What, we have no discussion yet on the new agenda coming our way? I'm looking forward to it. Inventive agenda ideas can really add some cool flavor and possibilities. This looks like that kind, rather than something like The Wildling Assualt...

That may have something to do with the time the page was pushed live...

Interesting. Makes me want to go through Stark LCG cards and find out how many defense cards made it through. It should interact in interesting ways with Baratheon's Vigilant and Martell's Vengeful. Weeee!

Hmm. Interesting concept, but I'm not sure I'm sold on the benefit. It depends on my opponent attacking me. They can manage it by not attacking - which is a benefit in and of itself, but one that seems almost too subtle for an Agenda. It also means that to get the best use of the Agenda, I should probably go last in Challenges. That works for some decks/Houses better than others.

Bigger question: these are spoilers for CP #4. What about some news on when CP #1 is supposed to hit the streets? Isn't that supposed to be this month?

ktom said:

Yeah. I was actually about to start a thread about when we might be able to expect KLE pack #1 to release when I saw you mention this here. So I guess that means, as I thought, we still don't really know.

I´m also not sold on the benefits of this agenda. It might be okay for some decks in a joust game in a melee game this seems to be the best method to loose a lot of power quickly.

I thought that the kingsguard agenda would somehow push the kingsguard theme having a gametext like your kingsguard charachters have strength +1 and receive an intrigue icon while condition xy is met. I like the negative effective so far, because it´s something new and encourages the player to play a lot of kingsguard charachters in the deck, however i think it would have been better if it had some limitation for melee games.

It was announced that we´ll see a lot of kingsguard charachters, this agenda looks like it´ll be necessary to play at least 15 or so kingsguard charachters or the agenda might turn on you, so i´m loooking forward to these cards.

Since the benefit isn´t that great we´ll possible see other cards which interact with the white book agenda. I´m thinking of something like a reprint of Jaime (ASoS) www.tzumainn.com/agot/cards/card.php with an additional requirement such as "Each Kingsguard charachter gains an intrigue icon while the white book is in play" . The more i think about it, the more i like the idea of cards which ask for a specific agenda in their gametext.

This is the kind of Agenda I like.

Nedly, interesting and encouraging new deck builds for casual play, without threatening to dominate the competitive formats. Agendas need to be handled very carefully since (as Rings likes to observe) tehy are a permanent that starts in play and that the opponent can do very little about. Too much power leads to very abd things in competitive games e.g. Wo5K and Defenders.

New queen of Thorns huh? She had better be pretty good to live up to her predecessors, but in this new environment, i am not expecting a third bomb card for this character.

I wonder how many kingsguard will be nuetral.

CP#1 is listed as being on the boat (about 2 steps away from being in stores).

QoT should be interesting. I wonder if they are bringing back dual house or if she will be like Theon. Also, i'm interested to see if Syrio Forel will be new or a reprint or if he gets a house icon.

Stag Lord said:

Ummmh, i don´t think that the agenda will engage a lot of casual play. After a few games you´ll probably feel that the agenda doesn´t do a lot for you and that it engages statical games, at least it provides two good reasons not too challenge your opponent:

1. You´ll want as much defenders as possible to successfully defend against your opponent. This is contradicts the whole challenge phase and claim concept, also it´ll be hard to pull it off if your opponent sees that he/she can´t win challlenges against you.
2. Challenging an opponent bears the risk to loose the challenge as an attacker and loose additional power or kneel out your own charachters. However that agenda might be an excellent choice for a Lanni Infamy deck but do we really need more highlights for that house?

I find agendas interesting which bring along a serious bonus for the player, which probably help to support a theme by shutting down obvious weaknesses. Judging upon the charachter base of kingsguard charachters we have right now (and had in the past) there are three obvious weaknesses for me, kingsguard decks will be usually lacking intrigue icons, kingsguard charahcters are neutral and have the no attachments requirement. So a kingsguard agenda would make sense for me if it helps with these issues - i know most of these weaknesses are part of the nedly concept for the kingsguard, but that doesn´t help to actually have a chance to successfully play a kingsguard deck. Just think of playing a kingsguard deck against Queen Dany (5KE).

