A starter deck for every faction is included in the Core Set. You can make your deck with cards from a single faction, but like A Song of Ice and Fire , your games of A Game of Thrones: The Card Game Second Edition are filled with alliances. Every deck has the option to use an agenda to call upon the support of another faction. If you call upon the support of a faction by using its agenda, you can include cards from that faction in your deck free of penalty. The exception to this rule is loyal cards. Loyal cards include characters unshakable in their devotion to their House, locations intrinsically tied to a faction, or events that represent tactics used only by a single faction. Loyal cards can never be included in another faction’s deck.

I think we can all agree that Loyal is a mechanic vital to Second Edition, for both mechanical and thematic reasons. You don't want to see one faction constantly showing up in other factions' decks because of its dominance in some critical aspect of the game; nor do you want people like Tywin Lannister or Doran Martell, figures wholly committed to the prosperity of their houses, willingly pledging their support to other factions.

At the same time, though, I find myself quite apprehensive toward this element of the game. I believe it can be used correctly, and hope that it works as well as it is intended; however, as much as I love expanding card games, I consistently come at them from the vantage point of a story-lover. I just can't help it. Whenever I play a game that has a sufficient dedication to theme woven into its mechanics, and A Game of Thrones is about as thematic as they come, the actions taken by each player, from plots to challenges to events, automatically take shape in my head as a flavorful narrative unique to the match at hand. That being said, there are situations that can break me out of this spell, and loyal has the potential for this, depending upon how it is used, and on whom. I am referring specifically to character cards here: though I imagine there are other card types for which this could apply, I find I am not as concerned by them. I do think that each house faction ought to have its motto appear on either an event or plot card (preferably with consistency either way), and that these cards should be loyal.

More than anything, I am thinking about the role of Eddard Stark at the outset of the books. In one of the earliest chapters he is recruited by his friend, King Robert, to become the new Hand of the King. From a flavor standpoint, I believe this makes it clear that it should be possible for a Baratheon player who has the support of House Stark to marshal Eddard. But as the Lord of Winterfell, if he is not loyal it is difficult to imagine who is. Thus I believe, putting aside the mechanical restrictions intended by the loyal keyword since we know very little about this beyond what has been stated, the flavor concept of loyal should really come about for characters who are devoted to their house above all else. Tywin and Doran especially come to mind, as well as all King characters. Ned, on the other hand, while having responsibility for House Stark, honors the words of his house: "Winter is coming," and as such, he values the realm and its safety above all things, and should be able to support another house.

There is of course the strange imagery of Eddard Stark appearing alongside Joffrey Baratheon or Jorah Mormont. But such situations can be justified, I think, with staying true to the canonical sequence of events being of primary importance. Thus every character who has aligned him or herself with another faction at least once in the storyline should have at least one character card that is not loyal. To use Tywin as an example, he assists Robert in the rebellion against the Mad King, and has indebted the realm to Casterly Rock beyond any possibility of repayment. But more often than not, we should see Tywin playing for House Lannister and no one else.

Well, I think game balance is going to be a factor as much as flavor. Powerful cards and broken interactions can be avoided by making that card Loyal, like they errata'd Daenerys and Asha to be House X Only.

Remember it takes a formal alliance to have any of these characters to work together at all, and no one would imagine that Olenna or Oberyn or Tywin were putting aside their personal goals just because they were working with or for another house. As Tywin said in the show, "you don't need formal alliances with people you trust."

Well, I think game balance is going to be a factor as much as flavor. Powerful cards and broken interactions can be avoided by making that card Loyal, like they errata'd Daenerys and Asha to be House X Only.

Indeed. This is why I said we should put mechanics aside. At this point, we don't exactly know how this game will work yet, let alone what specific characters will do. I'm speaking purely from the standpoint of flavor considerations. Five books have been written in the series, with the sixth possibly out next year . Until we know more of how the game will actually play, it seems natural that the books should be the basis of speculation.

