Rings' post rmeinds me - I gotta call Lars out on somehting:

Dude : you were right with me on Fury of the Stag a few months back. We were both arguing it pretty much made Targ unplayable heading into GenCon . Dormouse and Dobbler were arguing wiht us, but not a whole lot changed with end of KL block last fall to change my mind. Perma steal is still way, way powerful and it sort of forces Targ to be a reset house, cause they will surely have to kill their own best dude - and they also have to play really slowly the first couple of turns. which can be death against Baratheon.

Fury of the Stag should always be on R&D's watch list. It is dangerously strong, and I thought you were in agreement on this.

rings said:

I _liked_ it as printed... it was far more likely to be abused in a one-sided fashion than Wildfire or Valar. I would be happy with removing "printed" from STR or making it saveable (and there aren't that many saves from discard right now.

I hate banning cards, but I'm slowly coming around on the Fury plots myself. Probably because the issue is way more pronounced as Baratheon just sped up recently with Seat of Power, making them more viable. The inequity between the Fury plots is pronounced for sure, but I really hate steal effects in general, I think. I'm okay with Seductive Promise, as I like devaluing non-uniques. Those should be more vulnerable, I think. But Fury of the Stag is unsettlingly good and getting more unbalanced all the time as Baratheon gets faster and stronger.

I disliked the general idea of the Fuy plots from the start simply because I don't like a player penalized for picking a House card. To truly get an idea of how over the top they are, there's not a single player here who wouldn't play them even if they had no text at all. Heck, they would even be played without traits at 5/7/1. Those stats make even the weaker ones auto-includes, which creates a huge imbalance when comparing the power level of each.

Stag Lord said:

like i've said elsewhere/ targ is not a one engine pony now. they can both build and rebound quicker, and really shouldn't be running any power characters to worry about being stolen. burn is about 5 times more functional then it was (even w/out the shadows location) and the should be able to out draw and out recurse bara any day of the week. Targ doesn't need the baratheon plot to be a reset house, they should be a 3-4 reset house anyway (4th being the targeted kill city plot for that one anjnoying character you just can't kill) to be viable right now. In essence I see targ as having one major build, control either shadows based or just shadows utilizing. Heck they are almost character lite (i'd run the ambush guy that pops back to my hand for sure now) and really shouldn't care about any 1 character they have on the table.

This is almost like dormouses argument at the time, but they have better tech for it now with threat, the two new cards, and the red keep.

Ok - kinda, sorta.

(And it IS Dormouse's argument - he shoudl get credit)

And I'll concede your premise - heel: what was there worth stealing in Dan's BF deck anyway? But the point is: he built for low gold and utiltiy and the Bara Plot was deifntiely a factor in his htinking. what you're bascially saying si that the dragons, Dany, Rhaegar, and a coupkle of others are unplayable - msotly because of teh Plot.

How is that a good thing?

Stag Lord said:

i'd submit they are unplayable w/out the plot. build a deck w/ them assuming their is no plot....its not a very good one. its too slow for aggro and too unfocused for control.

Lars said:

I rarely play Baratheon decks...like Rings (I think it was he that said this), the whole power-rush strategy just isn't my thing. So I'm sure that I am biased. That said, I think there are at least two arguments floating around that I draw contention with.

1. Is Bara's Fury plot much, much more powerful than the others? That's easy: YES. Of course, a well-timed Martell plot can ruin a Bara deck by bouncing a noble character with tons of power on it, but as Rings points out, the first several rounds tend to be the most important, and stealing a character is MUCH stronger than bouncing it. Now compare Bara's plot to kneel or temporary burn...terribly imbalanced, especially given the fact that to stop Bara from winning, one needs to slow them down in the early rounds. (Saying that Bara's Fury plot is relatively balanced simply because the stolen character can be returned to hand isn't really even a matter of opinion.)

