I'd be fine with either of those proposed mods to YMHC. My issue with the card was always the deck search - I agree that it was one of the more effective revenge effects in terms of card advantage - and something like that is probably needed.

Here my two cents:

I think FFG should reprint all the broken Martell cards: Scorpion's Sting, Broken Arm, YMHC, Locked in the Tower, and Devious Machinations. Then they should make all of them a Limited Response, so Martell can only use one broken card per turn.

~Too bad only 2 of those reprinted cards would be Responses.

Interesting thought, though.

Or maybe make some of them like Stampede: only once per game.

I wouldn't mind a once per game limitation on Devious Machinations -- and I play that card. My favorite use back in Winter days was to play the Veteran Builder, double DM him, then play Injurous Poison. 10 power in one grab. If I could get Dorne's Favorite Weapon out as my plot, auto-win! But making DM a 1/G ability would make me have to make tougher decisions about when to use it.

Reprint taking flight

Locked is only broken because of ITE Arrrianne Martel.

I mean Arya's Revenge has never been considered broken, both are 3 influence cards that can be saved against (well dupes for locked). Sure Arya's is doomed, but I don't think that terribly restricted use of the card... not enought to make arya's fair and locked broken.

I'm fine with Locked being reprinted since there are other Arrianne's that don't provide free locked or immunity that I would prefer (ACoS for example).

I also think Devious Machinations is fine if it had Limited response. (You can't cascade them), and it had the ruling that it can't copy a limited response (both are limited... duh). Sure it can win the game sometimes, but I don't mind having a few combos in the game like that. It's not a card that was in every deck even with ITE Arrianne. You had to build right for it and time it correctly. I like cards in that direction. People have a bad taste for Martel not because of this card, but because Martel was so unbalanced as a whole with Arriane, the Loyalst and WED Viper. I still think Broken Arm is fine IF the environment has location control. 3 gold is a lot, you choose between putting a character out yourself or that. Maybe if there were more Stark/Targ players people would not gripe about the arm. I don't get it... kneeling, icon manip, bouncing are all temporary solutions. Killing them outright is more efficient, but I have only hear of stark being called broken once, and that was the Stark Traitor deck due to a baratheon card.

I think there is a bias against Martel because of the Loyalist. People don't like having to wait to lose, and Martel makes you wait. Thier effects not only annoy you but they often are less efficient then other houses. YMHC was good, but remember it was more of a humiliating effect, it still or rarely gave you more of an advantage then what your opponent got out of winning a challenge. I think Only Areo Hotah and Taste for Blood ever game someone pause. Playing against a good Martel with a good player was NPE. In order to win they have to wear you out, exhaust you. They never had much renown or power icons, so they could only win quickly if the WED Viper came into play or combo the Iron Throne with Devious Machinations, and that leaves a bitter taste in people's mouths as if the win was stolen from them.

Imagine if Nate took this board seriously (and why should he not... you are customers). And decided to gimp Martel, being cautious with what he gives them, the way Targaryen was gimped for two years. Scorpion's Sting is also not broken, but I would concede on either Arm or Sting but not both. The problem with Martel was not that they were broken, but that they had too many auto-includes and too many crap cards.

bloodycelt said:

I think Martell's recent characters have generally been pretty strong, so I see little risk of the house being "gimped," though I could be wrong. In the refugees and reinforcements chapter packs, the house received some of the best characters of all other houses. The army that draws whenever a reinforcements card is played probably has the best effect of any of that cycle, and the 2-cost viper character with deadly is pretty strong. Their House Dayne trait is also getting a lot of attention for once, which I like. Some of Martell's LCG attachments are also pretty strong (think War Scorpion and Dornish Chariot), and cards like War Scorpion incorporate the "loss mechanic" in a balanced, effective way. Some of Martell's chapter-pack events have also been decent, though not as strong as they were in the past. I think that a Martell expansion (coming late summer?), with resource locations and a few additional utility events (reprint Viper's Bite please!), will make this house competitive. If the kingdom locations that are supposedly coming in the Greyjoy expansion are neutral, Martell will also likely benefit the most from these because neutral resources will give Martell the resources it currently lacks.

