What Comments and ideas from the board do you never see play out in the actual play environment? There always seems to be some disconnect, but with the game going more local and less national/international, what ideas never play out in your local/regional meta?

I'll start with my sentimental favorite house. THE MYTH OF STARK MURDER BECOMING TOO DOMINANT. For all you players who hail back to the Westy 40 card deck, maybe that was a serious threat, but it's been along time since I've seen Stark do well at major tournaments outside of Europe and the East Coast of the US. But every so often, a reason cited for Stark not being given in-house or neutral X, Y, or Z is the great fear of STARK MURDER BECOMING TOO DOMINANT. Really? Is Stark Murder really running your meta into the ground? Is it making Bara rush, Lanni kneel, Targ Burn, Martell vengeance/icon manip unplayable? I would figure Greyjoy could save from it.

Any thoughts on the STARK MURDER myth? What myths do you read all the time on the boards?

Yeah, as far as Stark goes, Murder is really lacking at the moment because they have search a dearth of the direct kill events and effects that they used to have access to. Right now they have, what? Robb Stark, Bear Island, and Icy Catapult? And I suppose Winter is Coming sorta counts as extra, though not targetted.

Don't you forget Guilty! and Die for your King!, although the latter is not Stark only.

Yeah Stark murder was pretty mean back in the day but I don't think its much of a problem now. I did start kinda worrying about it when ITE, 5KE and the first chapter packs were out. I mean stark could kill like six dudes a turn! Every turn! well at least four a turn. But no one seemed to be playing stark then anyway, so it was fine.

For me the biggest myth in recent times was the whole Men with No King. I still to this day have yet to lose to a Men with No King deck.

Also I just don't get how everyone seems to think that Outfox would be the worst thing to ever happen to LCG. ~I mean did you SEE the art on that Ravens Selyse?!

Staton said:

The deck wasn't the myth. The myth was that the card would make people stop playing neutrals whether anyone played it or not (the way Black Walder pretty much made people think twice about playing a Treaty deck just by existing).

I think one of the most persistent myths in the whole game, at least since mid-2005, is that Ally is a negative trait. There is very little that adversely affects Allys (two cards in the entire LCG card pool, including PotS?), but people still tend to say "be careful; it's an Ally."

ktom said:

A myth that seemed single-handedly perpetuated by Rings!

As a quick agreement to the original post, I gotta say that it's hard to even understand that there exists such an archetype as Stark Murder. Even lannister has an equal amount of decent kills in LCG. ~Unless I've gotten this whole thing wrong and Stark Murder refers to Starks getting absolutely murdered all the time (in Joust, not as much in melee)? But then again, that IS nedly...

Dude - GREAT topic!

Totally agree - Stark murder hasn't been scary since early rotation took out Five Kings.

Agree with staton too. Why anyone would think Plot cancel would be a bad thing is beyond me.

Its the same thing wiht Shadows hate - NO strategy should be risk free in this game and right now there is no downside to running Valar,(Claim 0 - please> any godo control deck works right around that) and there is no downside to putting cards in Shadows.

My boogeyman: that if Baratheon got a little neutral draw they would be broken. because we all know how historically reliable Baratheon rush has been! LOL.

The biggest myth in the LCG is that Shadows mechanics are "risk-free" and that there is "no downside to putting cards in shadows".

instead of just qouting text you don't like, why don't you provide some examples of risks or downsides to cards in shadows...

to get you started the advantages, in no particular order, of cards in shadows:

1) avoid INT challenges

2) downpayments

3) used to boost cards that count cards in shadows

4) 2 free ways to get them in there, with other ways to reduce the costs of them both going in and coming out

5) avoid resets (all 3: hand, location, and character)

6) Strong and cheap characters

7) flip any phase so very flexible

8) trigger off of other cards coming out of shadows

9) crest itself provides some protect (i.e. condemed by the council, Alcamist guild hall)

10) city plots add instant plot deck synergy.

And whatever "downside" you come up with - is almost surely going to be more than outweighed by the many, many benefits. Its defitneily not Martin's world when you have such high percentage plays as Shadows and reveal Plots available to you.

If Shadows mechanics were so dominant where the positives outweigh the negatives so absolutely then why aren't shadows decks dominating every tournament that gets posted?

The top four decks at Black Friday, the recent European tournaments and our recent California tournaments do not show Shadows decks dominating. To the contrary I believe the majority of tournaments are currently being won by non-Shadows decks.

