This rule needs to be taken from the game. It's absurd that for free a player gets to play a card that gives a character an extra life. This completely shuts down military decks if the opponent draws well.

This is an awesome game, but the balance is really lacking.

If the character dies before they place the duplicate, then the duplicate is a dead card.

Duplicates have worked this way when it was a CCG game and all throughout the first edition of AGoT. There was never a balance issue with duplicates before and it will continue to not be an issue in the second edition. There are plenty of ways to overcome them and the fact that they are useless cards in your hand when the unique character is dead is one of the many ways it really is balanced.

I think that with a lot more play time and experience, you will find ways to overcome them. Military challenges are also not always used for killing off characters. There are plenty of ways to use them beyond the claim effect.

Also, do you have additional effects in your deck to help you kill more characters? Like Put to the Sword for example? That's a Military challenge additional kill effect that can help you do away with some of those pesky duplicates. How about 2 claim plots? 2 claim MIL challenges really add some necessary pressure if your deck is Military challenge focused.

Yeah, as bomb says, duplicates have their risks, and while they were 'improved' in 2nd edition, in a very similar format they were considered almost useless in 1st.

1) There are methods to remove characters that cannot be saved (Dracarys, Plaza of Punishment, Marched to the Wall, Wildfire, Ghaston Grey) - where the duplicates do nothing.

2) There's also the consideration that drawing into a duplicate does not add to your ability to win challenges by expanding your board position - in many situations (economy dependent), you'd prefer to draw into another character.

3) Then, the 'fear' of dead cards. A single Heads on Spikes, or an early death through other means, can create 2 completely useless draws in your deck.

Be fair, guys. There is more emphasis on unique characters in the 2nd Ed. Core Set than at any other time in the history of the game, including the CCG and 1st Ed. LCG. With only the Core Set and its relatively few options for extra kills and high-claim challenges, it is easy see where duplicates could play a larger - and potentially unbalancing - role in individual games and match-ups.

That said, all the advice about why the duplicate rule isn't nearly as bad for the game as it may seem is good advice that will become more apparent as the card pool grows. Assuming the card pool develops to embrace the same brutal nature as past iterations of the game, duplicates will eventually feel like NOT enough to protect your unique characters.

Also, do you have additional effects in your deck to help you kill more characters? Like Put to the Sword for example? That's a Military challenge additional kill effect that can help you do away with some of those pesky duplicates. How about 2 claim plots? 2 claim MIL challenges really add some necessary pressure if your deck is Military challenge focused.

True, but if you draw a duplicate it's a free play toi keep a key character alive who might then do huge damage. If your opponent has no such protection...

Be fair, guys. There is more emphasis on unique characters in the 2nd Ed. Core Set than at any other time in the history of the game, including the CCG and 1st Ed. LCG. With only the Core Set and its relatively few options for extra kills and high-claim challenges, it is easy see where duplicates could play a larger - and potentially unbalancing - role in individual games and match-ups.

That said, all the advice about why the duplicate rule isn't nearly as bad for the game as it may seem is good advice that will become more apparent as the card pool grows. Assuming the card pool develops to embrace the same brutal nature as past iterations of the game, duplicates will eventually feel like NOT enough to protect your unique characters.

Put to the Sword is a 2 cost card, duplicates are free. Most likely, as they are unique, they will save the intended target of that card (assuming no counter play from the Hands Judgement).

I just think it's a huge deal.

I'm sure as the card pool grows the game's balance will increase, but we only have for now to go on and I don't like to see a game where the choices are limited if you want to be competitive.

In my experience in second edition, even with just the core, duplicates are more often a necessity born of limited cardpool (I don't have enough good cards, and I want to see this great card earlier) than out of any particular desire to play duplicates. I understand you're frustrated at the negation of your military claim for "only" a card (still not a negligible resource) - and the same complaint gets levelled against the very potent Aemon (a repeatable save that's arguably even *better*) - but then again, that same complaint can be levelled at aemon in first edition (and often was).

Duplicates aren't useless, and decks have to be built to handle them (you'll notice a lot of decks run a combination of aggressive cards (Ice/Winter is Coming/Put to the Sword) with marched to the wall, to clear off a board even against a duplicated character, and you'll see quite a few competitive decks run Varys, following *him* up with a marched to the wall to clear off said protected character). The fact that a duplicate 'shut down' your single claim for a turn isn't a design flaw - it's an important balancing mechanic (and helps value other challenges in the later game). It's countered by the cards mentioned above, as well as the fact that any additional character can act as claim soak - but can also potentially contribute to your board state. That duplicated Robert isn't likely to die, sure, but I kneel him out with Filthy Accusations the same as I would if he weren't duplicated, and in doing so I've negated the contribution to challenges of two of your cards.

