So last night I was contemplating a deck idea that would require the Treaty with the Isles Agenda. But the drawback seems so prohibitive, it scares me from it.
Has anyone played with the new Treaty Agendas in the LCG environment? What are your thoughts and feelings if you have?
In struggling to build a Greyjoy deck with some sort of originality (Not just a Winter Greyjoy etc) I ended up building a Lanni Treaty with the Isles deck, and pretty much thought it wouldnt do well. It kind of has a weird idea, rush with cheap cheap characters, while building income, valaring, and then saving with bodyguard and saltwife (sometimes via Kraken Tatoo), and having some cheap characters in hand to flood the board again. It is as of now 2-1, and its only been played against a bara deck. Its definately much more successful than i thought it would be, and the drawback does make you feel like you're losing from the start lol. It was especially tricky against Bara, having to watch all of the renown. And power challenges seem to take the precedent obviously. With my deck, when it fell completely perfect, it was decided by one power, and one move made the difference, so things get pretty hairy, but it is possible. Hopefully that will push you to build it, id like to hear how it does.
Well, I am attempting to building a Bara/Greyjoy Winter deck utilizing Shadow Stalker and Wintertime Marauders. But If I can't make it Winter (or can't keep it Winter), it just seems to me that my opponents path to 10 power is so easy it isn't worth the effort. I should probably build the deck, but I'm not sure if I will.
Hmm. In the Lanni/GJ Treaty idea, what would the addition of Vendor of Venoms and Devious Intentions do? Could Infamy be used to keep power off your House card, thereby slowing down your opponent's path to 10 by limiting power challenge claim?
In the Bara/GJ idea, I would think that CS-Mel would be the key to slowing down your opponent. Bara has enough icon balance that you could oppose just about everything. Mel would thus make an opponent's Renown mean less. You might even (between Selyse, Alannys, Mance and Renly) be able to get King Robert's Host in there to shut down an opponent's power challenge altogether.
I really like the idea of the Treaty, however IMO they are not Equitable and therefore not worth the cardboard they are printed on. The main reason for this isn't the huge drawback of essentially giving your opponent(s) 5 free power before the game even begins (which seems ridiculous to me in melee BTW, who would do such a thing?!?!?); Rather the problem, for me, lies within the limiting of the cards available to you when using these agendas. NOT being able to include "House Greyjoy/Martell Only" cards in your treaty deck is absurd, especially given the tremendous drawback. To me these agendas could become quite useful and so much more balanced with the simple inclusion of "house X only".
ktom said:
Hmm. In the Lanni/GJ Treaty idea, what would the addition of Vendor of Venoms and Devious Intentions do? Could Infamy be used to keep power off your House card, thereby slowing down your opponent's path to 10 by limiting power challenge claim?
In the Bara/GJ idea, I would think that CS-Mel would be the key to slowing down your opponent. Bara has enough icon balance that you could oppose just about everything. Mel would thus make an opponent's Renown mean less. You might even (between Selyse, Alannys, Mance and Renly) be able to get King Robert's Host in there to shut down an opponent's power challenge altogether.
Yes, my outline currently has the big Bara Army included. Putting in Mel seems like a good idea too.
As for a Lanny version, I'd definitely play Head of a Dwarf to keep power off their house. That card has proved its usefullness to me many times lately.
Between Head of a Dwarf and Jhalabar Xho you can put a real brake on rush decks and that makes the treaty very workable in joust (at least in regards to the power differential).