LetsGoRed said:

I'd like to add gracious, indefatigable, and community-minded to the enthusiastic there, Jason. And regardless of how you remember our game, I'm pretty sure it was a better showing than you recall. After all, that was on my warm up trip for GenCon, against a car and driver that faired pretty well at that event. And with no offense to Dave Myers (seed #2), the pasting I laid on his Stark deck was the closest thing to a "flawless victory" I had all day. In fact, I was fortunate not to face any Greyjoy or Bara that day, as they tended to be my worst match ups. And in a "Rocky 2" style showdown with Morgan after returning to MN afterwards, her Bara deck took 2 out of 3 from me, and handily at that.

And as much as I hate the Brothel as an early on Stark player, I have to say that LDC is still worse... how that card did not get reprinted with a Limit, or kneeling requirement, when things like Bran the Builder's Legacy got downgraded, I don't know. If I wanted to complain, the fact that that half my intrigue claim becomes moot against the Targ player mid-game just blows... I'm just sayin'

Lars said:

I think you meant stalwart (I know it's nitpicky, but I'm trying to build some momentum here.

Unless rulings have changed, I'm pretty sure you can't dupe things you've stolen... let's refer to the Ktom on this one. And why would a steal you already control count as a discard. If your Gilly is in the dead pile, you can't even take mine. I still remember having a VED Bran contest with one of the Sworn Brothers where we'd only bother playing the unique Starks the other one had, in order to avoid the steals... Ah, good times.

I think we're beginning to see the crux of people's perspective here. The reinforcements are hellah good, undercosted and with keywords sorely lacking in this environment. That they can be triggered on a challenge lost as an attacker is the most over-powered factor in my book. I played my first LCG game with Michael Hurley over the weekend, and it happenned to be his Targ Summer versus a more standard Lannister deck. Both featured MwNK, but the Lanni deck pushed it a little bit harder. Now, I don't know what he cut out of either deck to avoid the vulnerability, but the only character we saw stolen all game was the Fairweather Follower I took with a Seductive Promise.

I'll save a further critique for a different post, but to address the text I bolded above, you say they (the rein. events) are 'ok' and then mention that they're stronger than the 5 best (?, still not enough experience to be sure) unique neutral characters in the core set. Is that not a definition of way too strong? I don't like to descend to Rings-ian level of chode-dom, but RJM is right is saying we play the game because we love the books... and not for some nameless punks that are so undercosted as to be near auto-includes, should you need the icons/keywords, and can afford the "losses" that are necessary. I'll throw my lot in with the notion that they're the real bogeyman here, and that players should be running MwNK even if they don't have their own events, just to capitalize on their opponent's. In fact, I'm sure the presence of two unspent gold and a MwNK on my side of the table happenned to curtail Michael's use of a reinforcement more than once. Follow up Question: in a metagame environment featuring unerrata'd MwNK and reinforcement events, what 4 cost slot is decidely better/worthy to take a deckslot than the army? Any of the other in-house reinforcement combo'ing armies? Fat Bob and Kill Rob? Talk to me, as I'm still trying to teach myself the card pool at a accelerated rate. (and you have to hear the voice of Mr. Hyde from the LXG movie when you read those words... it just sounds cooler, whatever you think of the film)javascript:f_valida_respuesta();

Dittos on RJM's last point as well.

LUke

And Lars, I was not teasing you in particular... I just lamenting the apparently limited "dominant" decktypes that seem to have bubbled up in this brave, new world. It could be a lack of breadth in our discussions here, but I haven't played enough games (and am not a prolific enough deckbuilder to stretch them on my own) to know how unintentionally focused things are, if there are really just that few viable Tier 1 decks.

I think you meant stalwart (I know it's nitpicky, but I'm trying to build some momentum here.

the stalwart is what pumped him, the vigilant is why i like to steal him, does that clarify oh nitpicky one

Unless rulings have changed, I'm pretty sure you can't dupe things you've stolen... let's refer to the Ktom on this one. And why would a steal you already control count as a discard. If your Gilly is in the dead pile, you can't even take mine. I still remember having a VED Bran contest with one of the Sworn Brothers where we'd only bother playing the unique Starks the other one had, in order to avoid the steals... Ah, good times.

i dunno, i thought the check for dead pile happened after a steal. either way i'm not heartbroken that anyone would risk use of gilly because i have one in my deck. It still gives me better odds of me using it more then you.

okay, a number of things here. the qoute is more for my reference, sorry that it makes the post so much longer.

1st, KtoM thaks for changing my % (i always forget to move the decimal) but 1.67% verse 20%...heck 5% verse 20% is still way to strong IMO.

2nd, Reins vs other neutrals. i think in a deck built around them there are neutrals stronger then the Reins (dayne for example, Den of the wolf as a location example). I think the ones i mentioned are very strong too, i'd not hesitate to put anyone of the in my deck at their gold slot. I think the lack of renown in the environemnt outside of bara is what gives reins a bit more of an edge right now. I get that MWnK is needed to comabt these/prevent them from taking over the environment. What i see MWnK doing instead is furthering the spread of reins takign over the environment but adding MWnK too that and then smacking down a lot of ways to make tighter or themed decks that can hurt reins (Dayne, w/ Dawn, and tower of joy, would be a great way to stop Reins [out of the house of your choice btw] and still have a solid deck...MWnK obleterates that). Its funny both you and RJM say i want to use named charcaters from the book and not reins...well MWnK stops you from playing how many named charcaters, and some popular ones too, from the books ?

