Hello again. Our gaming group has recently seen an influx of new blood and we've gone from playing jousts to melees. I wonder if anybody has any views on the relative merits of each house in four-player melees?

It's early days for us, but so far it looks as though the Baratheons have the best weapons to seal the easiest/speediest victory thanks to their enormous potential for renown gathering. In all of the games we've played so far (admittedly few), it has been the Baratheons that all other houses have had to watch like a hawk. Once they start getting towards 10 power then the warning sirens go off! Each other house appears to edge towards victory and is far less of a worry since they can, hopefully, be pegged back. The Baratheons have more 'burst' potential and could perhaps get to the winning line by winning iniative and employing the Fox's Teeth ability before anyone can stop them. That's probably a bit of a beginner's strategy, but it's one which seems quite powerful on early evidence.

I was also wondering if all of these decks that people list here, and on the tzumainn site, are tailored towards jousts or melees? Nobody seems to mention that. Are tournaments primarily jousts, or melees, or both?

Oh, and finally, any non-scientific thoughts on how long a 4-player melee typically takes to win? We've had a couple of 4 hour+ games with still no winner . That seems a long time. We're not playing at full tempo because of new players learning the ropes, but we're hardly playing at a snail's pace either.

p.s. We restrict ourselves to Clash of Arms and later, so if there are any great cards that predate those then we won't ever see them or play with them.

Hello, we play melee very often in our meta so I can give you couple more hints. First of all the length of the game may vary but officialy the tournament melee game should last 90-120 minutes depending on the TO. We usually have a 120 min limit and it is usually enough, but we also play "older" cards (ITE+) so the game is faster. But anyway there is a lot of things how to make the game faster. People always think that defending all the challeges against him is the best, but it is not. Noone ever won just by defending. The goal is to get 15 powers and thats it. So going unopposed should help to get more power in the game. If every deck is runnig a reset plot (Wildfire Assault, Valar...) and you are not affraid to use them that helps to keep only few character in the game thus going unopposed is easier. Also Valar is a good anwer for the Bara power rush, since most of their powers goes on characters.

Building a deck for melee is a delicate thing, since you dont want to make enemies from everyone. So playng Blocade and other similar stuff is propably not a good idea. Also a lot of 2-claim plots raises some hostility. Save them for the finish. Usually is good if you can make at least 5 power in one plot to finish the game when noone expects this.

Also dont forget the Opposes. It brings more power to the game too and is often forgeten.

At Gencon and NYC Meele is much longer, and much more control. Usually going up to plot 5 - 7... the first time, I had ran out of steam quickly.

In Boston last year Meele's last about 3 rounds, and house makeup is mostly Bara and Greyjoy with an occasional Martell. And usually the third person to attempt at winning wins. So that last round it's best to go third, I recall doing well by allowing a player to come close to winning and getting the control player to stop him... this doesn't work of course if one player is bored and actually gives the player the win just to end the game.

Your observations are pretty accurate. Baratehon can close quickly - that is their sepcialty, and long time Baratheon players (like myslef) are frustarted at how slow (raltively) they are now. I used to abe able to hit 15 power in a melee from five - as recently as spring 2008.

Stark is porbably second becuase saves and high strength are key in a melee, where players will take turns ripping you down and you want to be able to defend five or six challenges a turn. Plus they have just enough kill to tkae out the linchpin of an opponent's startegy.

Targaryen are solid as well and probably a close third becuase tehy have stealth and deadly and being able to get the unopposed whne you need it is key. plus they have a ncie versatile character base with good choices at teh 1-4 gold slots and a nice icon mix. stay away form too much burn in melee - the cards will be too few to control three other players. If you must play atatchments - Bones x 3 and aegon's Blade are melee staples.

Lannister isn't worth discussing in melee. They dominate in joust but I haven't seen a Lannister deck take a melee in years. probably since the silly alayne stone recursion combo was popular and sithlord was netdecking.

Ah, Cast-Alayne, how I loved that deck, until Cha0s beat me at Kubla with his copycat deck.

Lannister does decent, and I think in a melee tournament is probably the best house to use if you want to make it to the final table (that is to say scoring lots of second places by playing king maker when you can manipulate the board and players), but is unlikely to be able to close out until they get some more power icons and renown.

Targaryen burn in the way of Poisoned Wine is brutal in melee if you have the right deck. Forcing your opponents to over commit to attack or defend in melee is priceless and with the Influence Title - Hand of the King it is not difficult to control the tempo... also in my experience is the best house and method to control Baratheon rush. No matter how many times you stand a character, 0 STR is 0 STR.