I disagree. Just because we don't know on what basis they'll be making game balance decisions or what those interactions will look like, doesn't mean we should start opining on what they should or shouldn't do based on bad reasons that come only from subjective interpretations of the books.

The Loyal keyword means nothing more and nothing less than a game mechanic. It's just shorthand for "House X Only," and it's a mechanic just they're lifting from Warhammer Conquest. It doesn't have any basis on their loyalty to their house per se, or at least only as a distant secondary consideration. And we shouldn't be making game balance decisions based on purely story reasons.

Also remember, we're talking about basically the Core Set at this point. In the 1e LCG, we didn't start seeing multiple iterations of Unique characters who had appeared in the Core Set until the third chapter pack cycle, so a statement like "every character who has aligned him or herself with another faction at least once in the storyline should have at least one character card that is not loyal" is just a non-starter at this stage. There are very few who wouldn't fit that definition, and that definition doesn't treat all factions equally.

Tyrell is the town bicycle of alliances, everyone's had a ride.

Lannister quite openly allies itself with other houses all the time--Baratheon by marriage, and Tywin was Hand to Aerys II.

Stark allies with Tully and Arryn in the books (as well as the "Southron Ambitions" theory which is interesting reading.)
Martell is scheming with Targaryen and Doran wants the shouts of the people to be heard in King's Landing, so Tywin knows what a loyal friend he has in Sunspear.

On the other hand, some houses are notoriously isolationist. Targaryen has little opportunity to ally with Westerosi houses outside of Martell, Greyjoy is a friend to no one, and (presumably) Night's Watch takes no part in the struggles of the realm. What you're talking about would leave NW, Greyjoy, and Targ with nearly all 100% Loyal characters, with Tyrell and Lannister next to none. And that's no way to have a balanced game.

Note that I'm not advocating characters be loyal when they shouldn't be, or vice versa. Not for story, nor for gameplay reasons. I'm just saying that the theme should come through somehow. If I conveyed the sense that I don't care about play balance so long as theme is satisfied, I misspoke. I certainly neglected to specify that of course it will take a while for there to be multiple versions of the main characters, as with all due respect I took this as a given. But I think you'll agree it's difficult to talk about the gameplay itself, as we know very little about it for now beyond what we already know from AGoT's first iteration. Some elements may change, while others remain the same. There's just not a lot to talk about in that regard; all is speculation at this point. That being the case, I'm trying to point at things we can easily talk about, so as to provoke a bit of discussion on a forum that would not otherwise invite it.

In the recent video, some cards have little banners on their house symbol. I think that is the loyal indicator.

It looks like Eddard and Arya don't have it, but Robb and Summer do. I think this works well. Taking Stark as an ally is thematically the Starks in King's Landing before the war, so Robb and Summer won't be involved. Later it is the Starks at war, so Robb would not bend to any other House.

Anyway, we could also have alternate versions of characters later with different loyalty indicators. Maybe there is a loyal Tywin with great power, and a non-loyal Tywin later on that is weaker or plays a different role - representing that he isn't willing to give you his full support.

Remember that "Loyal" simply means that if you are playing "Stark-alliance-Lannister," no Lannister Loyalists can be included. Turn that around into a "Lannister-alliance-Stark" and the Lannister Loyalists will work with the Starks (although the Stark Loyalists will not).

I think that can be very thematic. It essentially says that anyone will work with anyone, but there are certain characters whose House must be dominant. Tywin will work with anyone, but at the end of the day, that alliance must be working toward the benefit of Lannister. A perfect example of someone who'd be in a "Lannister-alliance-X," but never an "X-alliance-Lannister" situation. Same sort of thing with Stannis; he'll work with anyone, but the righteousness and lawfulness of his claim and position is paramount in his mind.

The Alliance mechanic in W40K:C works very well. Some of the alliances don't make sense in the story but I'll take solid game play over faithfulness to the theme any time. A few WTFs in faithfulness to theme or story can be overlooked for a great game mechanic.