3rd, Luke, you seem to be giving me a who cares if MWnK is in every deck argument, if i'm wrong on that then skip this point. I am hearing you say Reins are the 'real boogymen' but you also say "players should be running MwNK even if they don't have their own events, just to capitalize on their opponent's". To me that sounds like MWnK is beyond an auto-include. then you get MWnK verse MWnK of 2 varaitons (MwnK and 0 reins or MWnK and reins....) that soon leads to MWnK and at least Retreat and Regroup (a meh rein event that is insanely stronger becuase of the reach of MwnK as it is a free trigger against other reins at least, limited discard pile recurrsion, and you can steal even if your opponent never plays his own reins [but is running one of those 'it doesn't matter" streets or bird's...]). These decks turn into a race to get out more MWnK's. That was what prompted this thread becuase Jeff and I have that race w/ our decks. Its not fun, and its not what i want LCG to be (might it eventually move awy form this...maybe, are you going to enjoy playing the game until it does? maybe, i won't). If the reins were the only thing affected by MWnK it would reduce the power of both and bring in more deck building options to counter the reins apart from MWnK, so despite which you think is the real boogyman you have to see the validity of erratta to MWnK, right (or is this were i'm losing everyone)?

4th, The card pool in LCG isn't lacking per se, it just doesn't have the power cards to handle an ubercard (heck even a sub uber card like pyromancher's cache according to FFG). MWnK can't even take Milk, the easiest way to handle Jaquen. after LGR's game we were talking baout his deck. He likes it, Its a nice deck, it can kill things and defend challenges, after that, i'm not sure. He told me he liked it becuase he was having a lot of success w/ a similar build last summer. I chuckled and said well your character base was a lot bigger and a lot stronger in house last summer. (robb, arya, Eddard and plots were better). This is the case in every house right now. Heck staton was even lamenting not having Stormlands Peasant. Now, you don't have to, but if you want to you can include things like Jon Snow or Benjen Stark to put in your stark deck at the 3 gold slot in stead of a Ranger of winter or vanguard scout. It helps you in a number of ways. You get stealth, and psuedo renown. Yuo get dead pile recurssion. You don't lose any STR, godl curve, or icons. Finally, you have the possibilty of adding event immunity to your deck (and more pseudo renown). well now you don't have those choices. You could but the reins in your deck sure...but now we are back to race for the MWnK advantage. If MWnK only affected reins (or some kind of erratta) you now have the choices again and you can choose to ignore the reins w/out disadvantaging your deck options.

Edit: i must have screwed up the quotes... hope this fixed it...gah!!! oh well i'll drop the big quote to make it somewhat readable

Maester_LUke said:

You cannot dupe a unique character unless you both own and control the copy you are trying to duplicate.

And further, the rules of unique say that you cannot play, put into play or take control of a unique card that you already have in play or have in your dead pile. The "dead pile check" is part of initiation of the "take control" effect when you verify target/play restrictions.

So if Lars has Gilly and MwNK out, LUke can play his copy of Gilly with impunity. LUke's copy is an illegal target for Lars' MwNK and is therefore safe as long as Lars' Gilly is either in play or in his dead pile. (It's the fact that she is an illegal target that makes the "take control vs. rules of unique" situation different from the "put into play vs. rules of unique creates a dupe" situation of something like Gates of Winterfell.)

Reinforcement Events are severely undercosted for the LCG environment(possibly any environment, but I don't play anything but LCG and Legacy anymore). If MWnK only could target them, I would be ok with the card as is. It would balance out the cost of reinforcement events.But other neutrals should not be able to be targeted by MWnK.

so we have our fist inter-meta (as opposed to intra-meta) winning deck list. Sadly, i think (call it bravado if you will) that MwnK devestates it.

Deathjester26 said:

This deck is a great example of MWnK disrupting 20% of a deck (and hey he is using his own reins so i have 2 more triggers, wooooo!). On top of that MWnK is 'immune' to his recursive character control (flame kissed) not to mention that i could steal away a large chunk of his influence and ambush base therefore affecting 10 more cards in his deck and rasing MWnK's impact to over 1/3 of his deck. Valar is nice, but MWnK is non-unique (and he doesn't have his own so i don't have to worry about having more then 1 on the board at the same time) and each location (~even if only a street) or draw i steal from him makes it easier for me to recover and nullifying the impact of valar. On top of all that I don't even need to make it summer, isn't that nice. I think i've shown that i can get MWnK combo'd by turn 2 eaisly, and this (all?) targ deck doesn't seem to be a fast deck (self admiditly w/ two wins where the other player got to 14 power) so i might even have a grace period of turn 3 (again valar is inefficient control here as if he flips it turn 2 or 3 he loses too, unless i'm missing the saves).