I'm not as big on theorycrafting hypotheticals (its too much of the "on paper" argument and too little of how things actually play out in game) because you can always make up hypotheticals on message board theory crafting that do not always reflect how things play out in reality. You really are over simplifying things.

For instance many of the "positives" listed could actually turn into negatives in reality.

Lars, you are mistaken in that Shadows characters are "cheap". Most good shadows are actually quite expensive. Tyrion in a Targ City of Shadows is 5 Gold which is quite expensive. Even in Lannister, many of the good Shadows characters are actually 3+ gold. Even City of Shadows doesn't eliminate out of house gold penalty of 1 so in actual play Shadows decks are quite slow and expensive.

"Flip any phase" neglects that cards can only come out of Shadows once per phase at the very beginning of the phase. Too many cards in Shadows and you can't bring them out in time for challenge phase. Often the Shadows player must make a trade off of what is coming out of shadows and when. Make the wrong choice and you could be screwing yourself.

The "avoid resets" is very situational and does not take into account the double edge sword, again it is "on paper" theory crafting without actual play results. The reality is that Valar is 2 gold and having several cards in shadows means nothing if the Shadows player only has gold to bring out one character while the other player has 5 gold to bring out more characters with actual claim on their plot.

First, let me say that the dearth of Shadows-themed decks placing in the few events we've had since the entire cycle has been available is not proof that there are significant downsides to the mechanic. Lack of a themed deck is not a lack of mechanic use. Some of the strength of Shadows is that it can be leveraged without making it the focus of the deck. For example, I don't need to use the Shadows Agenda in order to make Syrio, Arya and King's Landing a strong addition to my deck.

That said, the biggest "downside" to Shadows is that they change the flow and pacing of the game. I've seen people forget that they have cards in Shadows, or mismanage resources, or be so thrown by the Shadows thing that they miss other opportunities. It takes some getting used to, and not everyone has the patience for it. Worse, for some people, I can see the whole "do you bring anything out of Shadows" addition to the beginning of each phase make the game feel less like Thrones for some people. That's where all those "benefits" become "drawbacks," too: it throws people off and/or distracts them from other aspects of the round.

Essentially, folks who feel "if I pay for it now, I should be able to use it now" are the ones most likely to fall into the "downside" of Shadows. The mechanic requires you to think further ahead and play a longer-term game than (sorry folks) most Thrones players are used to thinking.

ktom said:

Ktom,

Some very good points. However, I do think the lack of a dominant City of Shadows deck in multi-metas does show the downside to the mechanic. Shadows mechanic is good but too much Shadows mechanic in a deck is not necessarily better.

Of course there are good cards that are Shadows but unless you are playing the Agenda, those can't be used out of House. You do need Shadows Agenda to make Arya work in any House besides Stark. Also, Kings Landing really only works well in Targ, Lanni and Bara since those are only Houses with good Kings Landing in-House locations.

You also mention another downsides to Shadows: "forgetting they have cards that need to be brought out at the start of the phase".

To go back to Lars post, another positive that can be a negative is the trigger on cards coming out of shadows. If opponent has Alchemist Guild Hall r Tyrion or Queen of Thorns then I am hurt by bringing my own cards out of Shadows.

LaughingTree said:

I'd agree that Shadows too much Shadow in a deck is not necessarily better. But the point being argued here is "the Shadows mechanic has few, if any, down sides." The lack of a dominant City of Shadows deck does not refute that point; it only states that loading a deck with a single mechanic, even a strong one with few down sides, does not make a superior deck.

LaughingTree said:

So, are you saying this is a downside to the mechanic? You seem to be implying that since I cannot play Venomous Blade outside of Martell without the Agenda, it is somehow a less useful card within Martell, or that the mechanic fails in provide benefits that are worthwhile when compared to the drawbacks (such as not being able to play it OOH?) to the Martell player. That doesn't make sense to me. Again, the lack of universality of the cards does not provide a convincing argument that there are significant downsides to the mechanic when applied within the narrower scope.

LaughingTree said:

Yeah, I don't agree with that. They certainly have the most, but they tend to be unique and sparsely used. It isn't hard to stay ahead of the King's Landing curve in Stark, Greyjoy or even Martell if you really want to.

So what is the point that we're trying to get at here? That the Shadows mechanic carries significant risk and down side or that the Shadows deck is never likely to be strong or dominant? I'm not saying Shadows is the be-all-end-all of risk-free mechanics, or even that there aren't certain risks to using Shadow cards at any level. What I am saying is that I don't see how the inherent limitations of building decks with and executing the Shadows mechanics (and most of the cited down sides thus far have really, more of less, been a recitation of the rules) makes Shadows cards less useful or more vulnerable than other cards within those limitations.