2. Can Targ or Martell survive losing a character to Bara? Also yes, but it is NOT easy, at least for Targ. As Stag originally mentioned, the best way to do this in Targ is just to run a bunch of low-STR, expendable guys that die easily to burn. This has great synergy with keeping the costs of cards low (important to keep in mind in a house that requires a lot of non-gold locations), but I can't say it's a ton of fun to run decks where the highest STR characters in your deck are two STR-3 characters...Khal Drogo and Varys. For the record, I also tend to agree with Lars that a Targ deck doesn't really need to play expensive (or even "good") characters. But the net result is what you have now: Nearly every card in my Targ decks, including characters, is a utility card, with the exception of a few like Jorah, Drogo, and Followers (if playing summer). It's worth noting that (tragically) the Bara Fury plot isn't the only reason to avoid Targ's 4-cost characters. Most of Targ's 4-cost characters are much weaker than those from other houses and ultimately end up feeling inefficient. (For example, Rhaegal and Drogon are much weaker than shadow Tyrion, Jaime, Renley, Robert Baratheon, at least one version of Eddard, etc.) If Rhaegal didn't keep getting knelt by Lanni's effects AND I couldn't lose it to Bara's plot, it would be much easier to play.

Twn2dn said:

its funny. I think things always look different from the other side of the table and you notice things differently when playing a house then when playing against a house.

1) i never said it was well balanced. I've only said that at least martell has an answer.

2) completely agree (as I posted above) targ's 'strong' characters aren't really that strong. In fact if you compare the dragons to things like varys, shadows tyrion, arianne, carrion bird, dual house littlefinger, and heck even stoneskin they are almost way overpriced. this is what I meant when I said the core set cards are almost so far behind the chapter pack cards thats its riduculous. If shadows weren;t so popular even the chapter pack version of robert would be better then the core set version of robert. Its like the core set reset the power level but then the chapter packs are racing to ramp it back up again.

Lars said:

This is interesting, and I partially agree. I think the Core Set has plenty of *playable* cards. For example, some of the events (Forever Burning and Lanni's events) are very good. Also, certain non-uniques, such as Bastard of Robert, Viserys, Lanni's gold providers, etc. are all very well-costed. On the other hand, there are a lot of vanilla cards, or "chud" (using Ring's term), that were hardly worth playing even when the Core Set was out. Honestly, who plays those armies that you ambush in under your opponent's control, or cards like the 4-gold, 3-STR Targ non-unique army with deadly? I can see why these were included...good for the "play out of the box" experience, but they aren't playable in a competitive format. But in general I think you're right that the Core Set's "power cards" tend to feel less powerful than some of those printed in the chapter packs. To some degree though, I think this is unavoidable, given "power cards" tend to be powerful in relation to what's good in the environment, as opposed to "utility cards" (which the Core Set contains a lot of) that tend to offer utility until a more efficient card for the given purpose (draw, search, cost reducer, etc.) is released.

It's worth noting that some Core Set cards that were/are less popular could also go the other direction. For example, Maester Aemon is decent but not an autoinclude. He could become an autoinclude if the NW theme in the current block sees much play. So I don't think we're really talking about power creep. I think this is just one of those things where the LCG card pool is better than it was a year ago but still very small. So each new set that is printed (Martell had only ~50 new cards, right?) disrupts the current equilibrium.

I must be doing something wrong. I love Warlock Servitor's (the 4 gold army) and run it in my Targ decks. If I'm playing Bara, I'll hold off my best characters (if possible) until after Fury of the Stag is revealed. And I use attachments to my advantage.

Targ has always been high on the gold curve, but I accept that as part of the build. And they have some good cards, and good combos. Targ for me was at its zenith just before the LCG switch-over, when the Five Kings dragons, Queen's Knight and Allies of Necessity were all legal. Had they not "retired" ccg, getting Xaro back and the Titan's Bastard were great for all those delicious dragon effects; I haven't adjusted this deck for Legacy Highlander, but it might just prove effective in the right context. But that doesn't address LCG issues.

Targ players have a somewhat different approach to deck building, and it doesn't always work well, but when it does, it can really work. It's my hope to start work on a LCG Targ deck soon, and I'l have to really see how bad it performs against other decks.

Yeah JJ - given Targ's high gold curve and resource hogging for effects - warlock's servitors isn't going to amek many compettive Joust cuts. The four gold slot better net you more than 3 STR and deadly given how much gold you need on a typical turn.

It would seem that our choices would be be banning or a simplified errata. Were the second an option, what you have?