I've been fighting the urge to bring up the targ vs bara match-up that my MWnK deck creates as that is really just gravy. I get a plot based steal in a challenge i'm strong in (please play danny, please play danny, please, please, pretty please) and an undercosted character (or 2 or 3...) to discard a card from his hand....

First off, I never intended for this deck to see competitive play. It was put together before the last CP release, and since I wasn't planning on using it, I never worried about making it MwnK friendly.

Second, this was not Kubla's usual field of 30+, very good players (last year we had the 2nd largest ccg draw, losing only to Magic). This deck won in a field of 6 players (3 of which had never even looked at an LCG only card pool). 2 of the decks were mine (neither was running MwnK, and neither had seen competitive play before this), 1 deck by arma virumque (he's new to the game and only had previous experience playing against his brother in law), and 3 decks by rings (the only decks with any experience playing in any kind of competitive enviroment, but one of his decks was a Bear Island deck so no MwnK). While this deck is not utter trash, this is by no means a "Con Winning Deck". Kevin is just a "Con Winning Player".

I'm not saying that a MwnK deck wouldn't mop the floor with this one, I just don't think that assuming it would proves anything about MwnK. I would be much more interested in knowing if there were any MwnK decks at ktom's get together, and how they did, before deciding anything.

Deathjester26 said:

I don't think there was a lot of LCG only over there at Ktom's as i'm pretty sure they played a lot standard to appease many people.

I think this deck/win is a great example of how MWnK affects LCG only tournies. Here you have a solid deck, made even stronger by neutrals (filling a hole i see...namely lack of draw and more influence/resources. Dayne is a solid charcater that can be great after a valar or to keep yourself from overcommiting).

You say its not a con winning deck, well with a good player you get a con winning deck. With MWnK you get brainless i'm going to deny as many options as i can and still benefit from it. w/ MWnK verse MWnK you get brianless race to 2:1 MWnK. So, MWnK takes a servicible (probably more then that, i think its solid) deck and hampers 20-33%+ of it, good player or not running either deck. One of the complaints about PLoyalist was how many cards it affected. I bet you could build a good deck with winter have it affect maybe 5-10% of your deck and still beat a PLoyalist deck (heck all you'd need back then was 3x milk, fortified positions, and maybe 3x nightmare...).

Deathjester, as the builder of the deck, how do you think it would have done w/out gilly, sam, ravens x3, crossroads x3, summer reserves x2, dayne, and the 2 streets? would you have run so much ambush (there was mention of kev being a poker player and i'm assuming the deck and him were simpatico becuase of ambush)? what would you have used to fill the holes/maintain gold curve? MWnK affects all these decisions. either you risk getting it stolen away from you and used against you (again someting PLoyalist, jagen, pyromancer's cache never did), or you go with what you've already deemed to be lesser options.

Hmm there are a lot of new and interesting things to read here about the MwnK.

Just to demonstrate a different point of wiev, I´ll throw in my 2 cents.

From a deck building perspective I see it that you have the following three options:

-If you want to run a reinforcents deck, you will be scared of facing a deck with MwnK so you have to put in a number of cards for protection, and it still becomes a "who has more MwnK" battle. And while the reinforecements events are good, they are far from perfect, and having lot´s of renown right now is not worth it, it´s just best to have very vew characters with power, wich you can actually save.

- If you want to run a lot of neutrals/OOH, you will be scared of facing the above deck, leading to the above protection measures.

- If you run a mostly an in-house deck, you do not sacrifice that much ( depending on your house), and have the above deck-types lose some of their power against you, whithout having to include any protection measures, well, besides leaving out some neutrals. ( Also your deck is more fun to play with, because of the in-house "flavour")

So asuming I don´t know what decks I´ll be facing, as in a major torney, my choice would be clearly number 3.

But I guess it´s all speculations till Gencon shows us how it is.

Of all of those cards, I think the crossroads would hurt the most to throw out, just for the influence.

Honestly, if I were to tweak this deck to make it MwnK friendly, I'd toss out Sam, the Reserves, and Ser Arthur (maybe even Gilly too) and throw in some dupes.

I've only ever played the deck against myself (so maybe Kevin can better answer this) but I think as long as it's summer, any other card draw is just icing on the cake. There's plenty of recursion to help out.

I previously did not enter into this discussion because I had not played. Now I have played a little, but not against a MwnK deck. I am completely unqualified to make any statements as to how strong or broken that card may be. I simply just don't think pointing out how well a MwnK deck can beat a deck that was built without Mwnk in mind, and that won in a field of 6 people, adds much to your argument.

Yeha - not sure if the MWnK analysis applies here - small tournament, secodn ahnd deck, no one really running CSattered Armies form teh soudn of it. But it still matches up pretty well since it doens't ahve a lto of neutral tech. arthur daynne isn't strictly needed and if he wteaks his resource curve he'll mimimze even more, Valar makes anyhting you steal easy enough to kill. All in all i'm not sure its a necessary assesment.

i think the bigger problem is that the Bara Plot next you ANYTHING in the deck. That's a huge problem for Targ - the matchup with bara is very problematic and MwNK doesn't help.