Also i disagree about the Wo5K agenda. The agenda itself was a good as the other two agenda following the same concept, unfortunately there were two many other cards at that time which allowed additional military challenges at almost no cost, such cards like Eddard´s command, forgottten path, winterfell war room, storm of swords and a lot of charachters which made it pretty easy to win a military challenge - e.g. feral direwolf. I don´t think that a war of the five kings agenda in the current enviroment will have the same impact as it had in the VE times. The defenders agenda was of course a mistake.

Lars said:

I was wondering the same thing. I'm also really interested to see how FFG captures the flavor of these characters this time around. For my money, I thought 5KE Syrio captured the flavor of his character brilliantly, and I wonder what they have up their sleeve this time. At this point, I'm thinking they might give him the Shadows crest, so he can jump out of the Shadows with deadly or something. I'm also very skeptical about the Shadows thing, so I'd rather see him without it.

jmccarthy said:

I'd be surprised to see a reprint in a Chapter Pack.

As for the Agenda, my problem with benefits for successful defense is that it tends to be up to my opponent whether or not I get my benefit. They can simply not attack a challenge they are mostly sure they cannot win. It's the same problem the "Stark Defense" theme has always had. I'd be more excited about the card if I was sure there'd be ways to make an opponent attack you. Or if it was more like the Stark-ITLP card that was "if no player wins a military challenge against you this round...." In short, I'm not sure the defense deck is there to be made, Stag. We'll see, though.

I see it differently. In Joust your opponent pretty much has to attack you in LCG, there aren't enough power grabbing mechanics to win a game without winning challenges. In melee having your opponents purposefully choose to attack each other rather than you it weakens there positions, and when they choose t attack you, they must do so in strength to prevent you from gaining power which increases their chance of over commiting.

It certainly isn't all powerful and it certainly wouldn't support every deckbuild, but I think it has some real potential.

dormouse said:

True, but I'm doubting a Kingsguard deck will be dominant on all 3 challenges at all times. Modifying the types of challenges I choose to initiate may be enough neuter your benefit without preventing me from making headway. And if the benefit is neutered, what's the point.

One thing about this Agenda, though: it makes the choice of First Player much more interesting.

Hm...

Well let's assume the KG we are getting are similar in stats to the others that have been [rinted, the only thing really missing is the intrigue icon... play this agenda out of Baratheon or Lannister and you have kneeling/standing and intrigue covered which can really offset the disadvantage from the Agenda and seriously put your opponent off his game... and lets face it, if you have to modify the challenges you expected to win when you built the deck you are going to be fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

I think it is a well balanced Agenda, which is to sasy, will require some building, is not over powered but if you can manipulate the situation to your favor your opponent(s) will be off balance and ripe for exploitation.

dormouse said:

In the deck you just described, how many challenges are you winning on defense? Not many, I'd say (you've either "controlled out" their attackers or built such a large, obvious defense that your opponent won't attack). And if you aren't winning on defense, what's the point of tacking on the Agenda?

Ultimately, that's my question and hesitation on this thing: how do I make sure I win on defense when my opponent is well aware of the bonus I get for winning on defense? I may be balanced, but that doesn't mean it's playable. The history of the "Stark defense" mechanism illustrates that.

I think we need to take a look at the fact the the Agenda is being released in the fourth installment of the cycle. This probably means that we'll get several Kingsguard characters in the CPs leading up to #4, and with the release of #4 there will actually be enough KG characters to actually be able to use the Agenda effectively. The same can probably be said for Varys, who by his collector's number will be in CP#5. There will probably be some nice Ally characters in the CPs, then suddenly we get some serious ally hate. It's stuff like this that I love about the monthly cycle of cards.

The other thing I like about this Agenda (and the season Agendas in Ravens) are the drawbacks. They give us a benefit, but they can also hit us where it hurts. There is nothing I hate more than running Kings of Summer when my opponent finds a way to control the season into being Winter -- which is why I plan on no longer running the agenda. The White Book deck will work really well, until you start losing more challenges than you can win. This is how Agendas should be built.

I get what you are saying theorically... but in LCG joust my opponent who does not attack, cannot win. I'm fine with them being too scared to attack out of fear of giving me power. I look at it this way, I'm going to win and lose on defense this Agenda will put me closer to the win condition by winning on defense rather than just through unopposed or successful power challenges. Knowing I can gain power this way I keep an eye out for cards that will allow me to leverage this in my favor and in-game I just alter my tactics/play-style.

