Caution: This is sort of a rant/open letter, so if you're looking for information or not into this sort of thing, best move along.

This summer will breathe new life into AGOT the card game. At least that is the impression that I have after reading Nate's recent "state of the game" post, and I would really like to believe it. For the most part I have faith that this 60-card "expansion" will be transformational--I remain optimistic about FFG's ability to deliver, assuming the Greyjoy pack contains what Nate says it does. I don't mean the 60 cards alone will be truly amazing, but I do think that some of the minor adjustments they include--such as location discard, more thematic/complimentary card mechanics, and the return of Greyjoy as a competitive house--have larger implications for the game as a whole. (For example, more metagame location hate will mean that players rely on locations less, making the over/abusive use of them less common.) It also seems to me that Nate's recent post signals a renewed FFG commitment to organized play, and the new organized-play director will undoubtedly bring fresh ideas to the rather bland (even if good-intentioned) state of tourneys.

Despite my optimism, there are, however, a few potential challenges that I want to highlight as reminders that everything is not yet "gravy." For the most part, these are "broad-stroke," long-term issues that have come to my attention over the past 1-2 years. Nevertheless, they affect my own enjoyment of this game dramatically and, for those interested in the bottom line, my willingness to spend on AGOT. (For an indication of how my general personal "satisfaction" translates into FFG revenue, over the past 6 months I have taken up playing Warhammer Fantasy. This is my first "miniatures game" and it isn't my favorite game, but I have nevertheless spent around $200-300 directly/indirectly on Warhammer to date; all of that money would have normally gone to AGOT.)

-- No more delays, at least not for awhile (and more communication please). I believe I speak for most of the community when I say "I am really tired of unannounced delays." I don't particularly mind the break between chapter pack sets--one month, right? What I do mind is long breaks between sets, especially when they're preceded by game-changing decisions such as those announced December 2007. To a lesser extent I also find it disappointing that Nate no longer posts the regular journals he used to post. I always looked forward to reading those, and I felt they added a lot of texture to the AGOT community in that they provoked discussion and highlighted game mechanics that I may not have immediately noticed. (In the later months, the entries were used primarily to introduce upcoming sets as a pseudo-advertisement, but I didn't mind as long as they contained spoilers.) As the crappiness of these forums (more on that later) and the general frustration of the LCG transition has sunken in, the forums have become even less lively and the need for a regular AGOT update is even greater. Though ads may be "good enough," I would be very pleased if I saw more longer/developed AGOT updates, stories about FFG's office AGOT league (in the past, these were some of my favorites), and constructive critiques of decklists. I know some such articles can be posted by players in threads, but there's something about the designer posting it himself that makes it really interesting to read.

-- Improve prize support for tourneys, and make tourneys playable at any venue, not just cardshops. In the Washington, DC area where I play, there are no cardshops that carry AGOT that are accessible by public transportation. Because DC (and I'm sure this is true for other cities too) has a decent public transportation system, there are, however, many cardplayers without cars. This means that if our local DC meta wants to organize a tourney, we have to (a) find a way to get a cardshop interested in hosting that we normally wouldn't play at (and owners are usually reluctant to host strangers or provide temporary support for a new game), or (b) hold a "casual" event without prize support. To date, we have done the latter, but that means that organized play typically involves only a few players who meet occasionally at someone's home or a coffee shop. This is great for hanging out with friends, but very poor for attracting out-of-towners for large events and generating momentum/excitement for AGOT. I suggest that FFG provide "cool" prizes, such as the special housecards, deckboxes, and counters of the past. I also suggest that such prizes be mailable to tourney organizes regardless of the location so that people may organize tourneys anywhere. I recognize that this second idea presents logistical or verificatin problems. How about if instead of supplying the actual prizes, FFG ship awards that are then "redeemable" for the prize of your choice--sort of like the Core Sets were sent to regionals winners when they were new, except that they would be sent in a timely fashion?

