from Gencon, I think that's wise! 

 

The melee changes, aside from some additions to the RL (Corpse lake and Art of Seduction really surprised me, although it has me scratching my head for some obvious collusion-AoS play I haven't yet thought of). The new melee scoring, where you score 15 points for winning and your power divided by your placing for 2nd-4th place, incentivizes winning in what I suspect is a bid to decrease the reward for "playing for second". It's the game of thrones... you win, or you get almost no point - seems thematic. Edit: It seems the points example for melee mistakenly awards Glen 3 points instead of 2.

 

Now, a few weeks back I made an FAQ wishlist for additions other than the restricted list. People posted some of the biggest rules questions they had and would like to see addressed and, to my delight, almost all of them were addressed. They clarified the timing on Rhoynar emissary, they fixed typos in Battle for Shield Islands and Rhoynar emissary, fixed some templating with the No-Agenda Martell knights, and clarified some important timing issues (that especially affect Call of the Three-eyed Crow), as well as Shadows (Edit: The timing charts refer to bringing cards out of "Shadow", not "Shadows"). They even forestalled some questions I hadn't thought of; running multiple +1 STR wildling agendas, for instance!

 

 

There are a few items on that list I'm sorry to see missed the FAQ; typos like Randyll/Randyl Tarly, Jhalabar/howeverit'sspelled and Margaery (her text misspells her name). Given that some of the other ones posted have since been answered, I thought I'd add them here:

  1. Clarify the Dreadfort/Sons of Mist scenario (Answered by Ktom here)
  2. Clarify the Much and More (Revealing Cards 1 at a time like draw? Does it apply to discard-from-deck effects?) (Answered by Damon here)
  3. Clarify the null value (Do I still shuffle my deck if 0 cards "remain" on Summer Sea Corsair?)
  4. Clarify the timing on Naval superiority with Naval characters being removed from challenges. (Answered by Ktom here)

 

So - what does everyone else think? Any obvious ruling missed? Any house the obvious winner from the restricted list or the new melee scoring? How much did you chuckle on seeing TLV's errata?

Edited by -Istaril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought making TLV a neutral house only card was a good and interesting way to make sure it's rarely played. Being stuck with neutral resources, there just aren't enough for TLV. Maybe after the new season gold locations and neutral kingsuard come out there could be a neutral shadows build, but I bet it's more a "fun deck" than competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Not sure you need clarification in the FAQ here. The plot effect is constant with a play restriction. If the play restriction is met, the effect is "on." Since we know that removing a character makes it like the character was never declared in the first place, removing the last/only attacking Naval character from the challenge will mean you have not met the play restriction, so the effect is "off."

 

The trick is to recognize it as a constant effect with a play restriction, not a passive effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's what the general consensus was, but it's also a question that has come up often enough I felt it was "frequently asked". Didn't have a source for the answer, though, so thank you for obliging!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't know what to make of this post then on Naval Superiority:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/83045-naval-superiority-vs-removing-naval-attackers/?p=793673

 

It was discussed at length and if we follow Damon's answer then it doesn't matter if the Naval participant leaves the challenge or not.  I thought the same as ktom on that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't know what to make of this post then on Naval Superiority:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/83045-naval-superiority-vs-removing-naval-attackers/?p=793673

 

It was discussed at length and if we follow Damon's answer then it doesn't matter if the Naval participant leaves the challenge or not.  I thought the same as ktom on that matter.

 

There isn't really a conflict because, as far as I can tell, that answer from Damon does not touch upon the "character removed" situation.

 

The plot is a constant with a play restriction. It is "on" as soon as the play restriction is met. So as soon as the Naval attacker is declared, the effect is "on" and the plot card's effect makes the claim X + 2 (not that this fact will mean much until resolution). That's all that Damon's answer of "the claim is raised when you declare the naval attacker" means. Like a lasting passive effect, the constant effect with the play restriction turns "on" when the play restriction is met for the first time (ie, the naval attacker is declared).