A. Have them all work like GJ, discarding a character from play with the house's dominant challenge type.

B. Retain the trait, especially given the general lack that we have (What about Dacey?!)

C. Keep the house specificity. Even after two years, I still have to look and see whether our plots "clash" (unless I"m playing Martell/Targ.) :/

I think banning is simpler, but since we've already had to errata cards for clarity, I don't see this being a big deal, especially if it's a blanket. I'd prefer to do A + B, and keep the flavor of C, since A eliminates the biggest cause for C... but my simplicity argument just votes for a lamer solution. I will point out that while annoying, and certainly not something most Jaime's will choose to play around (not looking at rings or finitesquarewell at all) at a tourney, I went 3-2-0 at NYC's kingsmoot last July, when Targ was arguably weaker in relative strength (feel free to start this point as a separate thread) losing two identical Lanni decks that finished 1-2 with identical 15-0 scores (though they were also the two best examples of getting location-shorted I'd experienced in that deck) while I did win against both Bara decks (one of who did have a bad start, but did manage to still steal from me with the plot; the other of which I 'gave' <I'm not the brightest bulb...> a duped Rhaegal). I think it can be played around, but I'd prefer a supposedly strong house to rely on having high risk to affor high reward.

On the other hand, would the removal of the threat of Fury of the Stag suddenly bump either Martell or Targ to the top of the standings? There's still perma-steal in the game outside of this plot (and I am still waiting to see a dominant MwNK come of out nowhere, esp. after a NW/Wildling heavy cycle). Would a reprint of something Keeper-of-Oaths-esque be due? Or would that effect be negligible without ORW or another means of searching for a neutral. I'd be moderately sated with a "Herald of the North" or "Herald of the King" that got me something like that.

~But wouldn't the biggest still be Leo "Longthorn" Tyrell from _The Hedge Knight_ or Hodor, from the way Osha swooned at his exit from the hot springs?

I think it won't be a surprise to say I am for them going away. And I am very anti-banning, I just hate it. I just don't see an easy erratta or 'silver bullet' card that would be playable.

The negatives are just too great - I didn't like these cards when I first saw them (i.e. before they were printed). Crazy abilities that were only turned on part of the time, but who cares since they are 5/7/1 traited plots. Games won/lost by the flip of a coin (not just Bara, I saw plenty of Stark/GJ games go the same way). ~Everytime I think of those plots I throw up a little in my mouth... I would rather play rock/paper/scissors. Fury plots were also was responsible for having at least one player quit the game in Seattle *shrug*

Yeah, even making them even across the board (say by discarding a character for winning their particular challenge, which would be a huge improvement balance-wise) still punishes certain matchups harshly for a slightly less optimal opening draw. I would rather see the text blanked and the traits left on there, still leaving each house with a good option for an opening plot that can turn on To be a Dragon, To be a Wolf, etc. But I'd be okay with banning them, too.

theres an easier solution. One that doesn't involve any of the plots, is more broad too hit all forms of perma-steal (and thus MwnK ), has been used to fix the power level of cards before, and involves no actual change to printed text of any card.

Have dupes save from steal.

just like they changed dupes to save from return to hand to tamper down locked in the tower this would tamper down the steal without killing the usefulness, brings bara's plot back down to the other plots, and brings steal itself back to what I think it was should be envisioned as (its now more like seductive promise across the board). I think i brought this up when the nightfire convert came out....~but apparently the community doesn't get up in arms when bara has characters stolen from them only when they steal from others.

Im kinda with Lars in that I only really have an issue with the Bara Plot.

I have no issue with them keeping the traits.

Not only do I have no issue with the House specific hate - I love it as it appeals to Ned. I have no issues with certain Houses having awful matchups come tounrey time - its great falvor IMO.

My issue, as with Nightfire COvnert, is perma steal. This is a really, really powerful form of control and should only be possible under really difficult or costly circumstances. Winning a power challenge for the power challenge House doesn't qualify. Robert's Wine Cellar was appropriately costed - this Plot isn't (especially when you think about how cautious R&D was with the Targ one: two year old bitching here - but the fact that Plot doesn't carry the terminal condition STILL grates on my nerves).