OTOH - its another example fo a solid deck without a lot of neutrals or OOH.

Please tell me if you feel this is out of line Mike, but at this point I don't think you're doing anything but repeating the same points. I don't think anyone is disagreeing about the strength or reach of the card, or it's ability to affect deck construction. At this point, it's up to a Jaime in each meta to build a deck like yours to build a abusive deck and beat people over the head with it until everyone joins your chorus and we see the necessary errata. I don't believe this is an ad hominem

And please, anyone who feels the tone of this response is out of line, either reply here or message (or call/text me, should you have the number) and tell me so. I'm in one of my more aggro and confrontational moods. Calling out a deck and saying how much better you and/or your deck might have been, is unnecessary east-coast whininess (kinda like my inclusion of that slur... but at least I didn't single out Philadelphia... I wanted to tar Macias and those bozos down in Glen Burnie too.), especially given the caliber of player that Kevdawg is. (No offense to DJ26, because the deck looks well-built, but kev is easily won of the best players to ever not-win GenCon... and I've only watched him in action.)

Again, this is a mildly corrosive posting to hopefully cut off some of this endless cycle of, "But what about this... from both sides." We've had aired out the argument, the community has had too little time/top-tier games played in the LCG only environment to see the deck emerge yet, Lars, but your points stand. I think, in particular, that the Kubla-winning deck's reliance on Crossroads (a barely efficient resource at it's best, lacking even the protection of "Limited." or uniqueness) for additional influence makes it particularly problematic... not that the absence of the 5KE dragons and Winter Storm realy make Ambush anything more than a purely tactical concern... and one not that much different from Marshalling 2nd... particularly in the case of the Queen's Knights that lack a 'come into play' ability.

This is a spirit of moving ahead constructively (think Obama talking at Cheney), and at this point spite is getting us no where. Take the Andy DuFresne approach and send Nate, or Jeremy or heck, even Christian either an e-mail, PM or heck a real live paper letter to get your point to them. If you care about making the OP environment, particularly with respect to high level (regionals and GenCon) play something other than a MwNK arms race, I suggest you make your point int he direction it really matters. And not wait til a post-GenCon-sans-errata jeremiad about how you "told us so." Please do not take this as an ad hominem attack on you... I want to see this issue resolved, but until there's a SW:CCG style players counsel to determine errata and rulings, (something I think should happen to maintaing Standard and "Vintage," if Jeremiah and I can get it off the ground), Nate is the final governing authority. And while he is reasonable and has the best interests of the game at heart, he's not the type to be swayed by bluster or noise. If you're truly serious about dealing with the Threat from the Chapter Pack, take a road trip to Roseville and ask him to beat you with a non-meta'd deck. Because Nate _is_ the best person I've ever played who hasn't one GenCon... and I _have_ lost to every Joust champion at some point in my existence. Though I still have never beaten Casey or Mainn, to the best of my recollection.

Continued...

Continued...

Lars said:

Not going to nitpick the grammar, but is "beyond an auto-include" some sort of hyperbole? Or can I somehow fit more than 3 copies in my decks... (at least until they reprint The Twins agenda). I can completely agree that in this environment that MwNK should be 3 of your 4-drops in a metagame that relies heavily on Reinforcements , since they are the best answer for both the MwNK and those selfsame events. I don't think there's a better option out there, with the exception of very nice in-house uniques like Robert, Robb, Mel, Jaime, Tyrion and Khal Drogo, (though he barely counts as a 4-drop in my book). <Did Grey Worm make the Core Set? I'm still not very familiar with it> Jerod and I played a Lanni mirror match in LCG with the exception that Jerod played with ITELP Myrcella (that still hasn't been added to the card pool, officially, correct?) and Weary Swordsmen were plenty effective in an environment without many neutrals. (and that is not saying that the MwNK aren't environment skewing)... but frankly I think Jerod was more pissed by the lack of location control he had available to deal witht he two Golden Tooth Mines I had out by end of 1st marshalling, and how the helped me weather his 6 claim two plots worth of INT challenges. And I was annoyed at least as much by his (even-errata weakened) Toll Gate... What a mono-con hater.

My deck had a couple (checking, I'll be exact), no make that 3 Reinforcements, one for each challenge, and was running 2x MwNK, 1x Weary Swordsmen (it also has a couple Seductive Promise), with 1x Illyn, 1x Jaime & 1x Tyrion in the 4-drop slot. I was drawing essentially from the Mines (since Jerod was first and the claim 2 INTs took both copies of Insidous Ways that I saw), I Valar'd on Turn 4 and he matched it with his own Wildfire, he eventually one on turn 7, "high tiding" at 15, but conceded that he couldn't defend my return challenges, and my hand was going to be able to wreck him with the continued draw when I'd be able to Valar him againt next turn. He was however forced to attack me first with Varys in that final round, just so I couldn't take a standing character, b/c he had to assume I had a Reinforcement in hand and a MwNK on the table.