I tend to favour Bodyguards (which do roughly the same, but for a gold) because they're less often dead cards, they'll be set-up more often, they can prioritize important targets rather than whichever duplicate I happened to draw, and they can even be shifted to the right targets later in the game, by letting the bodyguardee die so the bodyguard returns to hand to be replaced later.

Military is not the only approach, and that sort of one-dimensional tack is likely to suffer to Game of Thrones, Calm Over Westeros, Bodyguards, Maester Aemon, cheap weenies, and, yes, duplicates. The fact that duplicates are "free" is directly offset by the risk inherent in running them - and I find that balance just about right.

People aren't running duplicates per se, they just have multiple copies as you would any card you want in hand. That they can be used in this way is a big bonus.

People aren't running duplicates per se, they just have multiple copies as you would any card you want in hand. That they can be used in this way is a big bonus.

I apologize for asking this, but are you and your friends using "duplicates" on non-unique characters with their additional copies? If so, you can only place duplicates of unique characters of the same title on your copy of them in play. I just wanted to be sure I understood your perspective a little more and remember you recently asked about the value of the core set only 2 weeks ago, so I assume you recently started playing.

In what way is the balance lacking? Players on an equal footing will have similar access to duplicates.

I suspect that duplicates will become less of a 'thing' as time rolls on; as more utility and different cards become available, cards that were originally chucked in triplicate will be downgraded to duplicate for space and then finally become singletons. In the 1st Edition I normally took one triplicate of a key character that I really wanted to draw, then maybe one or two duplicates - and then the rest as singles, because I preferred to have the flexibility.

It's fine.

Military is not the only approach, and that sort of one-dimensional tack is likely to suffer to Game of Thrones, Calm Over Westeros, Bodyguards, Maester Aemon, cheap weenies, and, yes, duplicates. The fact that duplicates are "free" is directly offset by the risk inherent in running them - and I find that balance just about right.

I say military because my deck is a direwolf deck

In what way is the balance lacking? Players on an equal footing will have similar access to duplicates.

I suspect that duplicates will become less of a 'thing' as time rolls on; as more utility and different cards become available, cards that were originally chucked in triplicate will be downgraded to duplicate for space and then finally become singletons. In the 1st Edition I normally took one triplicate of a key character that I really wanted to draw, then maybe one or two duplicates - and then the rest as singles, because I preferred to have the flexibility.

It's fine.

Balance refers specifically to the difference between factions. Take Robb Stark compared to Jaime Lannister; imo clearly one is just plain better. Obviously both are intended to work within the context of the them of their deck/house, but Robb's ability is way more specific and situational.

People aren't running duplicates per se, they just have multiple copies as you would any card you want in hand. That they can be used in this way is a big bonus.

I apologize for asking this, but are you and your friends using "duplicates" on non-unique characters with their additional copies? If so, you can only place duplicates of unique characters of the same title on your copy of them in play. I just wanted to be sure I understood your perspective a little more and remember you recently asked about the value of the core set only 2 weeks ago, so I assume you recently started playing.

i know duplicates can only be used on unique characters.

They are by and large the only ones you'd want duplicated

Balance refers specifically to the difference between factions. Take Robb Stark compared to Jaime Lannister; imo clearly one is just plain better. Obviously both are intended to work within the context of the them of their deck/house, but Robb's ability is way more specific and situational.

Ah, but see I disagree entirely. Given how powerful Baratheon is, Robb's ability - as a functional counter to kneel, Robb's unconditional renown for all challenges, the chance of at least winning dominance, and for his direct synergy with Grey Wind - I consider him a considerably superior character to Jaime. I think you'll find a lot of veterans agreeing with me! But that's the beauty of it - with the exception of a few extremely clear cut cases, there's room for disagreement - the balance is surprisingly good. Obviously, your results will vary as you learn to counter each strategy in turn, but to give you an idea of the "competitive" scene as I've experienced it through OCTGN and interaction with the boards/metas, it went something like this

-Week1: Everyone say GJ best.

-Week2: Everyone finds Targ, with Dracarys, a problem

-Week4: Baratheon Featly dominates

-Week6: Lanni N/A emerges, challening Bara Fealty

-Week7: A sizeable tournament is won by Targ Fealty, while Targ N/A is a top contender. GJ is also on the rise.

-Week8: Targ/Lion, Stark/Kraken, Stark/Sun all appear pretty popular.