In terms of some of the specific cards that may have been overpowered in the past, I think we can all agree that Prince's Loyalist should never be reprinted. I'm not sure what the original logic of that card was, but printing it as is was a mistake. Except for Prince's Loyalist, I think many of the Martell cards would have been fair with a slight adjustment. For example, I think The Broken Arm would be more balanced as a unique location. Injurious Poison seemed a bit overpowered, however, though maybe it was just because one could copy effects like the Scorpion's Sting. Perhaps if the copy effect required the Martell player to kneel a character it would be more balanced...?

In general though, I hope FFG stays away from an overemphasis on icon removal and cancels, though a little bit of each can keep things exciting. I think that games with a lot of icon removal and cancel quickly become boring for everyone because they neuter the challenges phase. Moreover, when cards like The Broken Arm and Orphan of the Greenblood are available in deckbuilding, it's hard to justify not running them and all the Martell decks end up looking similar. The same can be said for any powerful house-specific effect, but in most cases other houses don't run many mechanics that prevent your characters from actually participating in challenges. Cards such as Underhanded Assassin tend to be a lot more fun, effective, and versatile (in that they fit into many different types of builds) and they also have a natural balance to them. (The low STR that makes Underhanded Assassin great for attacking is a big liability on defense; 3 gold for 2 STR is pretty inefficient on defense.)

Martell started gimped and wasn't a competitive house until Winter Edition, and even then it really depended on a handful of power house cards. If they didn't get reveal as a house mechanic even those would not have been nearly enough.

I'm hoping that Nate keeps a close and careful eye on the balance of the cards in the House and where they stand against the cards of the other Houses. I'd be pretty annoyed if we ended up with another half dozen super powerful cards and then fluff so **** near every competitive deck works the exact same way.

Twn2dn said:

You mean like killing, burning, kneeling or ignoring a characters STR?

Sorry man but I can't disagree more. Why is it that Martell is always brushed as the NPE house? If it had ways that it could reliably gain power fast enough that control was not the only option you wouldn't see the same half dozen cards that were it's only path to victory. The only "problem" with icon control is due to the length of time it takes to lose to Martell. Lannister's kneel works pretty much the same way, but with a better selection of power icons, draw, and gold. Heck even ALPHD is a more effecient form of revenge than most of the Martell cards. IOW Martell has pretty much been the weaker version of Lannister except for the handful of cards people want nerfed or banned.

Kind of sad really.

I think we can stop discussing cards like IP that had the freaking Doomed trait. They were overpowered - that's why they were doomed. There really is no debate or difference of opinion about this.

Oddly I agree with bloodyecelt almost in whole. i'll take issue with his contetnion that kill ro burn are more effieicnt than Broken Arm insofar as most kill effects are one shots. Broken Arm was a reusable form of control that would stay on the board turn after turn and lock your best character down, unless you drew into your location control in a timely manner. Compare it to Bear island or the infinite 5K Arya kill engine - and yes: the kill efefcts are better. But compared to PttS or Icy Catapault or other one shots - I think the Arm is the better choice.

But three gold is three gold - and I thought the card was pretty balanced.

Hold on, Bear Island is not better than Broken Arm. Broken Arm is not Unique. It can be used to impact the challenges in the round in which it is marshalled (Bear Island is Dominance). And, most importantly, has no restrictions, whereas Bear Island can't target Stark characters or characters with attachments (and I think attachments are losing their stigma and appearing again more frequently, so that's a viable way to undermine Bear Island) and the Stark House only in play restriction is *very* limiting. Those oh-so-versatile auto-include Carrion Birds we all want to play with, not to mention the other strong neutrals (especially in LCG, where building a "pure" Stark deck that doesn't feel like it has some duds in it is hard), well, they get in the way of Bear Island. You don't have to build around Broken Arm, it just goes into any Martell deck; Bear Island you have to build for, and it sure stinks to build for it only end up facing another Stark player or someone liberally using attachments on their characters.

