Judging by FFG's "upcoming" page we should see the first CP of the next cycle, Wolves of the North, turning up soon.

I wondered what other players expected from the set?

Some of my thoughts based on what we know about this cycle:

- The injection of more wildlings, Night's Watch and perhaps neutral 'creature' characters might make the epic battles events more viable. The kingdom locations that allow a card draw when you reduce the cost of these characters may get better if there are more viable cards of these types. That could revive this mechanic, which seems to have never really got off the ground. If it is the case, it won't help Baratheon much as their in-house epic phase event gives 3 cards for winning.

- The Baratheon location "The Wall" may become more interesting with more genuine Night's Watch cards to interact with. Denys Mallister in POTS already shows a new use for this card.

- Without knowing how stackable agendas will function it's hard to speculate on their effect. They could make the army that does not kneel when an opponent has an agenda more attractive if they are popular.

- The focus on the North might be intended to make Stark more viable by boosting a number of their synergies or strengths. Although, of course, our European friends already find them formidable. I've not decided in my own mind quite why this is the case. Some other threads have seen suggestions that it is the lack of Lanni control decks. It would be interesting to see a top-tier European Stark deck take on the ubiquitous N. American Lanni deck for a few games.

- Will direwolves make a decent archetype? I doubt it, even with these new wolves. Not only are most of the Core Set direwolves weak, but it seems that a deck focused on them (with kennels and kennelmaster etc.) will be the epitome of Stark's weaknesses: more big military than you need but a dirth of everything else.

- Lots of new neutral characters, if powerful, could lead to sameness between decks of different houses. That would be a shame.

Most of all, I am a little wary of the trend to introduce new mechanics in every CP cycle. It seems to me that there are lots of interesting mechanics to explore within the existing rules and I hope future CP cycles develop what we have rather than plastering more "add-ons" onto the game. There is a difficulty for new players in dealing with old tech (e.g. if they don't have Carrion Birds when playing Kings of Winter or if they go up against Bara characters that become powerful w/out cards in shadows). I'm not suggesting the season or shadows mechanics are broken, but that it will become frustrating if new players fell they need a series of old CPs just to have silver bullets or deterrents against these. Indeed, Stark players would have trouble using shadows cards for their house if they don't have winter tech from old CPs. The elegance and simplicity of the LCG distribution model could be undermined if too many new cards rely on older cards to function.

Winter said:

Ah, but don't forget that these new players will be in one of two positions:

1. Playing predominantly with other new players who, while not having the way to deal with old tech, will also not have the old tech. They're in the same boxes, so you either have both, or you have neither.

2. Playing with "old" players who were around when the old tech was new and have either moved on to other things (not as many season decks around these days...) or can either help with the new player's card pool by trading/lending some of their own.

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiment. It is disappointing how new mechanics are introduced, then seemingly abandoned, from cycle to cycle. I'm just saying that the metagame is probably more complex than "old players have it, new players don't; woe to the new players."

A fair point, but I suppose my main desire is that folks can buy the core set and then find cool new cards for their game in CPs rather than buying a CP and finding they need many other CPs to make use of them in their deck. My key example here is Stark shadows, which requires the winter CP. This isn't a case of making Stark shadows more powerful... it is a case of getting those cards to work at all.

After this cycle I'd like to see a cycle or two that simply develop the existing mechanics and the basic rules more. It shouldn't be hard to plug a few more bannerman effects into the game, for example. These could work perfectly well on their own whilst increasing the utility of the under-powered old banner attachment / bannerman cards.

I suppose I see new themes as falling into two categories (though I see that, much like defining a combo, this is a legitimate matter for debate):

"New rules": Obviously shadows counts as this, but I'd count the Epic Phase and Seasons in this category too as - while not requiring rules supplements - they add major new conditions or phases. Stackable agendas will probably be like this.

"Group synergy:" I'd put the city plots, bannerman cycle and obvious traits synergy like Night's Watch or House Dayne here. These cards behave like many in the core set but with new words or synergies.