This agenda with a splash of character control, a nice dose of stealth and deadly to ensure my own challenges get through and I think you've got a pretty solid deck.

Then again I've played the Stark defense build and have had a pretty high win record with it thanks to renown/power-grab and direct kill effects. Trying to make defense the end-all be-all of the deck Stark or KG would be a big mistake, but using it to help control tempo and gain a few extra power while minimizing its disadvantage could be a solid build... we'll find out in a few months.

I can see that it would change up the view of defense, which is at least a good attempt, succesful or not.

Right now the only time we defend challenges is if we've attacked already and don;t care about domience or if we son't want to lose a power challenge by 4 or more....and when we do block its usually chump blocking.

dormouse said:

Well, see there? We actually do agree on at least that point. While your opponent cannot win without attacking you, you probably can't win on defense alone. You need to mix something into it (like renown/power-grab and direct kill). My skepticism is that once the "something" is mixed in, I'm not sure how much this Agenda will actually do for you. Seems like the Agenda has the potential to not be that integral to the Kingsguard deck. And an Agenda that isn't integral just doesn't sit right.

As you say, we'll find out in 4-6 months.

Now, I am actually a great believer in the art of defense. I fully recognize that a lot of defending for a lot of people is as Lars describes - a virtual afterthought unless you really, really cannot afford to lose the challenge. Knowing when to defend and when not to is a huge part of the learning curve of this game - and a lost art in my opinion. If this card really has people looking at defense differently, all the better. But I fear that between Lars' observation (that people don't think in terms of defense to begin with) and the "Agenda may end up not being integral to the deck" points, this Agenda will be one of those cards that everyone wants to build a deck around, but never actually seems to.

ktom said:

I agree with the statement that defending challenges can be somewhat of an afterthought. About the only time I see players (including myself) seriously look at defense early in the game is when their opponent has a high-claim plot revealed or is playing some sort of rush mechanic, which makes defending (though not necessarily winning on defense--just opposing to prevent unopposed) more important. More often, people get serious about defense when their opponent acquires around 8-9 power.

On first glance, I like the agenda, though I agree with Ktom that it likely will not affect the deckbuilding/gameplay as much as an agenda ideally should. Still, unlike the WED Threat from the East agenda (discard down to 4 at the end of each round), the effect is likely to influence the game every round, even if it does so in a minor way.

In terms of who will benefit, I think this decktype will probably be strongest in a control-style deck, as it (a) lets decks focus on defense without worrying about falling behind on power and/or (b) deters the opponent from attacking until the control deck can get setup. Such an agenda might also be good in an ambush-themed deck, or one that is able to put a lot of characters into play unexpectedly after a challenge is declared to easily grab power. (To make a deck that would do this reliably still seems a bit far off though, given the fact that influence is sort of rare in LCG.) The new agenda could also be good with houses that have a lot of standing, and Muster could make a kingsguard theme more viable in a house with lots of knights as well. (I'm thinking Baratheon, but a Martell deck with lots of Infamy might be an interesting experiment, because after losing one challenge and kneeling a kingsguard to prevent the power loss, all your characters would stand to attack/defend against future challenges.) I don't see the agenda complimenting Stark defense all that much, however, because any deterrent that will come from the kingsguard agenda would be somewhat redundent, and Stark won't have a lot of knights to make Muster and other cards that key off of the knight trait playable.

I wonder if we'll see a bunch of neutral Kinsguard, or if we'll see some non-neutral Kingsguard with a text like "reduce the gold penalty by 1" when playing the White Book... I like the idea, but I doubt we'll see it.

Characters that might have a house affiliation: Arys Oakheart, Knight of Flowers, Barristan Selmy, The Hound, Jaime Lannister, anyone else?

the brothers that cersie controlled...kettlbeck i think.

Lars said:

Only 1 was Kingsguard.

Others could be Meryn Trant, Boros Blount, Balon Swann. All three would probably be Lannister if they had a House (Swann has already had at least one).

But you could always go "historic" and include people like Gerold Hightower or Oswell Whent (to go with the Arthur Dayne we have). It may be a different license, but I bet people would literally cheer out loud over a Duncan the Tall.