5KE Arya is potent, but she she does't just goes off when you want her to every round like Broken Arm does, you have to have influence on hand (not always the case), she disrupts your draw, and she can't hit your opponent's strongest characters. Don't get me wrong, I love that card, especially the chilling effect it has on my opponent's desire to hit me with a military challenge, but I'm not ready to say she's better than Broken Arm. With both Valar and Wildfire Assault in the current environment, I don't think Stark's kill effects are as advantage as folks sometimes make them out to be.

dormouse said:

I actually agree with the general view that Martell shouldn't be kept weak like it was pre WED; variety with power icons, renown, etc is exactly what I want. I think where I disagree is that I just don't like excessive icon removal and excessive cancelling of effects. What I mean by "excessive" is not the existence of cards like The Broken Arm, Orphan, and Scorpion's Sting--though I think some of these should be toned down a bit if reprinted for the LCG environment--but rather the existence of all of them together at the same time. These types of control, in particular, feel unfun to me when they are stacked together in a single deck. Unlike kneel, which can be countered by standing effects that most houses have access to, there is no "counter" to icon removal. Moreover, unlike kill or steal character effects that can be triggered only after a player wins/loses a challenge, the purpose of icon removal is to prevent character interaction during the challenges phase. This doesn't mean I am against all forms of icon removal/cancel (note that I mentioned above I really like Viper's Bite), but rather that I don't want Martell to be able to do the same thing eight different ways, and I don't want such mechanics to be the dominant effects for most Martell charactes/locations/events. This isn't because I'm tired of playing against "broken" Martell decks; rather it's because Martell is one of my favorite houses to play, and I want to build a deck that has variety without sacrificing competitiveness.

I also tend to agree that Targ's "burning" can act in a similar way as icon removal and therefore become unfun to play with and against. Cards like Festering Wound, Flame Kissed, and Obsidion Dragon may be well balanced (especially because a deck that runs 3 copies of each risks drawing too many attachments without characters), but other burn effects such as Ice and Fire Drogon and the Dothraki Sea/Forever Burning combo definitely fit into the "excessive" category. In a similar way that I don't want to see Ice and Fire Drogon reprinted without the "once per phase" condition (as it has in the Core Set), I would prefer to see cards like The Broken Arm printed with similar restrictions (a unique icon?) along with other cards that do neat things more similar to Underhanded Assassin, the new 2-cost viper, or even the 5KE The Red Viper.

(Deleted comment: A redundent redundent d-d-double post. Sorry!)

LetsGoRed said:

I believe this is precisely wrong. With Wildfire and Valar it is easy for Stark to just kill every character I put out that does not have immunity, and there versatility of their kill, even in LCG, makes even immunity nothing more than partial coverage. Believe me, as a long time Stark, Martell, and Lannister player I have used the soft resets to exert some wicked control, and the Stark decks did so much more brutaly. Sure I could use The Broken Arm to lock down your best character every turn, but killing it once is almost always the better option.

And yes Stark's current kill cards have some restrictions, the reason why is because of the much more permanent nature of killing versus kneeling or stripping icons.

And there are a number of cards in standard which give icons and those are all easy to use, pretty cheap, and many give you additional benefits. Not as much in the LCG, but we have to be careful with the statements that compare LCG cards in an LCG environment, to Standard cards in an LCG environment.

I do think the Broken Arm, at 3 gold is perfectly balanced, in Standard, in LCG with our current compliment of cards would be very strong. Would it be too strong? That would depend entirely on what is released in KLE and how powerful the cards in the Martell Expansion are. Three may be too much, and I wouldn't object to it being unique if they get some other power cards.

But from an efficiency valuation, killing a character trumps locking it down 9:10.

Twn2dn said:

You think three cards are excessive? Sure we can make that x3 for a total of 9 in a deck... have you seen what is available for kill just in LCG to Stark? Stark has nine cards before we even look at which ones are non-unique and can be tripled. I've played and faced decks that use the above three cards for Martell, and without all of the best characters, stealth, deadly, renown, cancels, and Arianne and Locked in the Tower x3 you are looking at a slightly frustrating deck, but not one which a top tier deck needs to worry about. And the deck that has all the other things I mentioned? It uses EVERY good card available to MArtell, is forced to use a fair amount of neutrals, out of house characters, and a lot of power rares to be competitive... which is to say at best you'll see one or two at any major tournament, often far less, because for less money you can build a better Lannister deck that is easier to play.