So fix the Bara Plot, limit the steal to end pof phase, end of turn, save with dupes: whatever and I'm fine with the Fury Plots. I do liek having 5-7-1 in teh environment.

Lars said:

That would be good solution.

Rogue30 said:

(On duplicates saving against "take control" effects)

This has been suggested in the past and, I think, shot down. Apparently, the logic behind a duplicate "saving" against killed, discarded, or returned to hand is that all of these create a state in which the character leaves play, so duplicates therefore save from leaving play. (This is the consistency that game developers/rules aficionados look for.) Unlike these three forms of removal, however, "taking control" of someone doesn't result in that character leaving play. To allow duplicates to save therefore doesn't really work, since you aren't really "saving" against anything.

So that's the supposed theory behind the decision (I think), but I'll admit that I strongly disagree with how this plays out. The logic is cogent, but when someone takes my character, I pretty much feel like my character is dead. Worse, it's helping my opponent. This is definitely one of those situations where the feel of the game (at least for me) doesn't really match the application of the rules. If I can save against lesser evils, then why can't I save against this one, which seemingly cries out for some sort of balancing restriction? I am 100% in support of a ruling to allow duplicates to save against "take control" effects, but I don't think it would "fix" the Bara Fury plot.

(On toning down "take control" effects to "fix" the Bara Fury plot)

Here's where I'm really skeptical. To believe that saving against duplicates will help against the Bara plot is to assume that I will usually have my best character on the table as a unique with a duplicate on him by round one. That is, quite honestly, an unlikely scenario. If I play Rhaegal, than it's a bit more likely that I have a unique with dupe(s) on round 1, but that still leaves my Viserys, Core Set Khal Drogo, and the various other unique characters that I play 1x of or wouldn't want to dupe. (I shouldn't have to play multiple dupes just for the random chance that I draw them on round 1 or 2.) And most importantly, even if I have a unique with dupes, Bara still steals my best non-uniques...not as scary, but still game changing if I lose a Fairweather Followers or Maester of the Sun on round 1 or 2.

(Toning down/banning the Bara Fury plot)

I like the idea of banning all the Fury plots. A ban is simple, won't confuse people, and eliminates an auto-include for every decktype. (Auto-includes restrict deckbuilding choices, and I think they tend to be a lot less fun, as every deck begins to look similar when a lot are in the environment.) As an alternative, I think blanking all Fury plots (except for traits) is a good idea. The stats on the card are good enough that people will play this plot no matter what. In either case, getting rid of the "take control" effect on Bara's plot is (sadly enough) probably worth scrapping all the other Fury plots for balance.

In terms of restricting the steal effect until end of phase, that would obviously be much better than what we have now. It isn't my preferred choice (the steal is still a bit strong, and I think erratas confuse people as often as they solve problems), but I would be satisfied if that's what happens.

Twn2dn said:

It's not the theory behind the "decision" because as far as we know, FFG has never seriously considered it. I'd think the real reason it hasn't been considered is the "where does it end" argument. If you can save from control change, why can't you save from kneeling? Or icon manipulation? Or saving? Seriously, the greatest mechanical difference is the "feel" of it. So does a save really mean anything here?

Instead of making duplicates save, which is adding another rule which really does look more like an exception than anything else, why not just errata the LCG most "take control" effects to "non-unique"? Why are dupes "saving" from effects that do not force a moribund state more desirable than this?

o_0: You know I don't think I ever feared Fury of the Stag as a targ player. But then at the time I played targ I was used to playing against Stark which basicly had garunteed board wipe on the first three turns. (If people still played Stark, that is still possible).

Targ is one of those houses that forever has an issue with needing all the right pieces at the right time. My best performance against fury and bara was usually just spend the first three or so rounds blocking them, doing what I could to just not let them get an unopposed challenge and exhaust their deck. Losing a character to Fury isn't that big of a deal if he's dead by turn 3 anyhow.

I also feel that Bara needs Fury to offset the fact that Targ and Martel can outlast them, so Bara needs that jump on them if they have any chance of winning the race before it's too late.

I freaking hate the argument that "Gee lets ban this card becuase its in every deck and is an auto include". (Sorry to single you out twn2dn - you're not the only one ot make the argument.

