my admittedly paltry attempt at inciting some discussion in these slow days of the forums, given the time i have right now:

the DC meta is back to playing regularly, and we've had a lot of discussion concerning hypothetical cures for the sluggishness in the environment that's preventing most the houses from being competitive, and which is only very slowly receding as the king's landing cycle plays out (e.g. the reed keep as a much needed and very playable influence source). ignoring the elephant in the room that is the still-inhibiting lack of card draw (which i intend to dedicate my worlds card design to addressing whether or not the environment will see neutral draw before next year), what about these two hypothetical locations:

cost 2, neutral or all-house (perhaps kingdom); limited; +2 gold, +1 influence

cost 2, neutral or all-house (perhaps kingdom); limited; +1 gold, +2 influence

i understand that if "limited" is removed these locations immediately supplant crossroads, but the relative weakness of crossroads makes it a frustrating location to have to play as a dual gold/influence providing location anyway. i, for one, would go so far as to remove "limited" from these hypothetical locations and think we'd be better off for it.

and yes, dear readers, i am on track to submit my tourney report to nate sometime before the week is up :-P

i should clearly state the dual purpose of my post:

(1) i want to gauge how the community feels about the level of resources in the environment, and i think imaginary card designs like this are a good starting point for such a discussion. i, for one, see evidence that the environment would admit much more cohesive themes (and thus better potential deck builds) within the less competitive houses if we had just a few sources of marginally stronger resources (card draw, influence, gold) available to all houses. the thinking is motivated by the release of "the red keep", which has me considering "vigilant stag" and other influence intensive cards i considered unplayable before the coming of this outstanding location.

(2) i'm considering hosting a "D.C. Open" tournament sometime before Black Friday, which might be used as a demonstration of sorts: either i would allow proxies of better gold and influence providing locations similar to what i've described above, and/or enforce a list of strategic bannings (that almost surely would include the castellan). we'd document the tourney a little more thoroughly and compile a tournament report that tries to analyze the effects of the proxies and/or bannings.

Resources certainly seem harder to come by in LCG than they were in Standard. A simple thing like the loss of one gold for Winter ways heavily on my deck building decisions. I find myself including Song of Summer in my plot deck more and more regardless of what I've built just to have the 5G it supplies. As for supplanting Crossroads if you took away "limited" from your hypothetical cards, is Crossroads being used a lot? I don't think I've included it any deck I've built in recent memory and I don't think I've seen it much in other people's decks (but my play this summer has been very sporadic). A 2/2/1 or 2/1/2 location like you described would probably be attractive. I do like the idea of it being "limited" and I do think being an all-House "kingdom" traited location over being a neutral location would be better (the environment still needs more kingdom cards for the effects that tie into them).

I agree that LCG resource locatiosn are quite a step back from what I am used to - thought it is kind of nice to have the Streets back. I honestly have included Crossroads in recent decks - holdinfg my nose as I did so. I was never a fan of these - the two gold for 1/1 was never a satisfactory return ratio for them: but options are limited.

I would be enthused to see the locations you suggest - and I would request that they be Kingdom locaitons. In the first place, I feel we still need more representation of that keyword in the environment (not quite enough in KoS to make me happy) and in the second, I ahev never been a huge fan of neutrals.

The new Red Keep is a big step in the right direction and I look forward to seeing Westeros Bleeds being a threat again, as well as some high influence effects like the Targ ambush knights and to see more of Den of the Wolf.

Keep in mind this is coming from a guy who has barely played in quite some time...

I've felt comfortable with the amount of gold in most of the games I have played. I always seem to be keeping some around. I wouldn't mind seeing more Kingdom locations, or even something like the Hamlets from 5KE at 1 gold (0 gold might have been too cheap).

Influence is still greatly needed, and I'd like to see more of it. I'm thinking The Red Keep will make most (if not all) decks, but would still prefer to see other options.

I'm ok with the amount of draw in the game right now, but I'm really feeling the loss of search plots. I'd love to see Benjen's or ORW make a come back. They allow for tool boxing, and make games far more dynamic IMHO. I'd also love to see Under One Banner, or something else that encouraged some OOH action for those inclined to use it. Basically, I think these plots allow for more strategies in deck building and in play, which is always a good thing.

While I admit that resources are harder to come by at this time, I do NOT want a return to the over-abundance we had in Five Kings Edition. There was so much gold and influence available that "Resource Management" stopped being an active part of the game. Between The Eyrie, the Vale, The Reach, The Riverlands and Fallow Fields, during most games I played, both me an my opponent almost always had the resources to do what we wanted when we wanted. I was quite relieved when these cards left the LCG scene. Not that any one was bad on its own, it was just TOO MUCH.

The primary prolem we have now is similar to what we had when Valyrian edition launched. We have too many effects that require 2 or more influence and not enough ways to generate that influence. One of the reasons Lannister has been so dominant is that most of its more powerful cards require no influence, so a Lanny play can avoid influence providing cards and streamline their deck more. If we are going to print more cards that provide influence, I'd rather see it be specific for the houses that need it more (instead of neutral or all house).