So my question is, are those trhee cards excessive because facing 9 instances of icon removal is insurmountable (of which only one creates card advantage), or because it is frustrating to see characters on the table you can't use?

Twn2dn said:

Again there are cards in the environment that those cards were available that granted icons. Someone trying to run a deck without those cards pays the price, just like running a deck without standing, renown, cancels, or saves. It is a choice you have to make and in tghe making understand where your weakness is.

And a significant amount of kill is not determined purely by winning or losing a challenge, we have kill cards that can kill mid-challenge, as well as in marhsalling and dominance. That is three phases of kill versus one of icon manipulation. I just don't see a real comparison there. One is obviously more versatile. All that said... I agree I want other options. I want revenge to be a useable mechanic (something that at the least creates parity, if not actually puts me one up on my opponent). I want to see more forms of control or other ways of pushing challenges through. I want to see more ways of gaining power other than unopposed due to icon stealing (renown, power stealing, a healthy dose of power icons on characters that are not giant armies or weak maesters).

Dormouse, it isn't that I think "three cards are excessive," though I do think that the reprinting all of these cards together in the current LCG environment would make Martell extraordinarily overpowered, assuming they also receive the basic resources that other houses currently have. I was using the existence of these three cards together as an example of how icon removal has been a central theme for Martell in the past. I find that theme boring--in part because it has been more difficult to counter than other forms of control and in part because it feels like a stalling technique. Icon removal doesn't give you power, doesn't permanently deal with characters, doesn't really seem to do anything except stall. That doesn't mean it's an ineffective form of character control, I just mean to say it's a boring form of control that generally requires a lot of little toolboxing that becomes mundane and monotonous to play with and against. This is just my opinion and I may not be articulating it clearly.

Instead, I would rather icon removal and cancel be side themes (like Greyjoy's discard) and have other mechanics dominate. If you've ever played MTG, I feel like Martell's cancel and icon removal are a bit like MTG's "blue control," which is nothing but drawing and canceling the opponents actions and an extremely slow win source. A more run-of-the-mill blue deck may run cancels too, but this wouldn't be the dominant theme. This is what I'm hoping for in Martell. (Sorry if the comparison is poor, it's been a long day and my brain is tired.)

In the end, I may simply disagree with some on what is "fun" and/or the direction that Martell should take. I see plenty of possible directions FFG can go that will ensure Martell is a competitive house without falling back on emphasizing the tired old mechanics. (To be fair though, mass icon removal isn't as bad as the "face-down" attachment idea they experimented with. I still don't understand what that was about.)

dormouse said:

Broken Arm, if introduced to the LCG environment, would be exceptionally strong. Yes, killing a character is better than locking it down by icon removal at that moment in time, but a repeatable Broken Arm is better than a one-time Stark kill effect when there are reset plots. I can kill a character with Icy Catapult and perhaps start to build character table advantage while you have to keep using your Broken Arm to lock down my best character, but once you drop Wildfire or Valar the balance can swing to you: my Icy Catapult is gone while your Broken Arm is still on the table. And there are numerous forms of saves in the LCG environment and it seems like many are getting played. There's precious little in the LCG environment that could rebuff Broken Arm. Even as potent as Lanni's kneel is in LCG, Stark has some chances to work around it. There's To Be a Wolf. And Castellan, which is probably Lanni's most potent source of kneel is a Limited Response (while you could have three copies of Broken Arm working each round) and you can sometimes work around it by marshalling second. As for Broken Arm versus Stark's repeatable kill in LCG --Bear Island and Robb-- I'd trade either of them in a heartbeat to have the Stark house symbol on Broken Arm. Bear Island has all of the limits I've mentioned and Robb costs 4 gold, has conditions on his kill effect, and is more easily thwarted (kneel him or Milk him) and, as a character, is much more fragile in LCG than a location is.