I've received an email that Wolves release date is the 28th Thursday so some stores may have it this week, many next week.

I am really looking forward to this set. I'm hoping to see some "in-house" Night's Watch characters, like Janos Slynt from the Ravens cycle. Perhaps there will be a Night's Watch Agenda that lets you ignore OOH penalties when playing a NW character (stackable, I would imagine, form what we are gatering of the concept). That way of someone wants to run a NW themed deck they can play those cards witout a penalty, but we may not see many grey decks.

And even the concept of a grey deck, like Winter provided us, doesn't seem all that likely. It's hard to imagine a chapter pack with 6-8 neutral cards, which is still only 36-48 of the whole set. I'm pretty sure Winter Edition alone had over that many neutrals. And we all know that Men With No King can be a threat to uber-powerful neutral cards, so that might control the over-abundance of grey decks as well. Maybe.

In any event, I am really looking forward to how this block is going to change the meta. Princes of the Sun has already changed how we play the game, and I expect this expansion will do the same.

JJ - I think you will be right about in-house Night's Watch characters. An FFG article has already suggested Benjen Stark will be a Stark house card. Not very nedly, but then I guess the participation of Night's Watch or Wildling characters in the struggle of the great houses against each other does not match the War of the Five Wings as we've seen it thus far in the books.

I agree that it would be nice to see a cycle with no new mechanics as eventually there will just be too many new things.

Maybe this one will have no new mechanics but just add synergy to make Nights Watch and Wildlings viable deck types.

Well, the stackable agendas are a new mechanic. But that may be the only one.

I too would like to see a cycle using only existing mechanics, including some from the the original ccg that haven't yet made it into the LCG assassination, conspiracy and invasion being foremost on my list! There may not have been alot of cards that took advantage of those concepts, but I loved them in play.

For those unfamiliar, each of the above required the character to have the two appropriate icons, and attacking alone, to trigger the special ability. They weren't keywords, but more shorthand to describe the ability. Each was a "claim replacement" effect, which means regaardless of what challenge was actually initiated, if the attacker won the new ability triggered instead of normal claim. Each card had a few characters with the ability (usually unique) and two eventand/or attachments that would grant the ability.

Assassination: Military+Intrigue: Choose and kill an character controlled by the losing opponent. The Red Viper and Pyat Pree

Conspiracy: Intrigue+Power: Look at the losing opponent's hand and choose a card to discard. Tyrion Lannister, Varys and Reek

Invasion: Military+Power: Choose a location controlled by the losing opponent and take control of that location. Victarion Greyjoy and some stark generic character.

On the other hand, I really, really hope we never see Doomed again. Although I didn't have a problem with it, I think it can stay relegated to the Winter block.

I too would like a return of claim replacement.

I'd like to see an Arryn House Card.

Winter said:

I'm curious on the "not very Nedly" part of Benjen being a House Stark card. The picture isn't quite clear about the original banquet at Winterfell, but I'm assuming his entry with the other Lords and Ladies was due to his surname and not with his status as First Ranger, though I could be wrong. Regardless of what a person gives up when joining the Watch I think they maintain certain prejudices. And certainly in a Lanni/Night's Watch deck, I could see you paying the Out-of-House penalty on Benjen to cover the chagrin and trouble he would make, knowing his fellow were being manipulated to help a specific house to which he feels no loyalty.

Why were the 5KE versions of Jaime and Loras Kingsguard but still with a house affiliation?

Maester_LUke said:

I think Luke makes an interesting argument. A Night's Watch character could have an affilitiation mostly to increase it's cost if played in a deck in which the affilition is absurdly non-nedly.

Regarding the books, I think the Kingsguard characters, as we see them in the times the story goes, still maintain close business with the Houses they were originally affliated. Jaime was never loyal to Robert, but Lannister to the core. Same as Loras. So I don't think it's just a question of a definite mechanic...