Just for clarication, are _you_ saying that Pyromancer's Cache is a "sub uber" card? And that FFG is saying the card pool lacks the power to handle it? (in which case the "according to FFG" should fall outside the parenthetical) Or that FFG is saying it's a "sub uber" card. I would agree that outside of Targ that the generally available removal in all forms is fairly lacking... but it is refreshing to see people forced to "live" the house themes... or at least pay the real cost and splash from a different house. (This would be why I'd like the errata to be both "after an opponent plays" _and_ "a card that lacks an affiliation" so that it doesn't disincentivize that sort of splashing... Chicago's new player Tony, said he was surprised to see all the out-of-house cards in my Targ deck (QoT, Arys, Septon Chayle... and I didn't even add back the Cache's b/c I forgot).

If you're trying to contend that PC is a sub par card, I may just have to cease trying to reason with you. <sarcasm is pointed, and I'm sorry, but even complord would support its use in this case> Repeatable draw, is _always_ a good thing, (unless you're Lord of Brewtown, and I sometimes think he'd argue against economic growth purely to prevent an extreme distribution of wealth), particularly from a card effieciency/card advantage PoV. Back in the days of Westeros, every deck ran Samwell (a neutral, icon-less, sans- King -restriction version of CP Tommen), Stark played the original GM Pycelle OoH using Here to Serve and it wasn't uncommon to use Support of the People to fetch GTM OoH, at least until City of Bones came along. >:]

Cache is a non-unique version of one of the most powerful draw cards this game has ever seen, Seal of the Lion. Yes, it's vulnerable to specific removal of both it and the card it's attached too, and requires you want to have a King or Queen around to _double_ it's effectiveness... _each turn_. And you can't tell me, except to be a contrarian that most competitive players wouldn't immediately slot it back into all their decks if the ban was lifted. At 3 gold OOH, it pretty much requires the King/Queen to make it efficient, but as you pointed out, it's not like the card is likely to be threatened. Nothing personal to the Bastard of Storms on Tzu-Mainn's site, but the other 27 people who rated that card a five are probably snickering at the lone individual with the courage to rate it a 4.

To conclude, Lars, since it feels like I'm primarily addressing you... though I think the sentiment carries over to the entire community... (so you'd better watch yourselves), please do not take my, Ktom's or anyone elses comments personally. I just think you've been sensitized over this issue, and it's come out in a voice that doesn't do you the credit that your arguments deserve. Your points are valid, but at this point, accomplishing nothing, but earning you the enmity and, dare I say, scorn, of at least part of your audience. Turn your attention to FFG, the OP coordination, and see if you can marshall the gestalt's attention into getting some satisfaction from that direction. I think it's there to be had, but honey/vinegar/flies. Though why anyone suggests we want to catch flies, I'll never know.

I've got to ask: what is the ultimate goal here again? I've lost sight. We've been rehashing the "MwNK negates 20% of your LCG deck" point for so long that crabbing about MwNK seems to be the whole point of the thread these days. If we're looking for errata to the card, the point has been made. I know Nate is aware of it. Move on.

If the point is to stir up sentiment against the card, the deck and its effect on the larger environment, well...

Maester_LUke said:

This, ultimately, may be the real issue. In large part, my sense is that most people have written off an OP environment outside of their FLGS. Heck, as much as FFG's latest "here are the kits, organize it however you want" position on OP is appreciated for getting some events going at the local level, it doesn't instill much confidence that there is much going on at a regional or national level. At least for me. In past years, Kubla could be relied upon to attract 12+ people to an event. Half that this year? ChiCon disappears? Entire metas have stopped playing or are in a "lurking" status at best? We're pretty well at the end of what was "Regional Season" in past years and nothing has happened. The "rolling regionals" have not generated any real interest. In the US, there was Iowa last October (which didn't really happen because too few people attended), Black Thursday (the closest thing to a successful Regional) and...what? Was there a 3rd I'm forgetting? The "what's the interest and potential numbers" thread from Missouri seemed to end without an actual event. There have been a few rumblings about GenCon, but most of the people I've talked to/heard from are either not going or are not planning on playing AGoT.

So what I'm getting at here is that the game is being played at a local level almost exclusively. There doesn't seem to be anything driving a Regional or National OP program or tournament scene, at least in the USA.

So why is this pertinent to the MwNK discussion? Well, without a Regional or National OP program, a call to arms within a Regional or National community falls on deaf ears. Local metas are still deciding if it is a local issue in their own time and in their own ways - and will come up with local solutions if it is. The fact that with about 12 weeks to GenCon (seriously!) there has been so little "top tier" exploration or discussion of the LCG-only environment is telling.

When the game is being played almost exclusively at the local level, answering a call of "this deck/card is a big problem" with "not around here, it isn't" ends the discussion for most people. It's hard to get worked up about Lars' observations (regardless of how much I may agree with them) when I have not seen the experience duplicated to the same degree in my meta and sense virtually no plans for anyone I play with to seek a larger competitive environment.

Ultimately, I think this discussion puts the cart before the horse. How bad the card is for the environment doesn't mean much in a public forum when there is so little interest in the environment, or top-tier Regional and National play, to begin with.

So being so deep into this thread, what point are we really trying to make anymore?