I'm not saying we don't need more influence and card draw, I think we do. I just don't want to see it issued as generic cards and instead would prefer it to be strategically placed in a way that adds depth to a houses themes.

Dobbler said:

I agree that The Eyrie was a bit much--in fact, any card that begins in play with copies and is "immune to triggered effects" runs the risk of being imbalanced, especially when it provides resources. I also agree about the +2G/+2 influence locations. They were auto includes that made all the houses feel the same.

Still, I think some 5KE locations were great. I liked the cost reducers, especially the mechanic that allowed you to reduce costs when Kings/Queens were in play. These sort of contingent card effects are great models, assuming the card is still playable even if you can't meet the "bonus" requirement. (The cost reducers worked fine as -1 gold but at times were especially strong.)

As Finite noted, the introduction of a real source of influence will likely have a big impact on the game. Another 1-2 influence locations, especially those that provide +2 influence, would be a boon to several houses and a positive development in general. (It would make sense for such to be included in the Martell expansion, and I expect to see at least one +2 influence location there.) What about also some more creative options that force tough decisions but also lend flexibility to deckbuilding:

• Stats: 2 Gold for +1 Gold, +1 influence
• Card effect: Discard a character of the same house affiliation to reduce the cost of this location by that character's printed gold cost.

OR

• Stats: 1 Gold for +2 Gold
• Card effect: After you play this from your hand, discard a location you control.

finitesquarewell said:

A) i think part of the problem with the resources is the amount of limited (aren't all the in house resource locations limited?) which really kills the flop. If the fiefdoms were not limited it would go a long way to solving the 'resource problem.' However, if you going to have those undercosted locations you have to make them limited. Look at the Shadows kingdom location....that thing should cost 2 gold for its effect and the +1G.

B) i don't like either of those locations. This is for somewhat the same reasons Dobbler doesn't seem to. I also think we got a little spoiled by the 0 cost loyalty and 0 cost doomed reducers. Furthermore, i think that anything with more than +1 influence should be a very rare thing. Resources should be streched out and being forced to focus on gold ro influence or to find a balance makes for good deck building as opposed to being able to include any type of card that uses any or all resources.

C) i like Twn2nd's idea of having either 'bonus' resources or resources that have effects that do better when timed right.

Do you run high gold plots because you feel there are not enough gold producing locations and reducers between your house and the neutrals, or do you do it because you don't want to rely on having the appropriate number in play to marshall your larger cards?

The last thing I want is to go baqck to the days of the CCG in this way. IMO search at a cost, reduced resource granting cards are good for the game because they require better deck building and resource management. What decks do our current curtailed resources prevent from being played?

I have no problem with a unique location that has either of the stats you named, but other than that I'm with Dobbler. I'd rather have in house solutions for the houses who really need the help.

dormouse said:

I think I was the only one to say I played a plot primarily for it's gold and not its effect, so I gather this question is for me. I started playing the game when 5KE was the current set, so I saw/played the 2/2/2 kingdom locations from day one and that probably spoiled me on resources. But, no, it's not that there isn't necessarily enough resource locations to choose from that motivates me to put Song of Summer in most of my plot decks as much as I think it is how more uncertain the early game feels with the lack of draw and search relative to pre-LCG (which I'm not necessarily complaining about). It used to be if I didn't establish some resources on the flop or first turn, I would still have drawing/searching/"smart" drawing (e.g., Winterfell Hotspring which gave you some control over what you might draw into) that could help me get resource cards into my hand to play. Now, if I don't have resources in hand to play early, I have fewer ways of improving my ability to get them and so have a higher need for Plot gold as a stop-gap until I (hopefully) get my resources going.

What would people think of Fallow Fields returning? (And I am crazy or is calling a card that gives 2G/2Inf "fallow" odd?)

LetsGoRed said:

you're definitely not the only one playing song of summer for the gold or to reduce uncertainty -- the overwhelming majority of the decks we build include it for both reasons

finitesquarewell said:

Unless I'm forgetting some of the DC meta decks, this is pretty much an auto include in all 1v1 decks, along with the Fury plot. I suppose both are less necessary in multi, where multi house cards and the general slower pace of the game makes things more flexible, but there's no real reason not to play both. (After all, there aren't enough high-gold plot cards or locations to justify playing other plot cards.)

I haven't used song of summer in a deck in a long time.

then again i'm not using a lot of 3 gold plots either...

Lars said:

okay, maybe i should put it this way: i used song of summer both at the kingsmoot and the worlds joust, and it was absolutely critical in both decks -- ~but then, i didn't do all that well in either of those events, so i'm probably not the guy to consult when it comes to making optimal plot choices to overcome the crappy level of available resources in the current environment ;-)

I run Song of Summer in non summer decks as well. Its too hard to pass up the five gold.

