I think this could definitely make for some good card draw in a Shadows deck, and potentially some great card draw in an environment where Shadows were very popular (easy to see how this gets stronger in Melee).

Like I commented on the article I don't like easy. I prefer things that require some finesse to make work. If Lannister is going to have draw as one of their mechanics I'd prefer that the draw for other houses be available, but varied. Not auto-includes. It makes the decks we play and play against more varied and provides answers without weakening the mechnics in other Houses. I'd like to see the same thing with attachment control, direct kill, even resources. I'm not saying it needs to be Shadows related, but an excellent way around House mechanics without powering up those same houses in those areas to a greater degree.

dormouse said:

conversely it also gets weaker in melee as now you are adding to the number of king's landing location possibilities (x * number of opponets > x)

as i just posted to the article's discussion:

yeah, this just isn't a solution to the lack of card draw in the environment; in fact, i think it borders on unplayable. a 4 cost draw mechanism in the form of a unique location that depends on what your opponents are playing is completely uninteresting. seriously, why not give the other houses something at least close to something as easy to implement as golden tooth mines? i hope this isn't all that's in the pipeline for balancing card draw between, well, lanni and all the rest of the houses.

Lars said:

No, not weaker, potentially less reliable. There is a difference.

And I hope Finite that people consider it unplayable. It'll be much easier for me to use in a Shadow themed deck and one less King's Landing location I need to worry about them gettng out.

dormouse said:

At first glance, I think King's Landing passes the "not an auto-include" category and moves right on into "unplayable" for me. That's my problem with it for now. But, the jury is still out. Enough good shadows/King's Landing location support could make this move back into the "Not an Auto Include" category.

However, remember this day Ladies and Gentlemen, I basically agree with what your saying here Dormouse! (3rd time ever?)

I think it's important that each house has some control over each area of the game (draw, cancel, attachment hate, loc. hate, kill, etc.), be it in house, neutral, or OOH. However, the ease with which each of the houses can operate in those areas needs to vary by cost, conditions, and card availability.

Back on topic, I like the idea of making PC legal again mostly because I hate banned cards, and I feel it gives other houses access to at least some draw that isn't all that unplayable OOH.

I'm not entirely convinced draw is the problem with Lanni. For me, it's more the fact that Lanni is (always has been?) well balanced with a good character base and ways to control most (all?) areas of the game, while most other houses have bigger weaknesses. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if Lanni had no stengths, but they have those too! What exactly is a weakness of Lanni (One that isn't shared by the other houses due to card pool issues)? Traditionaly speaking, has there ever been an answer to that question?

My concern is not about the relative strength of the card. It looks (on paper, thus far) to be a solid draw engine.

However, a quick check of Tzu's site for LCG King's Landing traited locations reveals the following:

Heart of the Kingdom (neutral)

Lion's Gate (L)

Lannisport Brothel (L)

Queen Cersei's Chambers (L)

King Robert's Chambers (B)

Street of Steel (neutral)

Street of Sisters (neutral)

Mustering Yard (B)

Add in the new chapter pack:

Hidden Chambers (S)

Tunnels of the Red Keep (L)

Kingswood Trail (B)

Of these, Lannister's are way more playable. I don't like that the house with the most draw can also more efficiently shut this card down. But maybe we'll see the ratios change with upcoming chapter packs, especially if Lannister doesn't get any more playable King's Landing traited locations, and the other houses do. Lannister has the early lead, with Baratheon not far behind. It's a race!

finitesquarewell said:

finitesquarewell said:

Is that an honest question or venting? If it is an honest question the answer is pretty easy, if every house had easy access to draw fr minimal investment then there is no reason for any House to have it. Why not just increase the cards drawn in the draw phase to three? Why don't all houses have equal access to saves, or direct kill, or search, or discard, or any of the other House specialties? Because it waters down the game, makes the Houses more alike, and decks less varied.

Now I do believe Lannister's draw is to high compared to what other Houses have, but as was already stated unbanning cache helps Lannister because it is more efficient for them than any other House. If there is neutral draw equally as efficient as some of Lannister's best what is to prevent Lannister from dropping some of their less efficient forms for this hypothetical card and provide more tool boxing and a greater edge?

The way to provide this without increasing the strength of Lannister is to make it less efficient or more situational, or both. Personally I think bringing a version of Watching the Heavens back would be a good example. It uses a crest that Lannister is weak in and influence which Lannister has little use for. Perhaps it will get reprinted in KoS or the Martell expansion (I just can't get myself to call it K***s of the South, I break out out in hives) or we will get some new take on it.

longclaw said:

Thanks for the list, it answers one of my earlier questions.

Not only can lanni shut this card down most efficiently it can also ensure thats its own doesn't get shut down....Oh and they have the best Sahdow card right now too so this just synergies more with lanni....