We're beascially saying "This card is good adn i'm bored wiht seeing it - so no one can play it any more". Jesus. I think its freaking nice to have a five gold source of income in LCG. My play tsyle leads to more character and draw heavy builds and i tend to use Plots for income. I'm really going to be annoyed if these get banned just becuase they are popular.

Lets face it - apart from Baratheon and easy perma steal, there are no serious balance issues with any of these Plots. Rings doesn't like the Hosue hosing effects - fine. we can quibble on that. But from a balance point of view, these Plots aren't breking anything, and if teh argument is goign to devolve into "There's no easy way to fix Fury fo the Stag, so ban 'em all? - screw it. I'll throw in my hat with Lars and argue that we should just leave the **** things alone.

Well, if we agree that Bara has the best Fury effect, I'd also like to say they have on of the worst To Be A effects. Standing a character to return a card to your hand is "eh," and may only rical To Be A Viper as the worst of the cycle (Lose a challenge in which you can lose the event before you ahve a chance to trigger it." Do the two balance out who knows. Just because I write it, doesn't mean I understand it.

I don't want to see the Fury's banned I'd like to see as few bannings as possible, myself. And witht he eception of clarification, I also don't want to see errata. Frankly, I'd rather ban a card than completely change it's effect. But I think the the Fury plots are run not so much for their text effect but for the gold, initiative and trait. I'll be honest, that's the only reason I run them; the text effect is like a bonus, if it can occur. And even if we got some other high-gold/high-initiative plot, it just might make me run both, though I do feel that my plot deck choices are pretty solid in most of my decks.

If there was going to be a "fix" to these plots, I would rather see the original cards outright banned, and the new plots in a chapter pack or deluxe expansion. But I don't think they need to be fixed. And Targ and MArtell players just have to play more cautiously when playing these houses. I've never taken Fury of the Stag into account when I build my Martell decks, and I don't think I ever will. And it won't stop me playing Martell, or curb my desire to build a Terg deck.

As for Fury of the Stag, as well as MwNK, Seductive Promise and Support of the Kingdom, I still think there should be a cards or cards that can return character control, even if it is of the "return to hand" type. Just like I've said before.

ktom said:

because it creates a middle ground where if a unique is key to your deck, and you are building around it then the protection you already have available is sufficiant to stop this permenant status.

The reason why you don't need/shouldn't have dupes save from kneel is that a) its not permenant. b) standing effects are already in the game and useful for situations whne you are not playing against a kneel deck (i.e. the cards that correct kneel are not silver bullet effects like a Keeper of the Oaths and useful when not playing kneel). c) there are usually other restrictions built into kneel (i.e. character w/out attachments) that you can build into the deck.

The reason I don't think it should be a general blanket non-unique is because it unbalances the Fury too far. Of the remove from play plots (GJ, Stark, Martell) there is no targeting restriction, yet all 3 can be saved from (stark the easiest, followed by GJ and Martell...and to follow up and JJ's point the easiest to save from have the best To be A spo its balanced in that sense too). If we classify the steal as a remove from my play then it should be balanced along with these plots. By extending it to all steal it makes unique neutrals and OOH less vunerable to MWnK (laugh all you want, but when running either one of those type of cards it should be thought of, especially with 3 agendas in print and 4 more coming that beneifit you for unique neutrals). Plus, there should be some risk to facing the wrong house, especially when that risk can be mitigated by playing slightly more cautiously w/ uniques. WHile this wouldn't eleminate the risk, it does create a situation where you can still play a key character w/out fearing it will be stolean easily.

Twn2nd. If your playing a key character and running dupes of it and you play it without the dupe, then its a risk even w/out this plot. Would the rule and the plot create another risk? sure. does it create a risk that you wouldn't face from any generic kill/discard card or even Pinch of Powder? No. So therefore it doesn't unbalance anything.

I also find it funny that just valar was an acceptable answer for all 6 houses and a 2 strategy killing repeatable steal, but so far its only been brought up once for a house that actrually runs (or should be anyway) valar.

RE Martell: I forget who it was the recently brought this up, but I agree that this plot is a lot less efficent against martell...especially if you use your icon stripping wisely. I think the biggest difference is that Martell can be as fast as bara in getting board position while Targ, though faster then 6 months ago, is more focused on support and has way to high a gold curve early.