Well, we've been intermixing all kind of deck types agains each other (LCG, standard, classic highlander) when playing each other, but that said:

I'm going to somewhat disagree with Stag Lord regarding Lannister in Melee. Their card draw still makes them formidable, as with everyone beating up on each other, they still have the resources to rebuild after resets, or outlast the carnage of truly brutal games. Also, Targ's ability to bounce back attachments en perpetuity is extremely valuable in melee (even more so than joust). However, I do agree that with Bara not being as fast as they used to be, they really don't per say have the melee advantage that it may first appear. If your group is new, I think as you play more you'll find that Bara's opponents won't let them get enough power to get close to that final push to achieve the victory.

I'm going to somewhat hijack this thread now and say that we've also found that if you are only playing a 3 player game, it's a much better game/play experience without the multiplayer titles. I was a big fan of the concept at first, and am OK with it for 4 or more players, but with 3 it just bogs the game down too much, can become too much like joust with the supports & opposes. Even being forced to use the 3 titles the 2nd round that were not used in the fist doesn't help that. I strongly suggest not using the titles if you are playing a 3 player melee - only use with 4 or more players.

I like the titles in 3-way because it prevents both players farmiing on the weaker player more often than not. Choosing th etitles to force a support or oppose, or gain the extra strength in a challenge uou can really hammer ome becomes an interesting strategic issue all in and of itself. It undoubtedly can extend the game... but I'm looking for the experience of the game and not necessarily the absolute fastest end to any given game... unless it is me winning.

The ttiles are pretty awful in three player format. At least you can't just cycle the same three over and over again to farm the weakest player. But its still not a real fun expereince. i love the titles as well, though I think the format doesn't need the selling pont, but only in four player and up games.

as for Lannister in melee - who cares that they are drawing turn after turn? what are they drawing that is going to help them win? I guess in a melee where all four players are running Valar - the Lannister player would be in good sahpe, but i find this si rarely the case. Dormouse has said it elsewhere - hte best way to control lannister is to play them in a melee.

I do think you are stretching the point a little to say that Lannister is viable in a melee tourrament since you can guile your way to the final table. thsi may be the case but the OP was pretty clearly talking about casual play wiht his group. Given that parameter - I'm sure you agree that Lannister stands and quite a disvanatge to the other three Houses at the moment.

I've only played melee twice so far with mostly Core Set decks (some additions from Chapter packs, no subtractions), but Lannister won both times. All players involved were just getting used to the format (or the game itself) so it might not mean much, but it's interesting to hear other people cite Lannister as weak. Both of our games followed the usual multiplayer progression of everyone beating up on the guy in the lead until we got to the point where several players were close to winning (in one game three players started the final round with 11 power). Then through some combination of luck, play skill, and utility of the cards Lannister pulled it out (an unopposed intrigue challenge, Lannisport, You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf! and maybe a power challenge all contributed to the final push). I guess the Lannister characters aren't as good at getting into military and power brawls when they can't kneel everything down, but in our games the Lannister player was able to sit there pecking in for some unopposed intrigues or power challenges when other players were knelt to build up power. It never seemed like Lannister was in the lead, but a lot of the time that's the best place to be in a multiplayer game -- hanging around but not painting a big target on yourself.

I thik a clarification should be added to lanni is weak. It should read "The things that make lanni a pain to play in Joust do not transfer over as well into Melee and should not be relied on as heavily when deck building."

I like lanni in multiplayer. The previous poster brings up lannisport. A solid melee card in that it is a card that you can afford to play on a 'slow' turn that can help you close at end game that you would not have over say a third copy of golden tooth mines in joust. Plus Lanni's more solid stable of characters comes out in melee. Ser J. Bywater is much stronger with 2-3 opponets that he is now immune to their character abilites and/or discards cards from when he dies. Joff might see more play in melee again becuase he is better suited to the flow (like lannisport). Lancel becomes more then a weenie. And i think shadows can really blossom in melee (again, slows you down he turn you play it, but can be used later for rush or to close).especially asa way to avoid stag's 4 valars.

RE 3 titles/3 player melee: i dislike three players becuase every round it devolves into 2 v 1 and the titles rarely make this not happen and often encourage it to happen.

schrecklich said:

And that's been my experience. Lannister is just more well rounded, which is even more important in melee - when you're dealing with multiple opponents and your A game strategy can become unraveled much more easily - than it is in joust.

Lanni kneeling becomes a great defensive mechanic in melee, where you just try to negate a big gun for a round or two, as opposed to an offensive 'kneel everything' approach in joust. This seems to often let Lanni hang around.

And when they reprint the intrigue gambit, power struggle & military battle plots in the Greyjoy set, it's probably going to be worse (especially if the reprint the Kingdom locations ever).

Lars said:

I'm frankly surprised. In ou 3 player games it is nearly impossible to go two rounds in a row where two players can attack one player. One of those two rounds people in my meta end up with a round-robin of titles I support Player 1, he supports Player 2, and he supports me. When that isn't the case it is usually because someone has snagged a title they REALLY need to make something work for them, or they have snagges Crown Regent to fend off the one attack they fear the most from the strongest opponent.