-Week9: Two sizeable tournaments, Bara Fealty takes one, Lanni/Rose takes another.

-Week9: People begin to talk about Minicurve decks (Esp including Martell and NW, previously dismissed as by far the weakest two factions) as real contenders.

So, sure, there's still probably an "Easiest" top tier build: bara fealty - but the competitive meta-game is surprisingly wide open, and Stark hasn't been particularly ill-served by the core set. I would argue that if duplicates were really a problem for "balance", military oriented factions (like that Lanni N/A build heavily focused on PttS, or that Stark/Sun, or Targ/Lion (Drogo/Jaim)) would be at inherent disadvantage, which they don't seem to be. Night's watch, with the easiest repeatable save in the game, would be performing particularly well - which it hasn't been (until maybe this week - and not because of Aemon)

Being able to untap your guys is great, certainly. That isn't my problem, it's that it requires you to lose one of your guys to do so.

Balance refers specifically to the difference between factions. Take Robb Stark compared to Jaime Lannister; imo clearly one is just plain better. Obviously both are intended to work within the context of the them of their deck/house, but Robb's ability is way more specific and situational.

-Week1: Everyone say GJ best.

And they said the Meta couldn't be solved in the first week.

etc etc.

Cheap characters exist to get thrown under the bus and eat military challenges to stop the big guys dying. The fact that it puts your line back on their feet is completely amazing.

I preface this by saying, I am not trying to be mean.

Dupes are a part of the game, learn to deal with them. And I mean that not in a condescending way, but as constructively as I can express it.

You obviously have just started playing AGoT, and that is awesome!

No doubt your learning curve will be steeper than some who have been playing for years, but after a few weeks you will figure out how to deal with dupes.

The game is not unbalanced by them, you'll just have to take our word for it (having played the game since it started as a CCG nearly a decade ago).

If you can still honestly say you think dupes unbalance the game after you have played for six months, I will shake your hand and agree to disagree.

Balance refers specifically to the difference between factions. Take Robb Stark compared to Jaime Lannister; imo clearly one is just plain better. Obviously both are intended to work within the context of the them of their deck/house, but Robb's ability is way more specific and situational.

-Week1: Everyone say GJ best.

And they said the Meta couldn't be solved in the first week.

etc etc.

Being able to untap your guys is great, certainly. That isn't my problem, it's that it requires you to lose one of your guys to do so.

Cheap characters exist to get thrown under the bus and eat military challenges to stop the big guys dying. The fact that it puts your line back on their feet is completely amazing.

Like I said: his ability isn't bad at all. It's just not as good.

Making it work requires more. Getting your line on their feet is great, but you are losing to make that happen - a character has to be lost. Again, it isn't bad at all. It's just not as useful.

The cardpool may expand to make certain factions more competitive, but it is a shame that it's not more balanced out of the box. I consider that important because it's important to me that i can build a deck of my own choice and be comeptitive rather than be dictated to by the metagem and because people coming to the game should feel that their favourite house is as good in play as any other.

I feels as though you're falling foul of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, a little.

The cardpool may expand to make certain factions more competitive, but it is a shame that it's not more balanced out of the box. I consider that important because it's important to me that i can build a deck of my own choice and be comeptitive rather than be dictated to by the metagem and because people coming to the game should feel that their favourite house is as good in play as any other.

Except, even if they were perfectly balanced (and no one's claiming they are, although they're much closer than you give them credit for), they'd still be different. There'd still be an element of rock-paper-siscors, where your Stark deck feels weak because your friend always plays Greyjoy with Aeron, which is a better counter for it. Your military-pressure deck *will* be weaker against certain kind of decks - conversely, it'll be stronger against decks, like the Lanni N/A, designed to work well against Bara Fealty. There'd still be some decks that are easier to play, easier to assemble optimally (e.g. Bara Fealty), and some that take a lot of tweaking to get right. That doesn't mean the latter style of faction is inherently weaker - it just means there's something in the core for a lot of different styles of players .

To me, an aggro deck's complaint about duplicates sound like the same complaint a Bara player might have about stand effects, a NW might have about stealth or Wildfire, a Martell player might .. you get the point. The fact that there exist mechanics that efficiently counter each strategy isn't a design flaw. The fact that the relative balance between each strategy will change over time as the cardpool expands isn't one either.

I feels as though you're falling foul of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, a little.

I've no idea what that means

The cardpool may expand to make certain factions more competitive, but it is a shame that it's not more balanced out of the box. I consider that important because it's important to me that i can build a deck of my own choice and be comeptitive rather than be dictated to by the metagem and because people coming to the game should feel that their favourite house is as good in play as any other.