I wrote this the other day before the additional responses, but I think I still hit the point. You can't have everything... and ideally we just would have had a 5-7-1 plot with all three traits that affected all other houses and gave us 5 other "fresh" cards.

rings said:

The negatives are just too great - I didn't like these cards when I first saw them (i.e. before they were printed). Crazy abilities that were only turned on part of the time, but who cares since they are 5/7/1 traited plots. Games won/lost by the flip of a coin (not just Bara, I saw plenty of Stark/GJ games go the same way). ~Everytime I think of those plots I throw up a little in my mouth... I would rather play rock/paper/scissors. Fury plots were also was responsible for having at least one player quit the game in Seattle *shrug*

~Well, a lot of things seem to make you throw up a little in your mouth, but that doesn't seem to keep you from rooming with Wyndwalker.

longclaw said:

I'll address my less sarcastic remarks to the both of you, since I'm still interested in where you're coming from. How understand that kneeling is less powerful than removal, but what's the flip of the coin bit your mentioning in GJ/Stark, Matt? I mean, they're both MIL heavy, and if you truly fear your opponent's plot effect why don't you go all out to step there's _and_ trigger yours... (they're not a claim 2) or better yet, save yours to have a chance to swing back the next turn in a world without an easy Put to the Sword/Torch.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but none of them are paper/rock/scissors, you're only active against an opponent who's also active against you? Rather than a generality, can you cite me a situation where a "turned on" plot ('cuz' I know you affect on them, rings) upends a specific combination of houses, assuming an errata? Jonathan, is Bara weakened/strengthened in an overall metagame sense by having a "discard a character" plot work only against Martell/Targaryen (and being similarly vulnerable) while having a neutral, but even situation against Stark, Lanni, other Bara and Greyjoy?

I understand you're suggested errata Jonathan, and that's what I'd probably be happiest with, if you can convince me of my falsity of my latter proposition.

Lars said:

A novel solution Lars, but one that I would say relies far too heavily on card draw to make it worthwhile. Even against a Bara deck that waits til 5th turn to play their Fury (and how often does that happen outside a control build) it's unlikely that I'll get two copies of a dupeable character short of Rhaegal. And I speak as one who likes running dupes due to a freak accident early in my deckbuilding life. I had a Uber'ed up PotS Viper nearly taken against clu the other week by his Bara/Treaty Isles deck where I forgot about his plot... and only avoided it through an Orphan/Turmoil combo.

>And as I'm now reminded can't work anyway. I remember with VED Bran remember pointing out that someone couldn't use some sort of non-save/cancel response on a character I stole in that same action window b/c there was no moribund due to his effect.

Maester_LUke said:

well if you told me it couldn't happen because of the laws of physics i'd say ok fine, but i'm sure there is a way (add a 'moribund' state to the steal, if you need to rationalize it say while he is changing sides he is moribund, or change the way the cancel works (does something need to be moribund to be canceled?) to work it into the rules.

to your draw point, I'd again say thats true w/ GJ, Martell, and Starks plot and or any discard/kill/return to hand effect, yet rarely are they cited as overpowered because you can save/cancel from them, plus w/ dupes you are increasing your chance of drawing said card and if it is a really key character there is always search for dupes (plot based even).

They reaosn why I like dupes over a keeper of oaths (same card draw issues by the way) is that dupes should be something you have if a character is that key to your deck. If its not that key, then why are we complaining? This is westeros after and every character is supposed to have a short board life.

I think banning a card needs to be because it hits more then one character in 1/3 of the houses every 7 turns. I'm not sure if an errata helps because if its till the end of the phase then the 1 permenant and 2 semi-perminent ones become much stronger (and then bara can start complaining about the martell one, which is no picnic). like i've said as a bara player I rarely plan on using the steal in a game and when i do hit targ or martell I often go oh yeah I might get a steal. Steal also ins't a gaurantee to win. Luke's example above where he talks about me stealing a card from him after a bad start got totally overridden by him playing reaghal (and duping him) the next turn followed by valar which cleared my board and left him with at least a 4 str Bicon w/ stealth and its own save....