You know, speaking of the possibility of reprints in Princes of the Sun, isn't about time we heard a little more about it?

Kennon said:

~ I hear the expansion will have reprints of all 6 pre-LCG Vipers.

(Not really, but that would be pretty funny/tragic; 6 versions of the same unique character....)

Yeha - I'm not really expecting straight reprints (though either would be nice) but I do miss first Snow. The worst thing baout ti was the effect it had on devlopment. 5K Arya, Bastard of Bolton, Veteran looters - these all were borderline broken given their cost to ability ratio. They were only balanced because of First Snow - and I'm not sure if I wnat to see characters like that back.

I'd prefer Threat personally.

whatever - I am heartly sick of swarm decks and five-six card flops. And I ahve been since the Ravens cycle started - its only ogtten worse as the CP cycles have progressed.

ktom said:

I was against valar coming back as well.

bloodycelt said:

But is the environment, or the plot, "horribly broken" because one House has a greater affinity for it?

I've been saying that Threat is a better choice as a "weenie control" reprint than First Snow because its effect on the metagame is more tolerable (i.e., First Snow's is too big because it is absolute, Threat is smaller and thus favorable because there are some things you can do about it).

You've been saying that First Snow would be the better choice because Threat is "horribly broken," holding up the fact that it fits really well into Targ burn decks as the only example of this. The comment about GJ and Valar is meant as a counter-argument to demonstrate how similar past arguments have not resulted in the predicted horrible metagame inequalities.

It would give Targ an advantage they don't need. I don't want Targ burn to get to the over saturation that kneel has right now, because then the nerf card might be similar to Barristan Selmy from ATOS... putting Targ out of the running.

bloodycelt said:

I doubt it would happen. One of the big reasons is that Targ burn is a lot more resource intensive than it has been in the past. Considering the "nickel and dime" kind of burn we're seeing right now (-1 and -2s that need to be added up to take out larger characters) and the dearth of attachment control making people generally more likely to play attachments, Targ has to put a lot of card, gold and influence resources into getting the attachments off and burning the bigger characters. And a lot of the easiest burn comes without a "0 terminus" (Poison Wine, Fury of the Dragon, Forever Burning). All in all, burn is a much more complex build in LCG than it used to be in the I&F and VED days with far less room for error. Threat would lower that threshold by creating a ready "0 terminus" for a single round, but it wouldn't remove it the threshold completely. Targ would have one round in which to have the stars align with their resources (remember that Threat is a 2-gold plot) for all their other burn effects, which would be hampered by the fact that they themselves are full of 1 and 2 STR utility characters that will be in as much danger as their opponents from the plot.

It would be easier for Targ to capitalize on Threat than for any other House. This would give it some advantage, but I don't think the advantage is unfair, all things considered. I doubt a saturation of burn would come because of a plot that ups the ante for the strategy for a single round. In the end, I think it would be far preferable to have the the one-round boost to burn than to reintroduce all the constraints and metagame issues First Snow brings with it.

Of course, we could always get some sort of brand new "only the strong survive" plot instead of reprinting either of the 2 past weenie control plots.

If we are taking votes I want something new. If not something new then Threat. I love Bruno, but his plot was bad for the environment. Its effect was just too far reaching, and I'm not just referring to the card text, but how it hampered card selection, deck builds, and design.

I agree with dormouse.

I think its clear that we need some sort of swarm control in the environment.

Isn't the limited draw a potent swarm control? I flood the board with weenies, pretty much exhausting my hand, and out comes Valar or Wildfire. At that point I don't have much of a hand to speak of and I'm not getting more cards quickly. Its tough to swarm again and if my draw deck is heavy on weenies then what characters I can play are going to be out-gunned by my opponent's characters.

It doesn't seem to be.

Right now a 5-7 card flop is pretty achievable and right there you draw back into about 1/6 of your deck. even with limited draw, people are still refilling pretty quickly, and all you have to to is play a little conservatively before the reset and you can bounce back in pretty good shape.

Perhaps a good solution would be something like this...

Win or Die (maybe not the best title, was just thinking of Cersei's quote)
2/1/1
When revealed, discard all non-Shadows characters with printed cost 2 or less from play (cannot be saved).