At 4 gold and the first opportunity to use this being in the challenges phase, I'm pretty sure this won't see much play. (And let's face it, who's going to reserve 2 gold on round 1 marshalling to draw a card in the challenges phase? Most people won't even want to reveal this card until round 2 or 3.)

That said, and because I like combos, it might be playable in a Stark deck that needs draw and plays shadow Arya and shadow cost reducers, but that's a big if. On the other hand, in a shadow deck that relies on cards being in the shadows, this is another generic card that could be placed in the shadows on the off chance that it might be useful later in the game. Meanwhile, it will provide bonuses. (I'm hopeful that Lanni isn't the only house that will get a bonus to X for each card in the shadows, but I could be wrong there.)

To be fair, the crappy spoiler doesn't necessarily mean this chapter pack will be worthless. Varys and Littlefinger, who I can't wait to see, are also in this chapter pack. Varys was spoiled earlier, and it looks like he will be a very playable shadow character. Judging by previous version of Littlefinger, which are always interesting even if sometimes costly, he should be a lot of fun. (I'm hoping Littlefinger has a "cancel" response...maybe something that allows him to cancel an event but then puts him back into the shadows? That might be too strong though....)

One tangentenial note: I'm beginning to sense that the shadow mechanic is going to be more common than mechanics from other blocks, such as WED's deadly and doomed. I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this block shadow-crested cards constituted 1/4 of some non-shadow agenda decks and roughly 1/2 of decks that run the agenda. So far, there seems to be a couple shadow cards worth playing for each house (counting neutrals like the spoiled Varys for all houses) and we're still at the beginning of the block. Considering that there is already some built in synergy (and not the imabalanced doom kind where you draw 5 cards per turn), it looks like this mechanic will be a lot of fun.

Twn2dn said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is this card not useable until the challenges phase? The card says "Any phase." Bring it out of the shadows, draw a card. Bring something else out later, draw some more later on.

i think they meant that you won't be able to bring it out of Shadows to be able to use it until the Challenges phase of the turn you play it.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. To clarify, in most cases...

SETUP: I play a card into shadows for 2 gold;

1. ROUND 1 MARSHALLING: I marshall several characters and locations...no gold left.
2. ROUND 2 MARSHALLING: I marshall some things, then choose if it's worth it to save gold to flip the shadow card.
3. ROUND 2 CHALLENGES: I reveal the shadow card.

In this likely scenario, the shadow card comes out of the shadows halfway through round 2. In reality, it's probably even more likely I wouldn't choose to reveal this card until round 3, when my hand is getting thin and I have enough surplus gold to justify the cost. I guess I could save enough gold in my first marshalling phase to flip the card in round 1 challenges, but on the first round I prefer to play something that I know will help me during marshalling rather than hope to draw into something at the begging of the challenges phase that will help me that round (which rules out characters, because I've passed the marshalling phase).

In addition to the obvious reasons one might want to spend gold during marshalling, saving gold for this shadow card becomes increasingly difficult when you consider that any gold you save could instead be used for other good cards like the reinforcement events. (Or to power cards like Chella and Bronn, who can really save you in a tight spot.) Once the Greyjoy expansion comes out, gold is going to be even more valuable--not only because Greyjoy will limit an opponent's gold generation, but also because cards like that Ice Fisherman will take gold from an opponent's gold pool.

I'm not saying this card won't ever see play in a competitive deck, it's just that it's probably only going to see play in control-themed decks that will (a) have enough location control to ensure they have more locations, and (b) be planning to go quite a few rounds to get the full benefit of the card. Even then, the card isn't that attractive, so there's going to need to be more synergy (like that Lannister location that gives bonuses for every shadow card you have but in different ways and for other houses).

I cant agree at all. The only time I find myself holding off on a Shadow card past the round I put it in is when I put it in as a precaution for it being intrigued away while I wait for the best targte of the most useful opportunity for its effect.

I've got a fun Attachment burn Targ deck and I'd say +60% of the time I put a Dragon Skull into play I bring it out the first Round, whether I do so before Challenges, Dominance or Taxation is dependent on whether I'm trying to kill someone in Challenges, rob someone of Dominance, or get that last use out of my left over gold... and usually it is a left over gold, one which is usually not missed in the Marshalling phase.

Now Selmy, I admit it is a longer wait, but that has as much to do with his ability as it does the need for another character.

dormouse said:

Ah, interesting, an action window of sorts before Dominance is counted. Hadn't picked up on that as I hadn't yet read the Shadows rules supplement.

LetsGoRed said:

Not really Jason, coming out of the shadows with Dragon Skull (-2 STR attachment for a character, IIRC) would be more akin timing wise to the passive timing of Ser Boros Blount. Of course, it's actually a net-zero change, b/c you just gave up the 2 gold you would have counted for the dominance. So really only helpful in Multi to pull someone with say, the ITE rare dominance locations down below someone else who's got more.