-- Avoid cookie-cutter cards that do slightly different things for each house. For example, the recent Scattered Armies' 4-cost armies are pretty bland. I think this approach reveals a general apathy or lack of creativity in game development. Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but this isn't poker--different houses should have different cards (not just different triggered effects). Beyond the boringness factor, making cookie-cutter cards also runs the risk of having some overpowered and others underpowered. For example, how many people play To Be A Viper? It doesn't take an expert to spot that is a wasted spot in a chapter pack. Going back to the Scattered Armies example, it is much easier for Lannister to marshall a 4-cost army and have something left over than Greyjoy/Targ/Stark. Why not give those houses a different card altogether, possibly an event, plot, etc. This is the best way to ensure balance while also making each house its own.

--Improve the online board system, if at all possible. It might be too late to change this system, but at least make some minor aesthetic and utility adjustments. For example, for the background that surrounds the actual typing area, use recent AGOT art. (For a good example of how to do this, see websites such as www.starcraft2.com/features/terran.) Try to spruce of some of the style so that the online community doesn't feel like the depressingly plain ER room at the hospital. Also, the pm system is terrible, though I have a feeling this has to do with the "friend system" that nobody seems to use. Also, I'm not sure what the deal with the points thing is, but when I come to the forums it isn't to "make points," it's because I have something to contribute or I'm interested in the contributions of others. (In other words, "making points" that you can redeem and "making a point" during a conversation are two separate things, and this forum should be intended for the latter.)

In the end, venting frustration for the changes to AGOT and the playing environment (forum included) is beating a dead horse at this point, though I'd be lying if I said I am completely over the mishandling of the transition to LCG. I am not Stag Lord, Rings, or Mathlete and have not been a major national contendor nor event organizer. Still, I like to think I am (or used to be) an active member of the AGOT community, and I certainly invested enough time and money into the game to attract the (negative) attention of my wife. Recent changes to this game are promising and have given me reason to hope, but FFG still has a long ways to go.

Feel free to add your own suggestions of ways in which FFG can improve this game. (Sorry this post grew so long, but if you're still reading at this point then I hope you got something out of it.)

I think its a bit interesting that of your four complaints, one has to do with the game itself.

The boards aestics are a non-factor to me. The points don't accrue per post (in fact thats one of the least point getting things) and i honestly don't even notice them anymore. Could there be a better pm system...sure. does it make me want to play thrones more, no.

The delay issue is a valid concern and one that FFG has slowly (get it...) been trying to fix. The next cycle of CPs and the expansions will be the real test of if they've succeded. (giving themselves a month delay in the release date might be a good thing or it might kill them).

The cycles of Chapter packs have been interesting to me, and i actually like To be a Viper (icon stripping and standing...). Some of the themes in the CPs are a little eh (epic battles) and some do take short cuts, but look at summer and winter CPs, they have good themes and good house access to the themes without being cookie cutter. I think the only cookie cutter cp in the ravens cycle was the last one. Yeah in refugees of war everyone got refugees, but they all addressed house weakness instead of continuing the strenghts (i.e. stark with int icon and martell with power icon instead of kill and lose challenge) and there was some interesting other stuff. I think the cookie cutter was more in clash becuase it had things in it designed before knowing about CP packaging.

The prize support is kinda cool. I know people where dying for certain house pins and some as yet to be released. What other prize support do you want aside from promos which they are not going to do with an LCG? I'd be fine with GenCon prizes being FFG Bucks again also. The redemption prizes of the past are gone, they were probably to expansive to have (they had to have enough sitting there) and was perhaps one of a few reasons why the CCG didn't make money. Remember the point of the LCG was to keep FFG's costs down as much as it was to get new players.

Tourney's at a card shop is kind of hard to get away from as it ensures that prizes get where they are supposed to go and in limited quantity, but i get your point. Have you tried asking FFG for an excpetion like they gave New York? I know you trust the community and are yourself trustworthy, but there are lots of people out there that are not and would 'sign-up' and start trying to make money off the prize support (not accusing anyone specific or any currenty player, but i've seen it so many times and ways in other games).