LaughingTree said:

Dan's Targ deck that placed 2nd at Black Friday was very shadow heavy. I don't think you need the agenda to be running a Shadow deck. In fact, most of the shadow decks are agendaless, but rely heavily on the mechanic.

And how many tournaments are being posted on the boards? The vast majority of local tournaments have never been reported on the boards. I think the concensus opinion is that AGOT is a fragmented game with wide ranging results in various metas. That's why I started this thread

ktom said:

Is this a joke comment Ktom?

For Lanni, Tunnels of the Red Keep and Alchemist's Guild Hall are Kings Landing, Targ has Dragonpit and Aegon's Hill and Bara has Black Cells, Kingswood Trail.

There are no comparable Kings Locations in the other three Houses that are Kings Landing and in my Lanni, Targ and Bara decks I have never had even close to a problem staying ahead on the KL curve against Stark, GJ and Martell. In the builds of Lanni, Targ and Bara that use KL I don't foresee anyway other than a very bad flop and opening is going to allow the other three to stay ahead.

Maybe your meta is different and your Lanni, Targ and Bara players don't use those locations I mentioned but I have multiples of all six of those in my cards in their respective builds using Kings Landing draw engine and imo in a Lanni, Targ or Bara shadows build those locations are pretty much staples.

ktom said:

The former. I believe there is significant risk and downside to the Shadows mechanic as I already mentioned that some posts completely fail to realize when they take a tone of complaint regarding certain cards without realizing the negatives to actually playing those cards.

If you would like I could re-organize my first response to Lars and detail precisely how many of his one liner "positives" are actually not positives in real life gameplay. I agree completely that it might *seem* like Shadows mechanics has few downsides but in actual in game situations things don't always play out the way is theory crafted on message boards. It seems to me that many forget that just because cards that are Shadows crest are very good cards, that somehow the Shadows mechanic is over powered which it is not in my opinion. Some of the best LCG cards happen to key off this mechanic. Its just a new mechanic that some people perhaps are not used to thinking about but I think the mechanic is very balanced.

The point about a lack of a dominant City of Shadows deck seems to be getting missed completely.

If the Shadows mechanic was so uber with not much downside wouldn't you think the agenda that allows any House access to all Shadows crest cards would produce a dominant archetype?

Perhaps the reason that City of Shadows agenda is not dominating gameplay is that the negative downsides to the shadow mechanic are more subtle and not as apparent until you actual trying playing a deck that breaks the Shadow mechanics. I think what I saying is that trying playing City of Shadows agenda builds in several houses (as I have) and you will start to see more downsides emerging than if you just played against a Lannister Shadows deck that happened to have more Shadows crest than a usual Lannister (which could be just as good but just not as Shadows heavy).

LaughingTree said:

BTW: Stark can actually field as many in-House KL locations as Targ - 4 - for less than half the gold (Targ has 4 unique KL locations that cost a total of 11 gold; Stark has a unique that costs 2 and a non-unique that costs 1 for a total of 5 gold). If Stark wants to go toe-to-toe with Targ on the KL curve, they can - and probably come out on top.

I agree completely that a Lanni or Bara deck that is trying to stay ahead and utilize KL is going to have the edge over everyone else, but any of the Houses can make very good use of King's Landing if they plan and play correctly.

The other aspect you have to consider is that most of those KL locations in Lanni or Bara are Shadows-centric. If Shadow cards are too negative and not worth the risk, people are not likely to be playing with those cards, so my GJ, Stark or Martell deck that is making use of Shadows and neutral KLs suddenly has a pretty good draw engine in King's Landing. It's a metagame shift - and risk - to playing the card as your primary source of draw. But it can work, both well and consistently, in any House. I've certainly out-drawn a Baratheon opponent with a Stark Shadows deck utilizing King's Landing.

LaughingTree said:

Ah. This might be the difference i our assumptions. I don't think that anyone is saying that the Shadows mechanic is overpowered or even unbalanced. They are saying that the cost/risk threshold of most, if not all, Shadow cards worth playing is relatively low. Now, I will agree with you that much of what balances the Shadow mechanic is metagame related, and thus often difficult for people to verbalize - or even appreciate academically. But when playing a game, once I get the card into Shadows, I really have very few worries about it until I am ready to bring it out. Sure, I can misplay or mess up my timing (and am likely to), but I can do that with any card, Shadows or otherwise. Seems to me that the only drawback to Shadows cards that is not inherent in just about every other card is the "delayed gratification" aspect. I agree wholeheartedly that this balances the mechanic (and potentially slows your deck).