 

But "raised" in this context means "the constant effect applies," not "a lasting passive effect is initiated." The constant effect with the play restriction turns off when the play restriction is no longer met (ie, the naval attacker is removed), unlike the lasting passive effect - which does't care what happens after it is initiated. Damon's post doesn't address this fact at all. It only looks at when the effect "starts," not under what conditions it might "stop."

 

 

So as far as I'm concerned, Damon's answer there doesn't conflict in any way with the interpretation that if the naval attacker is removed, the constant effect turns "off."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still don't know what to make of this post then on Naval Superiority:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/83045-naval-superiority-vs-removing-naval-attackers/?p=793673

 

It was discussed at length and if we follow Damon's answer then it doesn't matter if the Naval participant leaves the challenge or not.  I thought the same as ktom on that matter.

 

There isn't really a conflict because, as far as I can tell, that answer from Damon does not touch upon the "character removed" situation.

 

The plot is a constant with a play restriction. It is "on" as soon as the play restriction is met. So as soon as the Naval attacker is declared, the effect is "on" and the plot card's effect makes the claim X + 2 (not that this fact will mean much until resolution). That's all that Damon's answer of "the claim is raised when you declare the naval attacker" means. Like a lasting passive effect, the constant effect with the play restriction turns "on" when the play restriction is met for the first time (ie, the naval attacker is declared).

 

But "raised" in this context means "the constant effect applies," not "a lasting passive effect is initiated." The constant effect with the play restriction turns off when the play restriction is no longer met (ie, the naval attacker is removed), unlike the lasting passive effect - which does't care what happens after it is initiated. Damon's post doesn't address this fact at all. It only looks at when the effect "starts," not under what conditions it might "stop."

 

 

So as far as I'm concerned, Damon's answer there doesn't conflict in any way with the interpretation that if the naval attacker is removed, the constant effect turns "off."

 

 

So you think that he just didn't answer the Rule Question completely instead of generalizing it with that answer?

Edited by Bomb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I think he answered the first question in the large string of questions and suppositions without getting into the full issue and implications. That sort of thing happens sometimes when we send long email questions to FFG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I think he answered the first question in the large string of questions and suppositions without getting into the full issue and implications. That sort of thing happens sometimes when Damon is the one replying.

fixed your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, for one, am not happy that the tourney rules now forbid TOs from playing in Regionals. I hope that's rescinded before next season. Running with two TOs to ensure one doesn't make rulings on one's own games has always worked pretty well. It's a bad change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by making TLV neutral house only, will not reduce the use of TLV by much. You are getting free card advantage with it, and I can think of 14 resources off the top of my head: Roseroad x3, Searoad x3, Streets x3, Ocean Road (or other crest variant), River Row, that 0 cost remove location one, and Flea Bottom x3. IIRC there are a few other cards associated with OOH costs that can fill this up. Once a few people figure out the resource curve, this will be everywhere again, unlike Knights and Summer, the player has no ability to remove your card advantage.

 

This agenda is more powerful then Defenders of the North was (in Winter Block). And I keep wondering, why does FFG keep trying to make a card advantage agenda, then balk when they realize everyone plays it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by making TLV neutral house only, will not reduce the use of TLV by much. You are getting free card advantage with it, and I can think of 14 resources off the top of my head: Roseroad x3, Searoad x3, Streets x3, Ocean Road (or other crest variant), River Row, that 0 cost remove location one, and Flea Bottom x3. IIRC there are a few other cards associated with OOH costs that can fill this up. Once a few people figure out the resource curve, this will be everywhere again, unlike Knights and Summer, the player has no ability to remove your card advantage.

 

This agenda is more powerful then Defenders of the North was (in Winter Block). And I keep wondering, why does FFG keep trying to make a card advantage agenda, then balk when they realize everyone plays it?

 

They keep trying to make a generic card advantage card because card advantage is currently the single most important thing in the game (not including deck-building). The deck with the superior card advantage engine is far more likely to win. Without it, only card advtange builds are viable. With TLV, all sorts of builds became viable to the point that only TLV was viable in all irony.

