Lars said:

ktom said:

cancel works for me. as simple as it would need to e and stay a blurb in the FAQ.

@Stag: To clarify, I don't mean to say that "we should ban a card because it's popular," only that I personally dislike cards that are auto-includes and would be even more satisfied for this reason IN ADDITION to the more important issues I raised above. (Please don't pidgeon hole my above post in its entirety based on this one sentence at the end. Citing this one sentence is quite the straw man argument.) The reasons I outlined above explain why I think the Bara Fury plot is bad for balance and consequently why I think an errata/ban would be fine. As I pointed out, given the choice between an errata and a ban, the latter would be simplest AND would be my personal preference, but EITHER would address the concerns some of us have.

@Those that prefer status quo:

I will concede that the Bara Fury plot is not currently a big issue in joust. I believe it is unbalanced, but there is a justifiable argument that in the current environment, Bara is less competitive than Targ and Martell, and the Fury plot therefore helps to give the house an edge in these matchups. Had the "take control" effect been on the Lanni or Martell plots though, I suspect some people would have different views. (In a sense, one can persuasively argue that there would be less balance without the Bara plot, since it currently props up the house against what could otherwise be very difficult matchups.) Of course, the problem with this argument, as I see it, is that it allows for these cards to exist until they become a real problem. (Veteran players will remember how Martell received Prince's Loyalist, which boosted its power level at a time when the house didn't seem dominant, but that card become too much later in the environment.) Still, for the time being, the Bara Fury plot hasn't had hugely negative effects on the joust environment as a whole.

What about melee? Can anyone honestly say that they would take a Targ or Martell deck to a competitive melee tournament with the knowledge that 2-3 of their opponents in each game will likely be Bara players? I realize melee isn't as popular a format, but the mere existence of this plot in Bara decks (arguably the most popular melee house) makes it very difficult for competitive players to take Martell or Targ decks to competitive melee tournaments, at least in my opinion.

To throw out another errata idea, what about an errata for all the Fury plots that allowed them to target only their own house? This "traitor-like" mechanic would make mirror matchups harder or more stressful for every house, I suppose, but would also equalize things.

I would still take Martell into Melee. They are still in the top 3 Melee houses, even with the Fury plot. And I would never take Targ into Melee, even without the Fury plot. Targ can't close fast enough for Melee.

twn2dn: I am hardly "straw-manning" your post. i went abck and re-read it: mosy of teh psot is an argument about why dupes cancelling steal won't work - which i agree wiht, BTw. Your argument for banning the Fury plots is pretty much absed on tow contentions - that banning is clearer and simpler than errata and that you don't like auto-includes.

I kind of agree with the first point, i don't like errata in general and i always used to get annoyed with new FAQs that added line after line of tect to any number fo cards - and how enthusiastically this stuff would be received by the tourney players. I think on the whole, i would arther see a card BANNED than ERRATA-Ed, but to ban a card (or a cycle of cards!!) there really needs to be a strong case that it should go.

See Pyromancer's Cache for an example of this NOT being done.

That being said - i have seen the argument about auto includes come up, every several months or so (see search Plots, the Gathering Storm, etc) and i hate it. That's why i take/took issue with it - I like good solid cards that make a lot of my decks, i like system consistencand predictable results and I DON'T like ahving to cobble together inefficient multi card solutions for problems. You can't ban something becuase its popular.

If we agree that the Plots aren't that big a problem (and it sounds like you and I do) than we must part ways on teh issue of banning than we must aprt ways on banning them because they are very good and very prevalent.

Lars: i also disagree with your contention that dupes and svaing are what make the GJ/Stark/Martell plots more baklanced than Baratehon's. Its not that you cna save - its that steal is, by nature, much more powerful than any other removal effect. Its the whole two character swing and all the repercussions that cascade from this effect.

In not other matchup would I play as slowly and cautiously as i do in the Targ -Bara conflict. Martell can at leats get the freaking charcter back - though its risky for them as well...

Its all the stupid perma steal thing. I've had this discussion so much in the past couple of years - the bara traitor, MwNK, this Plot....I just wish R&D would really make stealing highly costed and highly risky - becuase ti is simply the most devastating form of removal in a CCG wiht limited resources.

Maester_LUke said:

Having them all discard a character wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me by any stretch, Luke, but I was just pointing out the aspect that these kinds of effects have (similar to Blockade in Lannister) that punishes an opponent for having a slightly lesser opening (flop + first turn) than yours. Getting hit with a kill or discard first turn just makes it that much harder to turn around and trigger your own plot down the road. And playing it first turn without a very good idea that you can get superiority in that challenge type can be so damaging when you're basing who goes first off of a coin flip.

So balance-wise, it's a great solution, because it doesn't favor one house over the other in any way. But it does lend even more importance to one's opening draw, and I wouldn't like to see that accentuated any more than it is already (and by the way, add to Blockade its brother-in-arms, Fear of Winter, another plot that punishes a player for a less than optimal flop).