I think that in countering the argument (that I didn't see others making, but there you go) that Shadows cards are risk-free to the point of being overpowered, you came off as saying they are flawed to the point of being poor choices in a deck. This clarification that you are trying to argue a balanced mechanic where others have perceived an overpowered one makes a lot of this discussion come into focus.

LaughingTree said:

Not necessarily. Strong mechanics do not necessarily produce dominant, or even new, archetypes. Look at the seasons. Summer and Winter didn't really create new archetypes; they added breadth, though not much depth, to existing ones. Shadows does something similar. Throwing all the Shadows cards together in a deck doesn't make a particularly strong deck any more than throwing all the Winter cards together in a deck does. You still have to have a strategy and a plan. Shadows as a mechanic is a tool, but even an uber-tool needs to be leveraged properly.

You've obviously seen that, as I have, in trying Shadows out of many different Houses. Some Houses use the tool better than others, but in none of them does the simple presence of the tool create an insurmountable obstacle for an opponent.

Laughing Tree - two of the Top Four at Black Friday were very heavy shadow theme decks: twn2Dn's Targ build (as KpmcCoy points out) and sithlords Lanni Tunnels build - which BTW went 4-0-1 in the Swiss round.

Not that it matters since no one is arguing that shadows (as a mechanic) is broken. What soem fo us feel si that it is unbalanced - which is somewhat different. Over the course of the game's history, there have been drawbacks to alomst eveyr staretgy, and where there weren't, R&D would address the imbalance. Sorry to say: but right now there are minaiml drawbacks to running Shadow theme decks or Shadow cards in general, assuming the correct resource curve and play style.

The only thing that really bugs me about shadows is how weak the cards that fight it are. The only cards that attack cards in shadows directly are City Watch and By the Light of the Sun (I think). City Watch is kind of clunky and specific to one house. By the Light of Sun is totally dead against someone not running shadows and isn't even that exciting against shadows (they spend 2 gold; you win an intrigue challenge and then just maintain card parity) - if you another ability like pay 1 gold and discard it during dominance to draw a card I'd feel a lot better about it. I know there are other cards that hurt your opponent for running shadows, but they have to sit in play and your opponent can choose to deal with them before bringing more cards out of shadows.

Exactly the point several of us are making.

I concur with those who think we need more cards to be able to disrupt shadows. It's fine as a mechanic, but I just don't think there are enough things out there (for all houses) to be able to disrupt someone else's shadow cards. That is likely to change, since FFG has always done a good job of balancing things in this game (in my opinion). Certain things may be dominant for a while, but eventually even out.

Looking forward to the next cycle to see what goodies may be out there. I think Stark needs some love and the next cycle seems to be right up their alley (at least thematically).

Cheers,

ASoIaFfan

ASoIaFfan said:

Not entirely sure about this. I mean, there are only three ways to "turn off" the season (Carrion Bird, the plot, or change it to the opposite season). People were making similar comments 6-ish months ago about how there were relatively few ways to disrupt someone's seasons. The "balancing" seems to have come more in the form of de-emphasizing the mechanic in the KL cycle than to actually introduce disruptions. Same thing could happen to Shadows.

IMO the answer to Shadows is dealing with the cards that are in hand and in play. Having a card in Shadows protects it from a lot of stuff... but that does you no good if the turn you bring it into play you lose it, if the card in play that is looking to your shadows for a boost is taken out of play, you lack gold to bringer the non-zeros into play, or they are getting stripped from your hand or deck before they can be put into Shadows.

I have yet to see a Shadows deck where any of these tactics wouldn't cripple the deck if done right, in the same way they would cripple a non-Shadows deck. Even the much tauted Targ and Lanni builds can be handled with targeted location and character hate, just like any other deck. This leads me to believe the problem is that problem people have with Shadows is more an emotional one, that there is a card or three sitting off to the side that you can't effectively touch until your opponent decides to make them vulnerable is incredibly frustrating... especially to control players.

I sympathize with this and do think a stronger Shadows hate card or two needs to be introduced into the environment, but I am still against a plot based reset.

dormouse said:

With you on this, Dormouse. Don't think we need a plot-based shadow disruption. Was thinking more along the lines of events, characters, locations, or some combination thereof.