Also, while i'm excitied for it and glad it is coming, i'm not sure if King of the Seas is going to be earth shattering. It will be nice to GJ and help a few minor areas, extra kings and traited plots. But I'm not sure there is going to be wholesale location control (soon everyone will be mumbling that you have to play lanni or GJ ). I think it is a great sign for the game (both the gameplay and the economics) and will help a bit in the short term. I don't think its going to drastically change the landscape of LCG. I think renown is still going to be at a premiuim, neutrals are still going to be vulnerable, and lanni kneel is something that you will have to deckbuild for (~like its never been in the past). I think i'm just saying don't pin all your hopes and your future in AGoT on the expansion itself, but look at as more of a sign that FFG is getting fully behind GoT again and that if your still missing the days of standard then you will be getting clsoer to what you want and having a lot more people to either play with or support the game along side of you.

I think you did a great job - I really don't know why you discounted yourself at the end. Very well thought out, and every player pretty much has an equal say on where they think the game should be.

Some of my points will be re-hashing the above slightly.

I would just say (and most people have heard my harping on many of these issues):

1. Make cool uniques. I don't mind non-uniques, but really most of us play this game to get Jaime or Eddard out, even if we are tourney players. I have placed 1st, 3rd, and 2nd in the last 3 Worlds (Joust of course...), and pretty much try to use only uniques where possible (so every spot but the "1" cost spot usually). FFG has done a fairly good job of this in the past, and I hope it continues. Cards like Put to the Question, and Seductive Promise are good starts, along with fun, Nedly, powerful uniques. It was said above that the "cycle" cards are bland, and fairly annoying. Every so often they are fine - the refugees were not bad. But putting tons of cards into the army or 4-5 cost slots should be rare.

2. Make power cards. This I have seen a little hesitancy on. I "grew up" with this game in the age of Valar, PTTS, PTTQ, Roiting, etc. Say what you want, but those were fun times. Power swings could be huge, and you saw lots of different decks. This is one reason I am so excited to run the cube draft at Kubla.

3. Get organized play going...and keep it simple silly! League is tough, lots of results. Right now this game is grassroots again. We need 'special' monthly tourneys with fun promos - and sure, some sort of voting say could be incorporated. I am actually surprised at the # of players I am getting - we only get 5-6/month but that is out of 10-11 players that just don't CCG that much.

4. Stop with the fluff. This was alluded to by the designers at one point - and they haven't had much time to prove this. But even in LCG only - which is mostly all I play these days - I buy one chapter pack to get one card. And I play 3-4 houses! 5KE might have been my FAVORITE set ever...and I am truly bummed it rotated so quickly. Kings/Queens, the plots, the big locations, solid events...ITE wasn't far behind either.

But I agree - I am way more optimistic than I was a few months ago. There are many more posts on the site, and cool things coming down the pike. Plus...I am always excited to hopefully see lots of friends at Kubla and GenCon.

I'm new of the game... I come from AGOT boardgame... This sunday i have my first tournament in Genova (And I'm going to be kicked of course :-))...

...I'm buying CP from USA to be update and... I'm in love of this game :-)

For the 2010 we are planning (me and some friends) a journey in Indianapolis for Gen Con... Let's hope in FFG and In Westeros World...ì

bye

Andrea from Italy

Yeah, I agree that it was pretty frustrating there for awhile with the way everything was handled. I'm still not completely satistfied with the way things turned out(ITE and 5KE rotating mainly), but you can't please everyone. I think that the break from the game really helped though. Now that I've been playing/posting again, I'm actually super excited for Thrones again. Not excited enough to make GenCon this year(unless it turns into a last minute trip like last year, which I'm still hoping for, ~if for no other reason than to go drinking and have rings pay for all the drinks), but looking forward to competative thrones def. I miss the old days when it seemed like every month there was a tourney somewhere that required a roadtrip. So here's a shout out to the Madison and Iowa crews! Let's get some tournies together! I want more thrones roadtrips! At least the tourney in chicago this weekend will be fun. Can't wait to try some of Ktom's meat!

Great post Dan. I agree with almost everyhting you worte.

OP is key and a good but flexible system needs to be in palce. easier reproting, rankings and better prize support woudl all be appreciated. i thought the fighting game that FFG picked up had a veyr good Op system. Hope it is tarnslating voer here.

The baords are horrible compared to what we had - but I think that ship has sailed. its just good to start seeing some vigorous covnersation aorund here again.

We do need more uniques and we defitneily need impact cards taht shake the metagame. I am hoping for soem really strong kings adn Queens in the next cycle and in kings of the sea.