At the Night's Watch, affiliation seems to be abandoned more drastically. It could be because the Night's Watch is an entire organization in itself, and not just seven knights serving the King. But we can see some afiilitions that lingers... I would picture Janos Slynt as having a Lannister affiliation, because, even if he became Night's Watch, he still payed heed to Lannister's interests...

Other cards would be more difficult to say. Benjen made plans with Ned to reorganize the Gift area near The Wall, to help both the Night's Watch and House Stark (but mostly the Night's Watch and the protection of the realm). But then again that could be just a brother-friendship matter, and Eddard was honoroble and concerned enough to help the Night's Watch regardless of his brother beign First Ranger. And this title, as it came to that, could mean the reason why Benjen entered the Stark Hall with the lord ans ladyes, but it could be that way just because the Starks honored him as being their kin.

Jon Snow thought about leaving The Wall, but never did. Same for Maester Aemon, three times, but at the end of his life he was talking about helping Daenerys... or... he could be just concerned about the safety of the realm. G. R. R. Martin is a great author regarding grey shades. It is very difficult to arrange any game mechanics to adapt to such a work. The phases of characters too add to this. Jaime Lannister was one thing in the first book, and quite another at the fourth: even if he kept honoring Lannister's interests, I would think he did that more because he was the Kingsguard Lord Commander than because of his original affiliation... And Tyrion? Has he becomed a neutral character? Regarding affiliation as the original meaning of the word, I would think so... but I couldn't imagine Tyrion being anything than Lannister to the core, even if an independent one.

Actually, we could have an expansion to the game in which the affiliation mechanics changed a lot. Not that I would expect that, or even hope for that, but I imagined it could be done. FFG could release a Night's Watch "House" Card, for instance, and an Agenda that would make every card having "Night's Watch" trait to have this affilition as well. We all know the Houses chosen to be the great Houses of the game are more or less arbitrary... At least, there could be others in whose importance is almost as high. House Arryn has been suggested here. The Baratheon affiliation is a problem, because it holds a very, very wide spectrum partcular affiliations: Robert afiiliated, Renly affiliated, Stannis affiliated... The House Baratheon of The Song of Ice and Fire showed us all how complex House affilition could be... And House Tyrell is kind of a problem. After the fall of Robert, and later Renly, House Tyrell became a power far beyound that of House Baratheon... And they surely don't lack important characters and minor houses as their vassals, as we can see already in the game. Their affiliation nominally changed for House Lannister, but never really: they are a more independent power than when they were the strenght behind Renly. So either we keep imagining them as Baratheon... and put them together with the very different claim from Stannis... or we could imagine a Tyrell House Card.

I really, really miss claim replacement. Pyatt Pree and direct assault would be GREAT reprints.

Stag Lord said:

I agree that claim replacement was a fun aspect of the game. I think if it came back, I'd prefer to see it primarily on support cards (events, attachments, maybe even locations) than directly on characters. Well, maybe some key uniques.

ktom said:

Agreed, I think I'd bring back Pyat Pree and Victarion, and give us a Doran Martell for the IP replacement. Then give the original three houses events.

i'm w/ ktom on this, no charcaters. especially not with the plot that only can declare one attacker one defender per attack.

Claim replacment was fun and probably impacted the challenge phase without having to be on the table.....ohhh, he is Intriguing me with a puny Mil/Int guy and i don't have a lot of cards in hand....i better win by 3 STR....

It would solve some issues (character control, more house universal location control) but i'm not sure how much it would affect the balance of the game (i don't remember stark getting much use out of claim replacement) but might welcome it if it could be used on shadows (instead of claim look at cards in 1 opponent's shadows area and discard one of them).

Lars said:

Now there's an interesting idea. Does it have to be the return of Assassination, Conspiracy and Invasion? Could claim replacement be mixed up a bit and address some of the "missing" elements of the game in a slightly different way? For example:

Taxed by the Crown.
Event
Challenges: Choose a character with an intrigue icon attacking alone during a military challenge. Until the end of the challenge, that character gets +2 STR. If you win the challenge, you may choose and discard X locations from play instead of executing the normal claim effects. X is your claim value.