Except, even if they were perfectly balanced (and no one's claiming they are, although they're much closer than you give them credit for), they'd still be different. There'd still be an element of rock-paper-siscors, where your Stark deck feels weak because your friend always plays Greyjoy with Aeron, which is a better counter for it. Your military-pressure deck *will* be weaker against certain kind of decks - conversely, it'll be stronger against decks, like the Lanni N/A, designed to work well against Bara Fealty. There'd still be some decks that are easier to play, easier to assemble optimally (e.g. Bara Fealty), and some that take a lot of tweaking to get right. That doesn't mean the latter style of faction is inherently weaker - it just means there's something in the core for a lot of different styles of players .

To me, an aggro deck's complaint about duplicates sound like the same complaint a Bara player might have about stand effects, a NW might have about stealth or Wildfire, a Martell player might .. you get the point. The fact that there exist mechanics that efficiently counter each strategy isn't a design flaw. The fact that the relative balance between each strategy will change over time as the cardpool expands isn't one either.

There should be adequate counters for anything without requiring a specific build.

One of the things that annoys me about imbalance in games like this is having to include cards i wouldn't otherwise just to counter what someone else might play because the threat of X is really strong. All card games have suffered from this and it is ultimately what kills them because you end up going down the rabbit hole of magic bullets and bad design having to counter things that, perhaps, ought not to have been included.

I can only imagine how frustrating it might be to face a deck that happens to tap out all your cards without playing, ironically, a robb or ned stark - and really they are the only two characters that can help. One is loyal and both are expensive. Even then, there's no guarantee.

Eight factions have been squeezed into the game right out of the gate and it might have been better working with fewer.

Here is the deck I've been trying to build. It's just not really working in the current environment which is frustrating.

New deck: House Stark, Banner of the Watch

House Stark / Banner of the Watch

Packs: Core Set (3)

Plots
1x A Storm of Swords (Core Set)
1x Calling the Banners (Core Set)
1x Filthy Accusations (Core Set)
1x Heads on Spikes (Core Set)
1x Marched to the Wall (Core Set)
1x Sneak Attack (Core Set)
1x Wildfire Assault (Core Set)

Characters
3x Wildling Horde (Core Set)
3x Benjen Stark (Core Set)
3x Ghost (Core Set)
3x Jon Snow (Core Set)
3x Ranging Party (Core Set)
3x Grey Wind (Core Set)
3x Summer (Core Set)
3x Direwolf Pup (Core Set)
3x Tumblestone Knight (Core Set)
3x Vanguard of the North (Core Set)
3x Winterfell Steward (Core Set)

Locations
3x The Kingsroad (Core Set)
3x The Roseroad (Core Set)
3x Gates of Winterfell (Core Set)
3x The Wolfswood (Core Set)

Attachment
3x Milk of the Poppy (Core Set)

Events
3x Put to the Sword (Core Set)
3x The Hand's Judgment (Core Set)
3x For the North! (Core Set)
3x Winter Is Coming (Core Set)

There should be adequate counters for anything without requiring a specific build.

One of the things that annoys me about imbalance in games like this is having to include cards i wouldn't otherwise just to counter what someone else might play because the threat of X is really strong. All card games have suffered from this and it is ultimately what kills them because you end up going down the rabbit hole of magic bullets and bad design having to counter things that, perhaps, ought not to have been included.

I can only imagine how frustrating it might be to face a deck that happens to tap out all your cards without playing, ironically, a robb or ned stark - and really they are the only two characters that can help. One is loyal and both are expensive. Even then, there's no guarantee.

Eight factions have been squeezed into the game right out of the gate and it might have been better working with fewer.

The thing you're ignoring that Istaril pointed out is that people have decided that each faction is the best, in sequence on almost a weekly basis. This very much indicates that the game is pretty well balanced and we've just not explored all the possibilities of play.

What you're asking is to be able to put together what you want with no regard for anything else and stand as good a chance as anyone when it comes to winning. That's not going to happen, because people should be rewarded for coming up with interesting, meta-bending decks that demolish everything for a bit and the community then 'figures out' and defends against, reducing the amount of times that deck is fielded and levelling things out again.

It's the absolute best thing about games like this, the constant evolution.

Personally, I'm not good enough at Thrones to trailblaze, but I'm good enough to start coming up with counters - that's great fun. I think your issue is that you don't want to have to come up with counters because it interferes with your decks. So you either need get great and blaze some trails OR you need to accept that the community as a whole is more valuable than your need for everything to become homogenised.

Which is basically what you're asking for.