I disagree about the cookie cutter non-uniques (slightly) I do think you need a cycle of staple bland cards that just do basic things - or simialr things. Back in westeros you had cards liek Host of storm's end and teh like - simple, no etxt armies that filled out your decks. i think that when you have to stop and read every card on the table and when nopn uniques are driving your game with cool and funky effects - it gets away form its elegance and simplicity. So a cycle like the armies in Scattered, that basically do one simple thing don't bother me so much.

Apart from that though - I agree wiht you wholly.

Stag Lord said:

To me, this is the key - at least for this community. Had the organized play program been robust, engaging and consistently accessible for all participants from the get go, a lot of the malaise that set in last October would have dissipated quickly.

Said another way, I understand (and even agree) with the decision to make "LCG only" the primary competitive format. It makes all the new people the game s trying to attract more likely to move from casual, basement play to visible, game store competitive play. But making that announcement months before the OP progam was launched (and then flubbing the launch by making it seem half-hearted!) only hurt the existing player base. If it had been "here's the great, new, complete and functioning OP program - we have just one request...," I think it would have gone down much easier.

All the rest (key uniques, ramping up and representation of power and mechanics in the LCG card pool, etc.) are things I think will fix themselves if we, and especially the FFG corporate leaders, give Nate the time. Through this all, I have been confident in Nate's ability to continue making the game fun. I can't imagine that any of the reactions took him by surprise (much). My impression has been that the assumptions imposed by corporate reality have been changing faster than the development cycles could compensate for. If things "mellow out" and stabilize at that company level in regards to the game, I'm sure that the actual game development will "catch up" to the expectations of the players.

But yeah, as far as keeping the AGoT community I like being a part of going, getting the OP program up, running and engaging is key.

BTW: I think it says something that people are starting to care enough to write posts like this again. WTG, Dan!

So I agree with the sentiment expressed if not with all the actual points made.

Uniques... a must in my book. I'd like to see a future set who has the focus on uniques, 60-75% of the cards being unique, with a heavy leaning towards uniques that do not have legal versions. I'd like to see that cycle have EVERY chapter pack with a never before printed unique character. I think focusing on factions would make this pretty easy, Night's Watch, Clansmen, Wilding's, Brotherhood, etc. (of course a lot of these would tend to be neutral following previous design trends, but the Targ Maester Aemon would have me hoping to see some of these with proper affiliations).

Cycles... I love cycles, I think it is an easy way to keep each Houses primary or secondary mechanics present in the game. I do think MUCH more time needs to be put into them, and not every card in a cycle needs to be an exact parallel, meaning if every House gets an army with a House specific ability, perhaps the cost or STR, or icons varies among them a little bit to make them properly reflect that Houses status in the game. Lannister's gold makes high cost cards much easier to play, they should have an additional gold in the cost, or one less icon, or an unfavorable trait, or the others have an additional keyword, or their ability to be weaker. In the case of the To Be a Viper, having to lose a challenge to remove the icons off a character is no where even remotely as powerful as deadpile recursion, search, cancel, etc, especially when you consider that Martell's "vengeful" keyword can put you in a position where the cost is not even an advantage for the card the way it is for the others. There should have been no loss requirement, or since Martell has icon manipulation and not just icon removal (or at least did when this card was released) it could have been stand a character to give a character all three icons and stealth. Anyway, I like cycles, I just wish they were handled a little bit better.

Non-uniques... I like non-uniques, I like the facelss masses that fullfill the orders and directives, act as the pawns and cannon-fodder as the Great Houses play the Game of Thrones. I dislike any non-unique non-army character that is more powerful or useful than the named characters. I want generic pages, paramours, cut-purses, spies, and hedge knights, and I want them subserviant to the lords, ladies, and other players of the game. The sole exception to this the army traited card. These should be powerful, even more powerful than the uniques.

OP is a must. Even if the VAST majority of new players never compete, an active, reliable, and simple OP system keeps the "heavies" engaged, keeps them pushing each other, inspiring each other, drives the game play and deck building to new heights and this enthusiasim carries over to those "social" players at game stores, cafes, and peoples living rooms.