I actually run Winds of Winter more often in non-Winter decks than I run Song of Summer in non-Summer decks.

Maybe this is less an indictment of available resources, and more a statement on the lack of variety in plot selection?

Dobbler said:

I would tend to agree with this idea. What the whole discussion on plot select (Song of Summer and Winds of Winter) comes down to is choosing plots primarily for stats, not for effect. That was far, far, FAR less common pre-LCG.

But the two are related. You don't have to choose plots based primarily on stats if there are enough "appropriate" resource cards in the environment, the flip side of which is that with said resources, there is more of a luxury to choose plots primarily for effect. Where does the circle begin?

finitesquarewell said:

my point was that there are plenty of good non-5 gold plots, that also have good effects. In my baratheon deck i never sit there and say, you know i really could use that +1 gold instead of not having my noble characters die to valar, or that i can use a queen selyse as claim soak return her to my hand and draw a card if i win a power challenge. In non-baratheon decks that don;t have song of summer i run plots like power of arms, city of lies and the new 2 claim one that lets me repeat city of lies. wildfire, rule by decree and fleeing i never lament not having more then 3-4 gold. Song of summer very often gets squeezed out of my decks becuase i'd rather have the effects. The locations are enough that i can play the cards i *****need***** to that turn. Can i play my hand out, not often early...but i don't suffer for it.

Serious question. Do you really need three 5 gold plots in lanni? you have the fury (which is a little iffy effect wise, but a much better choice over song of summer, which is also iffy effect wise, becuase it has +2 initiative) and Hear me roar, which is great against GJ and some bara and stark builds. Then there are the dual use income providing charcaters (3 of them, 2 non-unique). Yes I know you did well,. but i don't think that extra +1 or +2 gold was the reason why, i'm sure it had more to do with the hyper kneel and your use and playing of the deck.

yeah, i gotta say my problem with LCG is the plots really, i feel like every deck i build has to have like 3 of the same plots(fury, Summer/winter related plot, raven search) no matter what. and i miss some of the fun abilites too lol. too be honest i havent encountered a whole lotta resource problems, and i run primarily stark Kings of Winter with most my resources being limited (and i dont run the Seas, never liked em). then again i find i use alot of low cost stuff, and those Refueges are a big help. New King Robb makes the armies very affordable. i've been playing this deck for about a month now, and its only lost once, though i feel like im getting lucky with the resources so i can see where your coming from. id kill for some fallow fields right about now, ive been avoiding influence costing cards becuuse the only influence i could fit in were the reducers. im actually sitting here now with the red keep in hand wondering what gets to go in the deck now that ive got some influence to spare heh heh.

I have to ask myself every time I decide I want/need something in LCG whether it is something the game actually needs, or if it is me longing for something that was in the CCG. I feel strongly that more high gold plots are not needed, though another form of gold/reducer/influence producer probably is. I'd actually be fine with some LCG form of Fallow Fields, though a unique LCG 2/2/2 location with a drawback may be the better choice, maybe a dual house location that does not stand if you control cards with a House affiliation that does not match your House card. Or maybe even more interesting kneels at the beginning of the Challenges phase if you don't control at least one other card with it's House Affiliations. So a Targ/Martell location would proviode usuable influence Standing to the end of Marshalling unless you controlled another Martell AND Targaryen card. Or a Shadows Variant S1 with 3 gold and 2 influence that puts itself back into Shadows if you don't control at least one other card of each House.

I think some deck types right now could use another source of gold and influence, but I also don't want to see the abundance of both the way it was in the LCG. Same goes for all the neutral answers to things. I'd pretty much always prefer to see somesort of thematic in-House way of dealing with a problem... and I'm not talking cycles here, or at least not symmetrical cycles. Truly different cards that address the same problems but in totaly different ways. SAy attachment hate, Greyjjoy could get some sort of character based UO solution (Gormond Goodbrother, Response: after you win an UO challenge this character participated in discard an attachment from a card you control), Targ and Lannister wouldn't getanything (their's are already strong), Stark would get some sort of defensive based one (The Neck, Response after you win a challenge as defender discard from play an attachment controlled by the losing opponent), Baratheon might get one based on Asshai tech The Good God's Own Kiss, Any Phase: Discard up to X attachments from play, where X equals the number of Asshai characters in play), Martell could get a revenge based one (The Sphinx Response: when you lose a the Sphinx participated in stand the Sphinx to discard an attachment).

Just musings.

I don't really feel like I would need more gold in my LCG decks (granted, I consider Song of Summer quite as auto-include, for the gold as well as for the initiative).

However, as a Targ player, I would be very happy to have a little more choice for influence resource. Shivering Sea was a great addition to the existing resources, and I'm already in love with The Red Keep.

But one or two 2-influence providing cards would be good. And, as Dobbler said, I think it should come as in-House card rather that neutral or all-house. For example, I would be very happy to have a reprint of Mystique of the East.

I hope the Martell expansion will address this issue.