There's a lot of overlap between this card's effect and First Snow. But going by cost instead of strength wouldn't cripple interesting and balanced 3/2 or 4/2 characters, which is really the big problem with First Snow. Of course weenies would still be viable and even necessary.

That sounds pretty good, but I worry it would let Shadows decks off the hook too much. Perhaps cards with a Shadows crest and printed strength of 0s also should get discarded.

The only real way to stop the weenie rush if it's a problem is to have the plot discard the opponent's hand and cards in shadow.

LetsGoRed said:

Well, if you just say "printed cost 2," that covers the "s0" characters as well. The Shadows rule sheet says that the printed cost of any sX card is considered to be X + 2.

Not too bad, but I wonder if we'd see the opposite effect that First Snow. Whereas First Snow created a situation where cost on 2-STR characters had to be pretty low to justify them in decks, would this create a situation where the effect on a cost-2 character would have to be pretty strong? Would this encourage "power-creep" in a different direction.

I think a lot of the unsettling effects on the metagame could be addressed simply by taking the "cannot be saved" off of the thing. There aren't a lot of saves for discard to begin with, so it doesn't really cripple the plot, but it does let you play STR-2 (or cost-2) uniques with a little more certainty (dupes).

I think plots that use printed STR or cost as the criterion for discarding/killing/etc. are a bad idea in general (though I have to admit, I loved Threat from the North in my Targ deck back in the day). Though all houses can in theory play around cost/STR-based mechanics, certain houses/builds have a much harder time. I suppose that is the point. For example, First Snow aimed to weaken weenie builds and make uniques relatively more playable. In the end, this was overkill though, and I suspect that no matter how one designs the mechanic, using a cost or STR threshold for discarding/killing will likely render some builds unplayable (and also disadvantage some houses more than others). In the current LCG environment, I think we need more options for playable characters, not fewer.

By the way, why do we need another reset anyway? And if we did, how about something like Winter Storm, which actually worked much better than Wildfire Assault in terms of keeping the opponent to three characters post-marshalling. (Obviously it wouldn't work as well in the current shadows environment, but I still think it'd be better than First Snow.)

Twn2dn said:

Couple of thoughts on this:

Winter Storm actually works just fin in the Shadows environment. You bring cards out of Shadows at the beginning of the phase. And just like "when revealed" plot effects take effect before any "after a plot is revealed" passive effect, Shadows cards are brought out before any other "at the beginning of the phase" effects. So in the Challenge phase, players would have to bring cards out of Shadows before Winter Storm activated, discarding down to 3 characters. Due to the timing of the thing, Shadows is not a way to gain an advantage during Winter Storm. Shadows could make it easier to rebuild in subsequent phases, though.

The other thought was that I don't see a call for Threat or First Snow as a call for another reset. To me, resets are intended to restore a balance to the board (which usually comes with an attempt to influence or skew that balance, of course). The call here is really for a plot that draws some kind of line and clears everything below it in an attempt to specifically control "weenie-rush" strategies. I don't really see the cards we're talking about as filling the same role as a reset.

I suggested a 2 Gold or lest version back on the old boards, without the cannot be saved. I still feel it was an infinitely more balanced plot that had the same overall effect on weenie decks.

I have to disagree ktom - I think First Snow is definitely a reset, as i Threat from the North, though both in a slightly different version than Valar or Wildfire. That it draws a line and clears out everything below it (or in the case of Threat anything that can be brought below it) is clear, but that is really no different than a line that says "You three here are safe. Everyone else, off the board."

And I agree with Twn2dn I don't think we need another reset, I'm certainly not convinced that we need one specifically for low cost or low strength characters. Is there a weenie deck running rampant in NYC that I haven't heard about? Is it somehow proof against Wildfire Assault and Valar Morgalis? Is it that there is a real need for a third character reset in the LCG environment? Or am I misreading this entirely and people feel that a reset for low strength characters is needed because the two resets we have would negatively effect their decks?

I honestly have a problem believing that whatever weenie rush deck running around is somehow proof against Wildfire and Valar, any more than any other deck which is not overextending. Just like I doubt that we really need a third reset though I'm willing to be convinced, I'd probably prefer Winter Storm. And if I'm being perfectly honest if the reason people feel another reset geared specifically to hit weenies is because the two general resets we have now would effect their own decks too much... to that I have to say I don't care and too bad.