This last sort of begs the question... what kind of OP system do you want to see? One format take it or leave it, or multiple format support? Leagues, themed tourneys, regionals, nationals and invitationals? One, two, all?

What do you want to see? If FFG came to you today and said design your ideal system, what would it consist of?

dormouse said:

i liked the league. i think they should continue, but perhaps be more of use 1 core set and 1 CP of a cycle, then every month (or 2 weeks) add the next cp of that cycle to the mix. It would be good for new cycles as well as a fun way for people or missed previous cycles to buy them.

i like that the monthly tourneys are you pick the format, but maybe once every 4 months FFG could design a special rules tourney like they used to do, not sure what thew prize support would be, but i like building special/funky decks and usually have little incentive to do so.

Prize support is a tough area. The pins are nice, especially becuase thye have people waiting for the stark pin, but soon they are going to need more. I have no idea what that more is going to be or even what it should be, so i am useless here.

Wow, I wasn't sure how people would respond to my initial rant, but it looks like people have a lot of good ideas, and I agree that a well-thought out OP system would go a long way to compensating for other shortcomings. It's great to see other people getting more interested in the game. At the end of the day, I play AGOT mostly because the players are fun to game with, though the card mechanics are also very unique and innovative.

In terms of the actual game, I may be overstating the blandness of the "cycle" cards a bit, and I agree that each house should have core cards to fall back on as staples, but I still feel that cards like To Be A Viper and the Targ Scattered Armies versions are much less potent than their equivalents from other houses. I see the usefulness in printing a "refugee" or "reinforcement" card for each house, but I wish the fun-factor would be a stronger consideration during game development when it comes to these "cycle" cards. For example, if a house already has a plethora of 3-gold slot characters, consider making a useful 2-gold character, or a heavy-hitting 4-gold character; for houses with fewer gold generating capabilities, make the "cycle" character cheaper to marshall rather than merely giving it a different triggered effect. Variety is the spice of life, and the greater the card variety, the more life each house has.

My problem is that cycle cards are VERY hard to balance - harder to me than unique ideas for character for each house. Just look at the Fury plots and the 'stand and X' cards. There were really no cycle cards in my two favorite sets - Westeros and 5KE. At least that I can remember.

I don't mind some non-uniques - Sellsword, Shadowcat, etc. I just don't get excited to see them *shrug*

Lastly - someone mentioned that the chapter packs could really concentrate on a different part of the map/lore. Brotherhood (~Ghost of HH reprint?), Kingsguard, Queensguard, Reeds, Wildlings, NW, Red Cloaks. With the Hand of the King chapter pack I am starting to get excited this is more the way things are going. ~not that I couldn't take a bunch more bannermen cards! (I will use that example the rest of my life ).

rings said:

Kings/Queens weren't a cycle? or is cycle defined by non-uniqueness? the traitors weren't a cycle? The Hamlets weren't a cycle? The A Test Of... events weren't a cycle? The Agenda's weren't a cycle?

or was it becuase they were spread out and you didn't see them new all at once that they weren't a cycle?

Good Posts all.

While the Madison meta has pretty much dried up, Travis, Jesse & I are playing a little bit, and have been playing some multi-player. As multi-player is supposed to be the 'way of the future', or at least a big part of the change & marketing, there are some serious concerns I have regarding it.

First, the length. It's still taking too long to play. I feel this is mostly due to 2 things: 1) too much gold, making it too easy to flood cards after resets - this slows the game down as players attempt to read & account for all cards on the board, and 2) too much ability text on all cards. Again, This either turns the game into a game of memory (& I can just play the age old 'match' game if I want to do that), or slows play a players read for & account for all cards again.

I think that the two factors, in combination, are too much for the multiplayer titles to overcome. That is making multiplayer feel much more like a board game - too much so. If i really want to play a three hour game, I'll actually play a board game.

Secondly, I really miss the challenge & dominance response events from Westeros. I'd really like to see Put to the Torch, Tears of Lys, etc. come back in some form. The 'fear' of losing challenges is nowhere near what it used to be. I can see modifying them somewhat (making Put to the Torch after you win at the attacker, maybe the same for Tears, and come out with some nuetral defense win responses also).