Maester_LUke said:

claps

99 % agreeing with Luke, except for that one point of a player comittee (like in SW:CCG) doing any good to a card game- the Redux and all the cards "designed" before the Redux in that game were just the RIP SWCCG argument for a whole lot of players. i don´t think they´ve learned or ever will learn their lesson.

But back to topic. The deck Lars posted shows two things in my opinion:

1. MwnK isn´t a superior strategy, you can build a deck easily without being harmed by MwnK. The only exception is that decks which rely on influence need crossroads which is a pity, but that may actually change with the releae of the Greyjoy expansion.

2. MwnK limits players to in-house strategies. I think you can either appreciate or condemn it, but that´s the fact. This is the foremost argument for me against MwnK- they simply limit deck building possibilities which is usually a bad thing. But it´s not like MwnK would create a tournament level dominating NPE.

nothing talking about what i've said or done here is out of line, ever.

Ok, this might get a little jumbled becuase i'm not qouting, there is a lot of stuff to go through, and i'm tired from a 4-player melee. If i missed naything that you thing is a valid question please don't think my exclusion of it is 'writing it off,' i proabably missed it or forget it.

1st - i have been in contact with nate via e-mail and have had discussions about it. He even suggested an errata...thats where it stalled. i guess he was thinking that we here are crazy and that it might not be that big of a problem...maybe he is busy...i dunno. I do know that my MWnK deck completely trounced a simluar Targ deck in two turns last week (stealing dayne and danny in the same turn...) I dunno what more to do except maybe get the comunity to see it the way we see it (~heck it worked for Ploylist for 2 years, depsite GenCon after GenCon of him not winning it, and it worked for Jaqen...)

2nd - lack of OP, is one of the reason i feel that i have to be more vocal on the boards. I will be admonished if i wait till GenCon, but whne/where is an opportunity to say before hand? which leads me to

3rd - here was the first LCG joust report sort of w/ a cross section of metas that did not include my meta with me bringin attention to MWnK. I was not tryin to ridicule anyone (don't know where that got read into) or to say hahahaha my deck could beat it....I was trying to point out that there is a very solid deck built using a minimum (i think we can agree that 20% nuetral or OOH is a reasonable minimum for competative play right now...if not, well then we are not one the same page about the card pool at all right now in LCG, which might be the problem) of cards that MWnK affects. And i brought it up AGAIN for two reason. One that 20% is a lot more than 20% and is closer to 33% (ambush valar) and even more if we want to look at gold cruve..cost of playing them. The second being that it amazes me that people shrug off losing, and not just losing but having your opponent use, 20% of your deck. Yeah you only play a street to use it once, but then your opponent uses it only once (more likely more)....well that doesn't resonante with me. This was a Con winning deck, depite its builder saying its not competative, well that shows you the power of that 20%, now you asking that person to make a Con winning deck andto take out 20% of the cards he felt were not comeptative? whats left? dupes...(they've been hammerd for years but others) in house weenies that were already deemed not worthy? losing a valid strategy becuase you can't afford it now?

4th - I've been tyring to find the answer in loyalty decks. I guess its fun to play in house only stuff....but along those lines don;t you want to play Jon Snow or Benjen Stark in a stark deck for fun and 'book-like' games? how about Varys or littlefinger? or Dayne in Martell? I don;t buy the loyalty decks are good for the game, because your using 3-5 named charcaters in most houses and a bunch of unnamed weenies so your not really getting anything extra from it in LCG. I've built a Bear island deck of my own, Kevin has built doormouses, i played against LGR's. Its win percentage in those games....0.00% (must be the pilots). I've built two different lanni decks, play aginst 3 (one MWnK). lanni can win by plot 1,800 (thats hyperbole luke, ). I've had three bara decks before MWnK (one summer, one winter, one no season viglant) they are all nice, but MWnK can be as fast/faster w/ a much larger bonus. I won't build a compeative targ deck, Stag gets that at least. Lastly i'm not going to pin my hopes on a small exapansion and Kings'landing is shaping up to not really change things. This was the whole point of this thread. please show me somehting that beats MWnK, please. instead i got MwnK isn't that bad...I think you can see above that is is that bad

5th - Pyromancer's Cache....its a great card, no doubt about it. Its not as strong as jaqen (and thus sub-uber) even though its an autoinculde. And as was said about MWnK it doesn't help you win the game by yourself (yeah you get to draw into more of your deck, but MWnK helps get you into your opponets deck... and wins challenges (which help you win the game) for you...)

6th - in house options. there aren't a lot. This is the root of my problem for sure, one i do not see the card pool correcting for a long time. I do not want to play MwnK until it happens, but i don't wnat to give someone who does play MWnK the advanatage of reins ro nuetrals or OOH. reducing the reach of MWnK w/ an erratta is a fix that still makes MWnK work as it was probably intended.

7th - Standard.....we talk about Op sucking...well i think Standard helped it to suck. People don't want to stop playing with their cards (rightly or wrongly, not judgin here, just pointing out. I also don't buy that new people who are attracted to LCg don't want to play competive since the LCg came out we've had 3 new players start up, more then under the CCG and one guy picked it back up becuase it was afordable). In standard MWnK would not be a problem, becuase the in house stuff is so much stronger and there is cancel (huh imagine what it was playtested for...). Luke in your example the card that did the most damage to you was a non LCG card.