Stag Lord said:

I agree that steal is stronger then the other forms. I'm not saying that its the reason why they are more balanced, i'm saying that having the 'cancel' would rebalance the bara more in lines with those 3 plots.

Lets look at the power level of the fury effect:

Last = lanni. Does something they already do. At its best its removing power from a character (but if your playing lanni right said character shouldn't have a whole lot) Pros: only one not cancelable and ensures discard of attachments and removal of power

5th = Targ. Better then lanni because while it needs another card to do so it can kill (in a non-savable way for 50% of the houses it hits and only one savable way in the other house) any character on the board.

tied for 3rd = GJ and Martell. Semi-permanant control (can get the character back, but requires one or two other things to happen to get back) and slows down opponent from playing other cards

2nd = Stark. permanent control, save-able.

1st = Bara steal, w/ no drawback.

right now gap from 1 to 2 is bigger then gap from 2-3 and gap from (4) is bigger then gap from 5-6. Instead of getting rid of all the furies or dropping bara's into 4th (and keeping the gap from 4-5) I think the answer (if needed btw) is to close the gap from 1-2. What I see as the gap is that the opponents have a way of stopping, based on their deck building and play choices, beyond X icon (yes luke and draw, but thats a factor in everything for every answer [~kind of like saying to make a person more efficient he needs to breath]) a way of 'canceling' the effects of plots 2-4. Since 1 is missing the cancel, adding it brings 1 down into the sphere of way of stopping it based on deck building and play choices, beyond pow icons. it also elevates 5 and 6 as they are missing the ability to cancel it (though you can stand from kneel, but that doesn;t stop the discard of attachments and power). the power levels stay the same but are much closer as they all have draw backs and that second sentence adds a lot to bara which now looks like this.

1st = Bara steal, now cancel-able w/ dupes.

longclaw said:

I'm confused. Your saying the bara plot is bad because it hurts an opening flop? yet you mention a much more devestating combo that affects the first two turns much more drastically then fury. If the first turn is you biggest concern, tweak your combo and let me steal 1st turn, valar second turn, fear of winter 3rd turn and blockade 4th turn. Stolean character is dead, bara won't be playing a whole lot for 3 turns and then your plot deck shmused mine even with a 'bannable' card in it....yet again thats why i'm not feeling the ban/erratta the fury's.

Lars, I was responding (in an earlier post and in my latest) to Luke's suggestion that we make all of them essentially like Greyjoy's and discard a character against their enemy houses in whatever challenge type Fury plots normally trigger off of.

So my assertions really weren't aimed at the current Bara Fury plot.

ah, now that i'm in on the point I actually agree with you longclaw.

1st, I agree w/ Stag that just because something is an auto-include, it shouldn't be banned. But that doesn't mean it isn't bad for the game - ESPECIALLY plots and agendas. Agendas are the worst since you start with them in play and they are basically untargetable. Plots are close, since you chose when you play with them and they recur semi-regularly. Plus, I just don't like talentless (oops, I opened the door!) 1st turn plots. We used to joke, after seeing 1st turn Fury on Fury action in 80% of our games, how amazing it was to predict each others 1st turn plot. On top of that, some houses have powerful events that only trigger when traited plots are in the discard pile, giving even more people ammo for 1st turn Furies. It is better now, with the City plots and a few other 1st turn options (Blockade, etc.).

However, in a nutshell if it wasn't for Bara's ability, I wouldn't have a huge problem with them, although I would definately not cry if they were gone (as I haven't for the very few banned LCG cards so far). Is anyone really all that tore up that they banned a couple, even though that was debated at the time pretty heavily? Doubtful...both were good for the game, as this would be (adding deck variety and consistency to deck performance)

2nd, to Luke - Yes, GJ and Stark are both MIL powers. That is the issue, there are PLENTY of games where going first = taking the opposing biggest character off the board and then you can't trigger your plot. A well-built deck lessens this a bit, especially w/ more cards now...but again I saw someone leave the game over this, they tracked GJ vs. Stark (not amazing decks, but good enough) and who went first on the 1st turn won 75%+. Again, not totally scientific and I am sure everyone here could build a deck that lessens this impact, but at the cost of just not being as good of a deck overall.

Stag Lord said:

Rereading my post, I think my tone came off a bit rougher than I intended...sorry for the seeming gruffness. (As others have noted in the past, it really is difficult to convey tone on a message board.) I definitely see where you're coming from, Stag, and I think Rings put it pretty well when he said that this isn't a good reason to ban a card but (and on an entirely separate note) auto-includes are still bad for the game. I recognize this is a matter of opinion though. And since it's unrelated to my dislike of the Bara Fury plot anyway, I really shouldn't have brought it up along with my more substantive objections. (I think me linking the two started us off on a tangent.)