Third, I want to strongly second Rings regarding uniques. We do have some good ones, but it's something FFG will always have to keep a close eye on as by the very rules a non-unique character has an advantage (as uniques in dead pile cannot be played), and there have been brief periods where non-uniques have been far more common in competetive decks.

Finally, regarding the packaging. The whole gameboard format of the core set, title pieces, and now house card in the expansion really don't do much for me. I'd rather FFG skipped that/made things cheaper if that's a choice. I realize some may like the house card, & this isn't a huge issue for me, but I could definitely do without some of that stuff (the title game pieces are just junk IMO)

LoB are you playing LCG and you have too much gold?

Lars said:

Good points to be sure.

Kings/Queens, for the most part, didn't key off the same thing in my book (other than Robb, Cercei and either Bob/Stannis with the claim and plot traits) - but I agree they probably could be considered a cycle. Plus, there were a bunch of cards that keyed off them as well to not make their effect the only reason you played them. Hamlets, immunity to some cards, etc. Uniqueness is probably a tad of it though, as most uniques are ran in 1 ofs and you can only have one on the table which changes things.

Traitors sucked, but you are right they were totally an unbalanced cycle - I tried to forget about them since I hated them so much (and still do). Building better decks and playing better should result in wins, not luck on whether your opponent is running "screw you" cards When people were running the bara traitor out of house, the shark was officially jumped...

Hamlet's were the exact same thing, so no balancing issues - I don't count those in cycles really (but again, agree that they are technically).

Test of X were a cycle for sure, but not really in any one house (although some houses could use them better) since they keyed off crests (right? I am horrible with card names!). Difference in balancing again.

Agendas certainly were, and are pretty much a bad idea. I think I said before (somewhere!) that cards you start with in play are the hardest to balance, and then plots are second since you decide when they happen (for the most part, barring Outfox and the such), and they usually repeat. I am all for agendas that all houses can use (with HEAVY playtesting). Luckily none were really overpowered (Stark being close - but only due to the error of printing traitors, not the agenda itself).

I digress...

You are right though - being spread out, and really not as many compared to the total set in what my mind says are cycle cards (very similar cards in which each house has a different effect) is part of it.

dormouse said:

In multi-player, why not? No location destruction to speak of, even if you use the plot your opponent will usually have 9+ gold.

I agree, if I didn't say it before. I would like more swing cards, and LoB and I have always talked about having more "fear losing a challenge" cards. To be honest, there are more "fear winning" or "fear defending a challenge" than "fear losing a challenge" - cards like Lanni Pays Debts and indirectly with Lethal Counterattack and Writ Small (really, the only three "surprise!" cards that scare me in LCG). Really, there is almost no reason (other than Robb?) to defend much of the time. I always liked Fire From the Skies...that card rocks, anyone could use it, it was a card you could trigger at any time (not a response) which was cool, and it did have limits to make it really effective but not toally hose someone. Plus, you had to win TWO challenges - I always liked cards that keyed off wining 2-3 challenges, they were always more balanced.

If I had a "dream list" of old events it would be:

1. Fire From the Skies

2. Narrow Escape (still the best soft-counter to Valar and mass destruction, I would re-word with "save" instead of "return to play" in the text to keep Wildfire and Targ control active).

3. Paper Shield

4. Tears (probably PTTS as well if Tears is in there - and I have no problem putting a limit like "win by 4", or "character w/o attachment")

5. Ransack, or a slightly weaker PTTT.

6. Interrogate - Lord/Lady love again for me

I TOTALLY agree with your reprint suggestions - especially Fire From the Skies - which really got shafted becuase of early rotation for ACOS (it came out right before) Funny, Narrow Escape had the same short shelf life.

I think i'd rather see Confession than Interrogate, but that's just me, and my fondness for Crest tech. And Ghost of High Heart would be better yet.

We've been playing some classic Highlander melee, and I busted out both Fire from the Skies _and_ Narrow Escape... sadly there's not been enough draw to actually stop someone from cancelling it... but it least it made my VED Tywin stand. The one question I'm curious about are people's feelings on whether challenge responses should be restricted to the loser of the challenge. My opponent's noted that unlike PttS, that FftS could hit anyone on the table. I"m kinda of two minds... sure it's nice when I can't get through someone's defenses to be able to hit them when I sneak through against another, but I feel a bit dirty getting the easy (or even "negotiated") win off of somebody else to hit their King or, say, Castamere. It's not even that bitter grapes of whether it's targeting me or not.