Yes, but Boros has a passive ability and needs to be on the table already. Before Shadows, there wasn't any way that I'm aware of to actively do something after the Challenge phase was done and heading into Dominance that would affect the count for Dominance. Good point about the Targ burn coming out of Shadows not doing much to sway Dominance, but what about bringing out a character that has strength greater than its Shadow cost to "steal" dominance? (I really need to pick up this chapter pack and see the cards first hand...)

LetsGoRed said:

Well, this raises a good point... Playing a card from Shadows is obviously always optional. And I'm assuming like Ambush (which is a triggered effect) it cannot be cancelled (until we get the card that does cancel it... I don't know if it exists, but it seems like something that might come in the same vein as 5KE Damphair). But does it count as a triggered effect, or a passive? It's obviously not continuous... does it even matter? Too tired to further contemplate.

Maester_LUke said:

Dragon Skull costs 1 to bring out of Shadows. So it is a 1 for 2 pay off.

Don't have the cards yet, didn't know. Thanks for the correction.

So know my Targ deck can have _6_ terminal burn -2 STR attachments that are essentially un-intrigueable... and recurseable with the LDC? BooYah! Time to run the Heralds just for the hells of it.

Yeah, I've been having a lot of fun with a deck running Dragon Skull, Flamed Kiss, and Poison wine, Lady D's Chambers and Dragon Sight. This last addition gives me crazy control on the Challenge phase... not just owhen I'm attacking or being attacked, but my opponents ability to successfully win challenges against each other and who could win dominance.

I played on Wednesday and essentially had my board wiped twice and was still able to pull off the win because I controlled who could win challenges more than they could. We went through ten plots and I had maybe 15-20 cards out of a 66-68 card deck.

dormouse said:

I've come to the conclusion that, at least in the current environment, Dragon Skull isn't that great for Targ. I like the idea, but the cost isn't that efficient, compared with Flame-Kissed. When Targ struggles, it is usually early in the game before all the moving parts of the deck fall into place. Dragon Skull costs 3 gold, can't be played with influence, and has the shadow delay built in so that it can't really be played before the challenges phase. Even with the limitation, Flame-Kissed's versatility is amazing early game, as the Targ player can opt to use influence to put it into play before drawing Xaro's Home or Forever Burning (and most opponent's don't have attachments on their characters early in the game, so Flame-Kissed's limitation doesn't usually affect my play in the first 2-3 rounds). I suppose if one runs 3x of each Flame-Kissed and Dragon Skull, then playing both might make sense. But I think I still prefer Poison Wine in most cases over Dragon Skull. (Poison wine is 1 gold cheaper, and it offers amazing challenge control and effectively allows me to pick and choose characters that the opponent will kill to claim.)

This doesn't mean I think Dragon Skull is bad or anything. I think that, given time, more cards will come out that support shadow-mechanic synergy, and more efficient gold-producing (not cost reducing) cards will be printed that allow for a steeper gold curve, making Dragon Skull the stronger choice, at least in some decks/siutations. For now though, the attachment just feels a little slow. It's rare that I find myself searching for this card (using a Red Warlock) when I still have Poison Wine in the deck.

By the way, I think Dormouse highlight's a good point about Targ in multiplayer. It's extremely strong at controlling the outcome of challenges and even games, largely due to Poison Wine and Forever Burning (I think). Other attachments play a lesser role, but these appear to be strongest in the games I've played, largely because Poison Wine (a) can jump around and (b) doesn't kill the character, so I can control the relative strength of my opponents at any given moment. (It also makes winning dominance easier.) The problem for Targ multiplayer, however, is that it takes many rounds to win with this type of control. That means game time may run out after the Targ player establishes control but before he/she has much power of his/her own. (In other words, due to time constraints the Targ player, who is effectively "in control" of the challenges phase, may still lose the game.)

dormouse said:

I'll be happy to check you deck in the Deck Build section

Back to the original topic - Is Lannister overpowered in LCG?

I think the key problem is that Lannister has too many kill cards relative to the number of kill cards available to opponents. It is well established that Lanister has competitive characters, the strongest economy, access to kneel effects and by far the most access to draw. What puts them over the top is the abundance of kill cards - specifically Ser Illin Payne, A Lannister Pays His Debts and I'm You Writ Small. As others have said, it is unbalanced for Lannister to be strong in all aspects of the game. Especially with cards that do not fit the Lannister "theme". For example, I'm You Writ Small should really have been a Stark card.

One solution I use with my LCG playgroup to try to keep the factions balanced is to limit decks to two of any card.

Dr.Cornelius said:

That is, IMO, the worst thing you can do to bring Lannister down in power.There ability to draw means they don't need to rely on 3 of any given card. Add that to the synergy that their cards have compared to most other Houses and you have a perfect storm for continued Lannister dominance. If you are planning on creating a House rule for your meta that seeks to equalize the Houses, you may want to try decreasing just Lannister, or increase the other Houses from 3 to 4.

actually, our version of lannister doesn't even play ilyn pane or lannister pays his debts, and still blows everything away