Shadowblack Lane and Street of Sisters should have trait King's Landing instead Westeros

Lannisport - "(limit once per challenge)" is unnecessary

Valar Morghulis - "Limit 1 per plot deck" is unnecessary

This isn't an important question, but if I'm right why there is no clarification in FAQ? (it may be a little confusing while learning rules)

Also I'm curious, why to ban Pyromancer's Cache? Why not to make it unique?

Rogue30 said:

Why is this a mistake? Why do these cards have to have the King's Landing trait? And ultimately, while it may be a printing/layout error and not have been what the designers intended, it doesn't really matter much from a game play point of view which trait these cards have. Thematically, "Westeros" applies, even though "King's Landing" may be more specific. In the end, it doesn't really change game play much one way or the other. So it is very rare that something is going to get an errata or a clarification in the FAQ for a different trait.

Rogue30 said:

This isn't a mistake so much as it is an artifact. The original Lannisport card was printed before the rules had matured quite to the point that "one Response per trigger" was commonly accepted and understood intuitively. It was there more as clarification than anything else. They could have updated it when they modified it for reprint, but the didn't. Again, since it is an artifact that doesn't change game play one way or the other, the chances are slim that you'll see a clarification or FAQ entry on it. The clarification is as unnecessary as the limit.

Rogue30 said:

When the plot was first printed, the rules let you play 2 copies of plots in your plot deck, so the limit was necessary. And while it is primarily an artifact these days, there have been at least one Agenda which will let you play 2 copies of a plot in your plot deck. So while this seems unnecessary, it actually serves a purpose and allows the designers to contemplate things like that Agenda that mess around with the makeup of the plot deck without constantly having to ask "what about Valar."

Rogue30 said:

Probably because ultimately, these particular changes are not big enough to warrant bogging down the FAQ with the entries. They do not affect game play much at all, they aren't all that confusing to someone learning the game and, in the case of Valar, may actually serve a purpose. Finding a balance between clarifying things "mistakes" and streamlining the FAQ is tough for any game and has long been an issue in this game.

Rogue30 said:

No one knows for sure. FFG has not explained the decision. The best thoughts are:

1) FFG is specifically trying to make draw conditional in the LCG. One of the "problems" of the early game is that there were too many draw effects that were too easy. Pyromancer's Cache is pretty cheap and has no real drawback, so it fell under the category of "easy draw." Pretty much all the other draw effects in the game require you to win a challenge, lose a character, pay influence, etc. So even making this card unique didn't take away the fact that there is no real downside to the card.

2) It may have been a question of balance. Lannister has the most draw effects in the game, anyway, as well as the easiest access to gold. So the "free and easy" draw in their House was a little bit of overkill, even if just about any other House would have been glad to pay 3 for it. Also, with Kings and Queens being scattered at best (at least until the end of the month when the Greyjoy expansion comes out), who got the benefit and who didn't became an odd issue. So the easiest way to deal with the potential imbalance the card could introduce to the environment was to take it out.

That's all conjecture, but they seem like solid reasoning to me - agree or not.

Also, location control in the environment is an issue (that's being slowly fixed). So it was also untouchable unless the opponent played Targaryen. The cost of kneeling a location was more of a cost when most effects would require kneeling a location (reduce cost, influence, or usage)... and attachment control/location control was on such a steroid you might of gotten use out of it two turns before something blew it up.

bloodycelt said:

I really like how FFG has designed the location-discard events. After the GJ expansion is released, we'll have a location-discard event for each challenge type: Power=Support of the Kingdom, Intrigue=[new City of Sin event], and Military=Price of War. (Though the last is the most powerful, it is also the most restricted.) In addition, I expect Greyjoy to receive a lot of location control. Giving each house some options to deal with problematic locations (like Golden Tooth Mines and Dany's Chambers) will be good for the environment, while giving only Greyjoy the ability to play a more comprehensive form of location control will ensure that the mechanic remains unique to Greyjoy and has less chance of being abused by other houses (who could combine it with, for example, lots of character removal).

I already think that the condemed by council event will cause folks to stock up on saves for their locations.

And I doubt we'll be seeing folks playing 3 cost locations as much.