Edited by mdc273

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think by making TLV neutral house only, will not reduce the use of TLV by much. You are getting free card advantage with it, and I can think of 14 resources off the top of my head: Roseroad x3, Searoad x3, Streets x3, Ocean Road (or other crest variant), River Row, that 0 cost remove location one, and Flea Bottom x3. IIRC there are a few other cards associated with OOH costs that can fill this up. Once a few people figure out the resource curve, this will be everywhere again, unlike Knights and Summer, the player has no ability to remove your card advantage.

 

This agenda is more powerful then Defenders of the North was (in Winter Block). And I keep wondering, why does FFG keep trying to make a card advantage agenda, then balk when they realize everyone plays it?

 

To my knowledge the only thing that is reducing the out of house penalty that is neutral is Hollow Hill and thats only if you have no power on your house. Outside of that you have things like Tyrosh and what not but those are all 3 costs out of Neutral house. Also, the fact that any location out of house is +2 just kills the entire theme. Then add in the fact that all your characters that are out of house are +1 and you have a pretty clunky gold curve. 

 

No, i feel pretty safe in saying that we are not going to be seeing a tier 1 neutral TLV deck. There isn't enough reducers to make up for all the out of house gold you will have to spend. Sure, you could have 18 reducers in the deck that aren't out of house but your going to need more then that just to even be close to the level that TLV was at because of all the out of house cards you are going to have to pay extra for. 

 

 

As for the FAQ, i feel great about it to be honest. TLV is pretty much dead. So now we can get back to a balanced meta. Greyjoy got hit slightly. Hell, just taking TLV away from them is enough to bring them down to a balanced level. I'd even say they aren't at the top of the Tier 1 list anymore. I personally feel like Burn isn't there either. Them not having Street Waif pretty much cuts their card advantage engine out of the equation. Sure they have magi's crone but she is a lot less potent then Street Waif + Long Lances. I could see a shadows burn being good though. HOD Dragonpit has probably taken the place of Targ KOTHH. Quentyn is probably one of the top 3 decks now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe, but maybe im wrong that tlv dont work with house neutral faction, because house neutral faction dont exist, only neutral faction, is for that for plots as "Spending the winter stores" Only work with the Houses of westeros not with neutral faction.

 

TLV only for neutral? it´s a good agenda but i believe this itrs wrong because i prefer playing aganist TLV than Maester path.

 

"Negotiations of the...." it´s a good plot, but maybe , i said maybe its a bit strong put it in restricted list, them "ITS A CARD THAT WAS SELLING 3 MONTHS AGO!!! WOOOWW, maybe im in time to give my money back to that chapter!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right. I think he answered the first question in the large string of questions and suppositions without getting into the full issue and implications. That sort of thing happens sometimes when Damon is the one replying.

fixed your post.

Laughed out loud on my bus ride home. People gave me funny looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe, but maybe im wrong that tlv dont work with house neutral faction, because house neutral faction dont exist, only neutral faction, is for that for plots as "Spending the winter stores" Only work with the Houses of westeros not with neutral faction.

 

TLV only for neutral? it´s a good agenda but i believe this itrs wrong because i prefer playing aganist TLV than Maester path.

 

"Negotiations of the...." it´s a good plot, but maybe , i said maybe its a bit strong put it in restricted list, them "ITS A CARD THAT WAS SELLING 3 MONTHS AGO!!! WOOOWW, maybe im in time to give my money back to that chapter!!!!

Not sure I understand what you are talking about.

"Neutral Faction House card only."

What is wrong with that text?

Are you saying Neutral Faction isn't a house card?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To my knowledge the only thing that is reducing the out of house penalty that is neutral is Hollow Hill and thats only if you have no power on your house. Outside of that you have things like Tyrosh and what not but those are all 3 costs out of Neutral house. Also, the fact that any location out of house is +2 just kills the entire theme. Then add in the fact that all your characters that are out of house are +1 and you have a pretty clunky gold curve. 