I look at this way... we both get knocked down to three characters, my three weenies and your three strongest characters. If I have a handful of characters that I can then why should I be punished more for that? Isn't that the way we generally want to keep ourselves from overextending, keeping characters in hand for resets? Why does this one deck type need to be punished more than any other? At either Gencon and Kingsmoot did a weenie deck make the final 4? When it comes to Valar how many weenie decks run dupes or saves in general? Why are these two resets unsatisfactory when it comes to keeping weenie rush decks under control? If it is because of their ability to put a number of cards abck into play why not run Fleeing to the Wall of Rule by Decree first? Or make a deck that allows you to keep a few weenies in reserve yourself reset the board and dump them out.

Its not one dominant swarm deck in NY - its that EVERY deck in NY is a swarm deck. People are playing far fewer uniques and high cost characters and simply loading up 20+ 2 cost and under characters. I have seen more six and seven card flops in the past three months than I have in the past three years. And you know as well as I do, dormouse, that most swarm decks can usually shrug of Valar. When you flop five you only need to play out one or two more characters before the reset, you see it coming, then a high gold Plot to reseed.

Of course the opponent plays the same strategy and its becomes a question of who gets their control elements in place first or who can maximize the high claim exchange better - but game play becomes very repetitive and far less challenging. Plus I subscribe to Rings' theory and find games where anonymous refugees and scouts being decisive far less enagaging then when the named uniques from the books carry the play.

I saw the same thing in Winter Block after Threat rotated, and made the same call for swarm control that winter. When First Snow hit that June, it was a welcome relief.

AFAIAC, swarm prevalence to teh extent I am seeing is just as off putting as character lite dominance. There is a metagame balance we see between teh two extremes that just isn't present in the current environment, and I hope to see it restored. YMMV.

And twn2dn - I don't buy the argument that certain Houses need swarm strategies ot be competitive.

Stag is getting in more games than I am, and against some Long Island players that I don't regularly get to play, but I haven't had the same experience as he regarding non-unique weenies dominating the board, or I haven't perceived it (and I'll be the first to say I don't have the "head" for the game that he and some other veteran players do). When I most recently lost to a Targ deck it was due to it getting both its saves set up quickly, which relied on different uniques' abilities or dupes thereof, along with the burn+recursion. I'm having a hard time picturing Wolfen's Stark deck, but I don't remember it being weenie heavy. As for me, who has gotten some of those big flops against Stag, it's due more to 0 and 1 gold locations then to low cost characters.

For what it's worth, my current deck's character makeup is about 60% unique. For game "flavor", does that seem low or is it decks that are 50%+ non-uniques (or some other percentage) where the blandness creeps in?

I remember you hitting six on the flopw against me - and I hit you with RBD pre Plot.

You still had seven guys on the board at the end of one. Theon, Bolton refugee x 2, Salt Wife (?) Carrion Bird and two other generic weenies.

I don't think I saw wex or the Marauders. i know Balon hit after the reset because you made the 8 cost army cheap when you dropped it. Or you had a save for Balon - cause he deifntiely wasn't out there on one. I know Theon was there - cause he got the burn kill when I should have roasted the bird, which cost me dearly on Turn 2.

So your deck defintuely felt very swarm-y to me.

Swales dropped seven against me that night. You know wulfen is hitting five to six on teh drops consistently. And Soccerhead's Baratheon deck has been swarm driven for over a year - going back to his Brothers build. I exepct to see nothing but more of the same tonight.

Well... I usually only have 6 to 9 non uniques in the entire deck. 15 Resource Locations are also a standard I go by... which is why choke never works in New England... and seductive promise did not have as much of an impact either. (While PTTQ and Prove One's Worth did).

If weenies are being such an issue... then Greyjoy must surely dominate with intimidate.

If they Support the Intimidate guy - it can go well for them. Apart from that though - big deal. They can push through a few challenge wins, but they still ahve no realsitic draw and very little in the way of removing permanents. (Again - apart from the winter-Marauders combo). So they can be good, but Initmidate alone doesn't help them as much as you might think.

Is there anyone out there running a Lanni Shadows deck with lots of 1 and 2 STR weenies relying on Tunnels of the Red Keep to pump them up?

For me, that's one of the trickier builds to go up against. Large flops, enough draw to overextend if needed, and locations can still be tricky to target out of certain houses.