And icon rmeoval IS difficult to counter. **** not efficient to run those 0 cost icon atatchments just in case you hit one Martell deck in an evening and happen to draw the attachment. Icon removal however, will serve the Martell player well in every match.

Again, i am OK with Broken Arm coming back - i'll just be concenred if Martell gets abusive support for this theme the way they did in WED/ITE/5K cycle and the way Lanni has ridiculously reduntant kneel now.

LetsGoRed said:

Another factor is that Bear Island is unique, while a player could have three broken arms shutting down your whole board (if you only have three characters out because you are recovering from a reset, or anticipate a reset coming soon). At least with Bear Island, you get to use the character until the Dominance phase, and there are several ways to protect it (attachments and saves are cards that you probably have in your deck anyway).

I hated Broken Arm (I find icon removal to be very annoying and a fun-vacuum), but would be okay with it as a unique card.

And yes, I have played with, and against, both of these cards.

What if more emphasis was placed on Dominance again? It's really gone back to the red-headed stepchild of the "challenges." Were it to get some teeth again, using the Broken Arm to give your opponent a really good way to win Dominance might not be as attractive.

Kennon said:

In theory, I like the idea of dominance making more of a difference in the game. In practice, I always end up feeling like something is wrong when the dominance phase becomes disproportionately important--for example, a major form of claiming/grabbing power ( ITE Iron Throne) or character removal (Bear Island/Dothraki Sea). I wish dominance could take a more prominent role as an essential phase while at the same time not taking away from other phases. I'm not sure what the best way to do with would be, but I like that leftover gold now counts towards dominance--it makes winning dominance more controllable and therefore the phase receives a little more attention. What about if the winner of the previous round of dominance had an auto bonus to the next plot round's initiative or in some other way influenced who would be the first player in the next round? Alternatively, what if the winner of dominance could choose and return a character he controlled to its owner hand?

I suppose these would be rather major changes to the mechanics of the game, and I don't expect them to happen, but maybe cards could be printed that would in some way mirror these mechanics.

Stag Lord said:

When we add icon attachers to balance out icon removers, we run the risk of impacting some of the core thematic balancing of the game - icon distribution.

I'll use Stark as an example. Militarily very powerful, but vulnerable to intrigue challenges. Throw in some icon adding cards, and they are just as strong in intrigue as military (at least temporarily).

A Stark deck with cards that add intrigue icons may not be very Nedly, but it is much more competitive - and may even stand a chance against an icon removal "control" deck..

The best case would be to have no icon removal (or at least very limited icon removal and NO tricon removal). Once it is included in the game, balance requires that icon addition/restoration be included as well.

I agree that repeatable tricon removal from a non unique location is a bit over the top.

That being said, I never understood all the hostility aimed at Martell and icon removal while Lanni kneel seems to continually slip under the radar. If I kneel one character I have effectively removed all three of its icons, PLUS I've taken away any chance of them kneeling to use their ability, and made them useless for Dominance. Granted, it's easier to stand characters than to give them icons, but that's not the mechanics fault.

Heck I'll just come out and say it, I think the majority of people complaining are talking from a purely emotional level and the cards and facts don't support the statements being made. Of course you all probably feel the same about me.

Lannister is and pretty much always has been the number one House in this game (barring the first appearance of Targ's ridiculous marshall burn and Bara and the first introduction of Joust) yet Martell is the House that gets complained about the most. How many Gencon's has Martell won? Heck how many regionals in comparison to the other Houses has it won?

The stats just don't support these claims of this mechanic being overpowered, even when Martell had ITE Arianne, Locked in the Tower, Scorpion's Sting, and Power Rush Viper, it wasn't winning as many tournaments as Lannister control.

You say it isn't fun... okay, I can understand that to some degree, (though people being fine with mass kneel and mass kill greatly reduces the believability of these statements as being impartial evaluations) but that is personal feeling, I actually like it from both ends quite a bit. It is a tactical challenge where I have to manage my resources better, where my deck and playing skills are really challenged to find a way through the bloackade... it takes more skill to use and is far more card intensive than murder.

I'm not against their other themes being explored, I'm not against icon control taking a serious back seat... assuming that Martell's power level is advanced to mid-pack level.