So, they have said that the alliance system will be similar to conquest. Does this mean we'll get an alliance wheel of support/opposition? Might bring in some of the Fury plot flavor where certain houses hate others in particular.

Lannister

Tyrell
Baratheon
Night's Watch
Stark
Greyjoy
Targaryen

Martell
Lannister


So--Alliances.

• Obviously Tyrell is the town bicycle for both Bara and Lannister, that's canon.
• Bara/Night's Watch is canon, and a 1st Ed archetype.
• Stark has always supported Night's Watch.
• Stark has ties to Greyjoy via Theon.

  Robb/Theon in book one or Ramsay/Reek in book 4, take your pick.

• Greyjoy has ties to Targaryen

  via the Horn of Dragons and Victarion's quest to Slaver's Bay.

• Martell/Targ--you might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.
• Doran Martell wants Tywin Lannister to know what a loyal friend he has in Sunspear.

If you put these on a Wheel, what does opposition look like?

• Stark is directly opposite Lannister. Works fine.
• Greyjoy opposes Tyrell. Perfect. Raiding the Reach!
• Targ opposes Bara. Say no more.
• Martell opposes Night's Watch. Meh. I suppose that the southernmost and northernmost factions would have no convergent interests.

So, maybe freely ally with "natural" alliances, need a Treaty Agenda to ally with oddball alliances, never ally with your opponent?

We were discussing this earlier in the skype group. I'd really like to force Bara/Targ not to ally, as well as Martell not allying with Lannister (Doran wants Tywin to know what a good friend he has, but not for the reasons that implies!).

Of course, that doesn't work both ways; the Lannisters are quite keen on alliance with Martell (Tyrion sending Myrcella out).

Thematically, it might make more sense to have The Night's Watch apart from the faction wheel (a la Necron/Tyranid), as despite stronger support from House Stark and some increasing semblance of an alliance with Baratheon, they aren't really supposed to be anyone's "ally" in the Game of Thrones. The Lord Commander was actively trying to avoid the kind of perception that the Night's Watch would start becoming a player.... well... right up until he changed his mind.

I have been thinking that NW would simply be chockablock with Loyal keywords to handle that aspect. Let me go back to Visio and see what it looks like if alliances are monodirectional.

NW being able to ally with anyone makes sense--they just got sent to the Wall.

Maybe the Night's Watch will have card effects that show what a ***** it is to get them on your side, as Stannis learns the hard way.

I really really really really really really REALLY wish they are not forbidding any kind of alliance. An alliance wheel will be really dissappointing to me.

People are up in arms over Night's Watch being an actual faction but are just fine with splashing alliances which would never ever actually happen?

People are up in arms over Night's Watch being an actual faction but are just fine with splashing alliances which would never ever actually happen?

People are up in arms over Night's Watch being an actual faction but are just fine with splashing alliances which would never ever actually happen?

Funnily enough, yes. See MarthWMaster's post above.

If the inclusion of Night's Watch as a playable "house" makes me eskeptic about this second edition, forcing just specific alliances for each house a la 40k, would make me lose any interest in this reboot.

Anyway, it looks like they are just resurrecting ye olde Treaty Agenda. And that is good enough for me.

I hope they do not put a wheel , as it will be mixed Houses at least they can be mixed freely. Is complicated design cards availible for all Houses, but is better.

Anyway, it looks like they are just resurrecting ye olde Treaty Agenda. And that is good enough for me.

No, doesn't look like it exactly--

The gold penalty is a clunky means of addressing “faction mixing,” and no treaty or alliance agenda yet printed has felt completely right. A new loyalty mechanic combined with the ability to select a support faction in lieu of another agenda makes combining factions a more balanced and viable option than we have yet experienced.

So, unless the addition of Loyal keyword makes Ye Old 5 More Power unnecessary on its own, it looks to be something different.

I wonder which characters will have Loyal? I'd like to make a Nedly deck that has Ned swrving as King Robert's Hand, which I imagine is one of the first things most Neds think of doing with the new support faction rules. But if Eddard Stark isn't "loyal" to House Stark I don't know who is.

Yep, it is not like the old Treaty. They make treaty as the default state. While you run no agenda, you can mix non-loyal cards from one other house, into your deck with no gold penalty.

Yep, it is not like the old Treaty. They make treaty as the default state. While you run no agenda, you can mix non-loyal cards from one other house, into your deck with no gold penalty.

No. The reverse of each House card is an agenda that lets you include non-loyal cards from that House without penalty. Without an agenda, you're stuck with in-House and neutrals.

I like that they are flat-out denying faction mixing, rather then bringing back the gold penalty. Always felt that rule was AGoT's equivalent to mana burn: you could play 50 games in a row and reasonably expect to not once see the rule come into play. Better to just be rid of it, IMHO.