 

No, i feel pretty safe in saying that we are not going to be seeing a tier 1 neutral TLV deck. There isn't enough reducers to make up for all the out of house gold you will have to spend. Sure, you could have 18 reducers in the deck that aren't out of house but your going to need more then that just to even be close to the level that TLV was at because of all the out of house cards you are going to have to pay extra for. 

 

 

As for the FAQ, i feel great about it to be honest. TLV is pretty much dead. So now we can get back to a balanced meta. Greyjoy got hit slightly. Hell, just taking TLV away from them is enough to bring them down to a balanced level. I'd even say they aren't at the top of the Tier 1 list anymore. I personally feel like Burn isn't there either. Them not having Street Waif pretty much cuts their card advantage engine out of the equation. Sure they have magi's crone but she is a lot less potent then Street Waif + Long Lances. I could see a shadows burn being good though. HOD Dragonpit has probably taken the place of Targ KOTHH. Quentyn is probably one of the top 3 decks now. 

 

 

If you have: 3x Flea Bottom, 1x of each street/river row/lane (6 individual reducers), 3x each of roseroad/searoad (6) thats 15 right there. In an 85 card deck you need 6 more cards to be balanced. You could toss alliance in and use the multi-house reducers, or shivering sea if you don't use too many OOH. There is also the wilding/nw reducers that are neutral, and crossroads which are not ideal, but may work out. And Hollow Hill which also provides more card draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

To my knowledge the only thing that is reducing the out of house penalty that is neutral is Hollow Hill and thats only if you have no power on your house. Outside of that you have things like Tyrosh and what not but those are all 3 costs out of Neutral house. Also, the fact that any location out of house is +2 just kills the entire theme. Then add in the fact that all your characters that are out of house are +1 and you have a pretty clunky gold curve. 

 

No, i feel pretty safe in saying that we are not going to be seeing a tier 1 neutral TLV deck. There isn't enough reducers to make up for all the out of house gold you will have to spend. Sure, you could have 18 reducers in the deck that aren't out of house but your going to need more then that just to even be close to the level that TLV was at because of all the out of house cards you are going to have to pay extra for. 

 

 

As for the FAQ, i feel great about it to be honest. TLV is pretty much dead. So now we can get back to a balanced meta. Greyjoy got hit slightly. Hell, just taking TLV away from them is enough to bring them down to a balanced level. I'd even say they aren't at the top of the Tier 1 list anymore. I personally feel like Burn isn't there either. Them not having Street Waif pretty much cuts their card advantage engine out of the equation. Sure they have magi's crone but she is a lot less potent then Street Waif + Long Lances. I could see a shadows burn being good though. HOD Dragonpit has probably taken the place of Targ KOTHH. Quentyn is probably one of the top 3 decks now. 

 

 

If you have: 3x Flea Bottom, 1x of each street/river row/lane (6 individual reducers), 3x each of roseroad/searoad (6) thats 15 right there. In an 85 card deck you need 6 more cards to be balanced. You could toss alliance in and use the multi-house reducers, or shivering sea if you don't use too many OOH. There is also the wilding/nw reducers that are neutral, and crossroads which are not ideal, but may work out. And Hollow Hill which also provides more card draw.

 

I didn't mean any of that, i meant there is only one card that reduces the OOH. Thats Hollow hill which is turned off as soon as you get power on your house. So, it lasts for one turn and then it doens't work anymore. Brotherhood wont work because you have no way to keep power off of your house short of Lady Stone Heart. All the multi-house reducers are costing you 2 gold just to put them in play, so its pointless to even play them as they aren't reducing a single thing. You pay 2 to reduce by 2. 