8th - i'm sorry to those people who are sick of reading this. If you lost interest or don't care about the LCG, then pass over this thread, no one is forcing you to read it. My intention of 'bringing this thread back' was not to keep grumbling but to try and show how MwnK affects the environment w/ an actual example (a lot of the converastion has been theoritcal because no one plays a lot of LCG it appears). So, while it did rehash things, i thought it was more of a confirmation of the theory with reality (isn;t that what your supposed to do with theories?). If i come off as harsh and abrasive...well, thats life. ~Honey might catch more flies, but loud and obnixous gets you more attention If you don't like me i couldn't care less, its not my intention to make sure every one i might come into contact with in life becomes a life long friend, but you can't disocunt an argument becuase of it (even if you want to).

Lars said:

And my point was that lack of OP feeds directly into the disinterest (or apathy, depending on your point of view) that has met your vocalization.

Lars said:

8th - i'm sorry to those people who are sick of reading this. If you lost interest or don't care about the LCG, then pass over this thread, no one is forcing you to read it. My intention of 'bringing this thread back' was not to keep grumbling but to try and show how MwnK affects the environment w/ an actual example (a lot of the converastion has been theoritcal because no one plays a lot of LCG it appears). So, while it did rehash things, i thought it was more of a confirmation of the theory with reality (isn;t that what your supposed to do with theories?). If i come off as harsh and abrasive...well, thats life. ~Honey might catch more flies, but loud and obnixous gets you more attention If you don't like me i couldn't care less, its not my intention to make sure every one i might come into contact with in life becomes a life long friend, but you can't disocunt an argument becuase of it (even if you want to).

The theory was confirmed, even agreed upon, in the first page or so. After that, the topic started feeling like:

- "I get the theory and agree it could be bad, but have not seen it in practice, even when we tried."

- "But look at the theory! It has horrible effects on the environment!"

- "Yeah. I know. I agree that the theory is bad. We just haven't experienced it here yet."

- "Then let's look at the theory again! Don't you understand how bad it is?"

- "No one is disagreeing with the theory. We're just having trouble feeling it as much more than occasional icing on top of the Reinforcements."

- "You obviously don't understand the theory here. Let's go through it again...."

Rinse. Repeat.

Seriously, if the intention was "to try and show how MwnK affects the environment," I think the point is made - on both sides. Continuing to make the same points - on both sides - isn't adding any value to the discussion. You aren't coming off as harsh or abrasive, to me anyway. Rather, you are coming off as upset that you're not getting the reaction you feel the topic deserves. And I'm not sure what that reaction is supposed to be! I mean, do you want the majority of people on the boards to take a "nerfbrokenloyalistnow"-type stand on this card?

I mean, by repeating the "20% of most (good) LCG decks are countered by this one card," you seem to be saying the rest of the community is not understanding something about this issue. What reaction are you expecting from "us" that you're not getting?

well lets look back at the thread.

1 page, theory, questions my theory, my answers, points.

Next section - off-hand comments in a differen thread leds me to believe that this isn;t sinking in yet, bring it back here, more direct questions, more answers to those direct questions

Nuetrals/suck only 20%....is brought up (first time, btw)

Then a side topic of is MwnK or reins the real problem...

Luke says dead horse! - immediatly after someone else asks directly is it really a problem if i do this, i answer and ask if there are any deck ideas (other then running the same neutrals i am that are unique...)

some house discusions

my gold verse your gold

Stark, Stark, more Stark

Decklist?

report verse stark and decklist

more decklists

Maybe cardpool fixes it?!?! maybe, but probably not and wwhat do we do when it doesn't?

reins or MWnK take 2

discussion on 20% (second one)

direct questions from luke w/ reponse (20% brought up in answers to direct questions)

dead till a nother real world example shows up, maybe seeing how it affects another house, in another part of the country will be good for theory meeting relaity...

I only see a few 20% discussions with one being in relation to a direct question, and another being the confirmation of see, its not just theory 20% of your deck being teir 1 lcg nurtrals (plus Dayne who i htink was teir 2...)really makes it better, but is hurt by MWnK...heck i'm only using 20% becuase it seems to be what the community thinks is the 'correct' number right now.

I'm amazed that you feel my theory was agreed upon in the first page. It appears to me that people just didn't agree, passed off as that crazy kook, or didn;t get into the LCg enough to see it as a problem yet. I'm not looking for a reaction, i'm just answering simular questions/repsponses. I keep hearing in house is fine, well here is an example of how it is not in a house not talked about...

Just to clear things up, I never thought you were ridiculing my deck. I don't know where that came from either.

I simply agreed, of my own free will, it was not made to handle a MWnK deck, making it a poor example to use in support your argument. I said it myself. No offense was taken.

I have an idea!!!!

Lets all play standard That should fix the Men with no king problem.

I'm going to beat that dead horse forever until I get what I want.

Wrecking Ball said:

Go for it. We've got about 4 brand new players who all enjoy Standard more than LCG only. It's hardly less accessible these days, and I don't think a deterrant at all for recruiting new interest. We're starting an LCG League soon, but Standard is still the preferred format for us on a weekly basis.