Maybe some cards written: "After you win a MIL challenge, kill a character w/o a MIL icon. If the character is controlled by the losing opponent, it cannot be saved." Or "After you win an INT challenge, kill a character STR 4 or lower controlled by the losing opponent, or kill a char. STR 2 or lower controlled by any player.

Thoughts, feelings, criticisms?

Maester_LUke said:

I'm happy seeing you posting regularly again.

Maester_LUke said:

Give me more time and I'm sure I'll think of some. In seriousness, I do like the framework of your suggested cards. I don't want a bunch of cards that scream "Built for Melee", but some melee-centric cards are good and I like how in particular your second proposed card could add some interesting decision making moments to a game.

If Tears of Lys is comming back, then YMHC needs to return along with Martel.

While we're on the "I want my favorite borked cards"....

Scorpion's Sting (or Broken Arm... one of them, but not both).

Thirst for Blood

Expendable Ally

5KE Dragons... to re-synergize with the ambush fun.

Zealous Deckhand (Taking advantage of Valar is part of Greyjoy's Theme).

A Varys that is playable with the True Queen Agenda. (Bring them back... they were fun),

Oh... and bring back the sub-houses (Tully, Clansmen, Dothraki) and the dual houses (Tyrell, and Bolton).

... then again Frey is a better Stark/Lanni house then Bolton. I'd also like to see more dual Targ/Bara Asshai.

Like the one from AHoTh that brought back an attachment.

Also in meele... I think there should be some more challenge redirection and changing of claim reception even.

Look at the Martel guy from AHoTa, he made the attacker copy the defender's claim... even if you were not the defencer. (Sorry, I'm posting from a phone... so I can't look up the cards). But you should have the ability to reach out and touch anyone. (A term I'm borrowing from Jon Chabot).

I'm excited about a suposed redirection of Greyjoy and Martell. Though I hope Greyjoy still has the theme of taking advantage of the weak player (or weak spot)... and Martel has (good cards... this time) the theme of taking advantage of your strengths. Underhanded Assasin as an example... I would like to see more cards like him. Though I do still hold Taste for Blood as my favoirte Martel Card.

Oh... and bring back Ancient Arakh.

YMHC should never see the light of day again, ever.

As for luke's query - i was always OK with fir form teh Sky as wroitten. yes - teh effect could be nasty in melee, but soemtimes agaisnt a rugged Stark or greyjoy defense deck, that was the only wya to break through the entrenchments, so to speak. I was fine with teh card they way it was printed, i was fine with negotiating the easy challenges to rip a third player open and i woudl be fine not only wiht a stright reprint, but with other, smilairly texted cards. Melee should be brutal and treachery and allaiances are part of the deal.

I love the idea of YMHC, it was prett much the only revenge card that put you ahead rather than just not "quite" as far behind. Revenge should be nasty and scary. It should make your opponent dread attacking you, not a minor inconvenience.

That said, looking through an opponents deck even without the card removal is just too much. I'd prefer to discard the attacking character and then strip their hand of characters. Stronger in the immediate gameplay, but no foreknowledge of their deck, no stalling, etc. etc.

Displaced Dornishman is a pretty good idea, but having to discard him from play usually means you are still on the losing end when it comes to card advantage, I lose one/two characters/cards/power, and then I sacrafice a character to make you lose one/two characters/cards/power. Either way I've lost an additional character than you did. I'd have prefered to discard a card or two off the top of my deck. THAT would have made that guy go from an annoyance to a genuine threat on the board.

dormouse said:

The thought of a modified YMHC in LCG makes me all kinds of tingly inside. What would you think of something like:

"House Martell only.
Response: after you lose a challenge as defender, kneel 2 influence to choose and discard an attacking character from play (cannot be saved). Then, search the hand of that character's controller for any characters of the same house and discard them."

Loses the deck search, and slightly limits the mass character hand discard.

Aside from play balance, isn't that one too many play restriction? Sucks the fun right outta da card.