 

I'm starting to wonder if your thinking about what you post. >.> 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He means the multi-house reducers (Myr, Tyr, Pentosh, etc), not the seas - which do reduce out-of-house penalties (in a way). He mentioned using Alliance as a plot. He also mentioned using Hollow Hill as a source of draw, not as a reducer (although I'd like to point out that infamy can work quite well, as it has considerably  more options at its disposal). You can also use cards like Old Town Raven (Ignores OOH penalties), or just the standard slew of House Tully Recruiters, True Queen's Harbingers etc if you really need to smoothen out your gold curve.

 

I don't think any part of his comment warrants a 

 

 

I'm starting to wonder if your thinking about what you post. >.> 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He means the multi-house reducers (Myr, Tyr, Pentosh, etc), not the seas - which do reduce out-of-house penalties (in a way). He mentioned using Alliance as a plot. He also mentioned using Hollow Hill as a source of draw, not as a reducer (although I'd like to point out that infamy can work quite well, as it has considerably  more options at its disposal). You can also use cards like Old Town Raven (Ignores OOH penalties), or just the standard slew of House Tully Recruiters, True Queen's Harbingers etc if you really need to smoothen out your gold curve.

 

I don't think any part of his comment warrants a 

 

 

I'm starting to wonder if your thinking about what you post. >.> 

 

 

To be fair i was thinking about the seas but even talking about the other ones. Your still paying 3 to get a 1 reduction possibly 2. Your still waiting 2 to 3 turns to even get any benefit out of them, which in that case, your just taking way to long to get your economy going. They aren't great on setup, hell, they are just flat out bad on setup. Even if you play one and then play a second one, you just paid 5 gold for 2 reducers and if you play a third one, your still forced to pay 2 for that one because you already used your first one to reduce the second one. I just don't see that being a good way to help with your economy. Paying 3 for a card that could take way to long to even get any benefit from just doesn't seem like a good idea to me. 

 

To me, it just doesn't seem well thought out. I'd be looking at some other way to reduce things if i was really going to be serious about Neutral TLV. 

 

Sure, Infamy could work but at that point your just building Lannister Brotherhood. Why even bother with TLV when Lannister has so much draw that you don't need TLV to make it work? >.> Doesn't seem like the best reasoning to try and build a Lannister Brotherhood Neutral TLV deck when you could just build Lannister Brotherhood out of house Lannister and it would be cheaper and easier to do. 

Edited by Karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, while this is an initial build, testing has shown resource curves to be fairly normal to the bara build. While I think if I researched it, a wilding or brotherhood build might work better... this still works well and can win on turn 3. I think it would be hilarious if everyone built neutral faction + wildings|maesters|brotherhood|holy|noble crest rush for gencon, and just had all the tourney decks the same house and agenda.

 

HOUSE: Neutral Faction (TLV)

Plots:

2x Power of Blood

Alliance

Rule by Decree

Loyalty

Mathlete's Winter Wonderland

Valar

 

Characters (46):

3x Arianne, Claim Raiser

3x Brienne, Greyjoy Killer

3x Cough Jousty Mc Joust

3x Marya Seaworth 

3x Mel (DoTN)

3x Fat Bob

3x Stannis, immune to brothel.

3x Viper (Pots)

3x Val

2x Ned, Defender of all that is stupid and noble crest.

2x Lyanna Stark

2x Renly, the raven king

1x Cersei, box set

1x Joffrey, immune to everything

1x Khal Drogo (Dotn)

1x Standin Jamie

1x Noble Kevan

1x Tywin, gold crapper

1x Willas Tyrell

3x Carrion Bird

3x Herald of the Stag

Resources/Draw Locations (23):

2x Hollow Hill

2x Myr

2x Norvos

1x Dobbler's Bottom

1x Street of Silk

3x Seat of Power

3x Roseroad

3x Searoad

1x Crossroads, clapton not included

1x Ocean Road

1x River Row

1x Shadowblack Lane

1x Street of Sisters

1x Street of Steel

Other (16)

1x Isle of Faces

1x Massey's Hook

1x Oakenshield Port

3x Bodyguard

3x Questioned Claim

2x Distraction

2x Distinct Mastery

2x Taste for Blood

1x Smuggler's Cove

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...