Lars, my impression was that everyone understood that MWnK is strong, that the theory is understandable, and I've never met anyone in this game that doesn't think that permanent stealing is incredibly strong and needs to be handled carefully. The debate seems to center around how problematic this card is. People have been pointing out why they don't see it as the problem you do, little has been said against the soundness of your stats, just how much of an impact that is in their games.

I hate loosing cards, especially key cards to my decks. That is part of the reason why I have been using so many uniques in my decks as of late to minimize Seductive Promise. I don't think a single neutral is key to any deck I've made in the last two or three years... actually since my Frey deck back when VED was still legal. As a general rule I don't splash OOH. A significant number of my meta doesn't either, and this is why MWnK does not carry a lot of weight here. We have always played this way, so it does not adversely affect our deck or playstyle.

Could we put our decks and play against you and yours? Sure. Would we win? Extremely hard to say. The reinforcement events themselves are very powerful and fuel a rush deck very well with or without MWnK. Everyone agrees to that. Losing the 3-6 cards I may include in a deck is a pain, but that isn't going to effect me nearly as much as the reinforcement events and the seductive promises, and that is why, while I agree with MWnK being strong and possibly a troubling precedent, I don't fear him, or even build my decks with him in mind.

I think until a MWnK deck actually starts dominating multi-meta events or their local metas most people just aren't too concerned (for right or wrong). If you want to prove us wrong convince someone in each of the larger metas to build your Baratheon MWnK deck and keep track of their win/loss ratio and how integral the MWnK was in those victories (and a side note how integral the reins were without MWnK).

As ktom pointed out, without a series of high profile LCG events and none MWnK decks reigning in local metas, there won't be any bandwagon jumping.

As to possible errata for MWnK, I like the use of your opponents Reins being the only trigger. I'd also be interested in seeing how useful he is if it cost 3 gold to steal a card. I could probably be convinced for either of those errata even though I don't see him as a huge threat to my decks or the way I play.

dormouse said:

This is where i'm having a disconnect...ok it doesn't affect me so its not a big deal. Okay, understandable, but a little bit of NIMBY (not in my backyard).

Basically your saying to a new player, if you want to play in a slightly competative environment (one where everyone brings/builds their own decks) you can do so, but you can only use the 4 core set houses and it won't be fun unless you limit yourself to in house cards. You know all those grey cards...forget about them, jon snow...he might be your favorite (or most hated) charcater from the books, but its best not use him. Whats that? You like they way littlefinger manipulates people in the book...well do you really want to pay 5 gold so that your opponent get +2 gold a round and stealth in INT/POW? Greyjoy...just wait a few more months (hopefully) or martell well its going to be 6 - months to a year...Oh those cards you keep opening in Chapter packs for those houses....well just ignore them for a bit, maybe a bit longer. Yeah, $40 for the Core Set is a good deal....oh wait, don't use about 20 of those when deck building right now, maybe in a bit you might be able to use them....

Or your saying to a ned, nope no Jon Snow and Ghost at the Wall w/ stannis and mel for you, sorry. Or perhaps to a jaime or a shaggy, you know that really cool OOH combo...scratch it.

You know how you used to be able to approach the game (even if you choose not to), well throw it all out of the window...why? One card.

Lets look at shadows as an counter example, shadows has the ability to change the way the game is played, how decks are built, and cards are played. However, it doesn't penalize you for ignoring those changes nor do you have to make any changes to your current decks because of it (for all groups of metas/playstyles/level of play). If you want to play the game the way it was able to be played 2 months ago, no penalty. MWnK penalizies you for playing the game the way it was intended.

dormouse said:

I think i've said before that opponents only is a good erratta because it takes building the combo into your deck away and actually coutners Reins, its still a little strong in that it is a counter plus a whole lot more, but it is livable.

Adding a gold doesn't really affect it that much it makes it a little slower (i'm probably playing less characters a round) but doesn't take it away. .

You know, call me absolutely crazy, but why are we not complaining about the impact that CS/Wes Robb Stark has on the environment? I mean, seriously, the guy is also a four cost character, but his ability doesn't just effect 20% of the cards in competitive decks (whatever that really means) but roughly half of the cards in 90% of the decks ever made! AND his ability is more potentially reusable.

Huh. Weird.

huh. weird. if i want to turn robb off i can put milke/motely/flamekissed/illyan payne etc. on him, but before i start repeating myself, again (repeating myself again) read the thread again.

I think i've addressed and answered the diference bewteen MWnK and a card like Robb (or jaqen ha'gar) already (i'll do it again for those that missed it, but those that didn't would get annoyed).

bottom line is kill doesn't prevent me from putting a card into the deck, cards are supposed to die/be discarded. Is 20% (sorry had to bring it up again, but its becuase people keep questioning the main premise...) of my deck expeceted to be used by my opponet? If, i don't want ti to be why should i be prevented from putting those cards in my deck? If i don't want a charcater to die i can a) put a save or two or three into my deck, b) run dupes, or c) run cards like power of blood.