Lighting the Way
Event
Challenges: Choose a character with a power icon attacking alone during an intrigue challenge. Until the end of the challenge, that character gains Stealth. If you win the challenge, you may choose and discard X cards in Shadows instead of executing the normal claim effects. X is your claim value.

Disarm
Event
Challenges: Choose a character with a military icon attacking alone during a power challenge. Until the end of the challenge, that character gains Deadly. If you win the challenge, you may choose and discard X attachments from play instead of executing the normal claim effects. X is your claim value.

The People's Champion
Event
Challenges: Choose a character with a military, an intrigue and a power icon attacking alone during a challenge. Until the end of the challenge, that character gains Renown. If you win the challenge, you may draw X cards instead of executing the normal claim effects. X is your claim value.

Those are some cool ideas, and I like Luke suggesting Doran with Conspiracy (I'm not a huge fan of the current Doran, but I love the House of Talons one, ability and artwork). The reason I like character with claim replacement is because it sends a signal either that I can do something to you, or that I need to stop you from doing something to me. But with the events (and this is not a bad thing) is tht they are a surprise, and one that needs to be taken into consideration. There was a time when just attacking with a character with Mil/Int icons meant I had to fear for him becoming an assassin in the middle of the challenge.

Looking forward to tomorrow when hopefully we'll get our copies of Wolves of the North, and I can finally see what sort of love our game is going to get.

Ktom's idea for new claim replacement events is superb. =)

I loved claim replacement. It offered some of the best opportunities for bluffing I've seen in a CCG.

ktom said:

I love those ideas. *thumbs up*

I like KTom's suggestion; I had never heard of that mechanic before.

On a tangent, I wanted to throw out a deck design I'd been playing with for a while, which this cycle may make possible.

The three Kingdom reducers for NW, Wildlings and Clansmen/creatures allow you to draw a card while you have an Epic Battle card next to your deck. Claw Isle and the Greyjoys' Besieged Shipyards have nice synergy and free draws in an Epic Phase. The only problem is that the best Epic Battle, Bara's Battle at the Wall, negates any benefit from these locations because of the draw cap.

Fast forward to the 3rd CP in the new cycle and we're told "Dolorous Edd increases your draw cap for each The North agenda you are running". Therefore, I'm thinking this may be a way to make the epic phase work out of Bara if you can get the 4th and 5th card draw in a turn from the Kingdom reducers and the epic phase power-twiddling locations. Given Delorous Edd is a NW character he fits nicely into the deck, which could run The Rangers and The Wall.

Winter said:

Well, here's the thing: when you say "make the Epic Phase work," what are you really thinking? What does a working Epic Phase look like and do for you? In this instance, you seem to be trying to make the Epic Phase work as a draw engine, but to do that, you need to load up your deck with cards that don't do much else than let you draw cards. When your draw engine takes up 25-33% of your deck and is only a draw engine, you end up defeating the purpose. There are probably more efficient ways to draw cards in Baratheon. To be honest, my experience so far isn't that the Epic Phase doesn't "work" so much as there isn't much point in making it work. Either I'm working really hard for a minimal personal benefit or I'm giving my opponent too much of an opportunity to benefit from my work.

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with your idea here - and it would be cool to see - but it seems to me that the deck will spend so much time making the draw work that it forgets to actually win the game. Just a gut feeling, though.

KTom - You may be right. My definition of the epic phase "working" is that it provides me with a good return for my effort. My thinking here is that with more NW and Wildlings the kingdom locations become useful. The Besieged shipyard and Claw Isle have decent card effects to start with, but would be even nicer with draws. But as you say, it may require too much of a set-up to make the draws worthwhile. I will definitely give it a try, though.

I may be wrong, but I don't believe those cards were Kingdom traited. They would be much better if they were,

Yeah, they are Kingdom cards.