OK, as a long time CCG/TCG player, I've found that the hardest part of picking up a new game is trying to understand the power levels of the primary characters/warriors/monsters etc. What I'm hoping to get some insight on, is how to measure the power level of the AGOT characters.

For example: In VS System, a 5-drop character with stats above 9/9 was a strong character. In Magic (back in the day) a 4/4 for 4 was strong. In Warlord, a character with more hit-points or attacks than it's level was really strong. So what are ways that characters should be evaluated in AGOT? Is a 2-cost 3-STR character with 1 icon a better character than a 4-cost 3-STR character with all three icons? (just an example)

Also, I'm not talking about character effects. I was able to figure out that a 2-cost 2-STR character with no icons is REALLY good if it's name is Maester Aemon. But what I am talking about is trying to evaluate whether a Mountain Refugee is better card than Vale Refugee. What is the right way to rank characters? Is it cost:STR ratios? Do you add the total number of icons to the character STR and divide THAT by the cost to get the benefit ratio?

Please help. All comments are welcome.

There's no mathematical equation I'm aware of, and by no means do you need to use one to construct a good deck. Character keywords and abilities do mean a lot. It's much better to think of a "cost/benefit" ratio than a "cost/strength" ratio as "benefits" can take more stats into consideration. I don't use the term cost/benefit personally. I normally just say, "Yeah, I can see this card being really good and worth it if you're doing..." I'll still use the term cost/benefit to make the discussion easier to understand.

The cost/benefit ratio of a characters depends quite a bit on how much resources (i.e. gold, reducers) your deck has. Maybe your making a Greyjoy income denial deck. If that's the case you probably won't have much gold to work with. So a 4 or 5 cost character might have way to high of a cost/benefit ratio regardless of it's stats. Low cost characters will be much more appealing and provide a much better cost/benefit ratio. However, let's say you're playing a deck, such as Summer Bara, with much more resources. Higher cost characters will be much more appealing because not only can you afford them, but they are generally more versatile than there lower cost counterparts.

Cost/benefit can also be affected by what kind of deck you are playing. Let's say you're making a war crest deck. War crest characters tend to have 2 icons (military and power to be specific). This means your deck might be more vulnerable to intrigue. A character like Jack of All Trades might have an extremely good cost/benefit ratio. He only costs 2 gold, has 2 strength, and is a tricon. Additionally you can give him a war crest for one phase by kneeling one influence. But let's say I'm not playing a war crest deck. Maybe I'm playing a "normal" less themed deck. Jack of All trades suddenly has a higher cost/benefit ratio. Not only is he neutral and doesn't have my House affiliation, but his ability to give him a crest for one phase probably won't be as helpful as it would be in the war crest deck. Additionally, he has the negative Ally trait. If you're running a crest deck Jack of All Trades cost/benefit ratio is low and good; if you're not, his cost/benefit ratio becomes higher and poorer.

If you want a general idea though of what most characters are like, here is my break down:

Most 1 icon characters are 2 gold and have 1 or 2 strength. If they are at 1 str instead of 2, it's usually because they have some sort of special ability.

There are 1 gold 1 strength characters, but usually they are used as chump blocks and perhaps have some small ability (i.e. Desperate Looters). One of The Hound cards is 2 gold for 4 str, but he is more vulnerable to being removed from play. The new Craster that just came out is 2 gold for 5 str! However, if you lose a challenge with him your opponent gets to draw two cards. Most of the Wildlings seem like they'll only have 1 icon each though, so they will probably be a bit unconventional compared to most other characters from the other houses.

Most 2 icon characters are 3 gold and 3 strength. If they cost 4 gold, it's most likely because they have some special ability (i.e. Core Set Robert)

The refugees are of course 0 gold and have 2 icons and because of this they are run in many decks. They are vulnerable during dominance, but most decks will have 2 or 3 of them simply because they are free 2 strength, 2 icon characters that contribute decently in challenges are provide for good claim soak. There are 2 gold, 3 strength bicons but they usually have the negative trait of being traitors.

3 icon characters are funny as their stats can vary.

Most 5 gold characters are 4-strength tricons with a special ability. Asha Greyjoy is 3 gold, 3 strength tricon with renown, but can't be saved. Renly Baratheon is 3 gold, 2 strength tricon, but is immune to character abilities and can be stood by kneeling an influence. Jack of All Trades is a 2 gold, 2 strength tricon but is neutral. The Old Red Priest is 1 gold, 1 strength tricon and requires you to kneel one of your standing locations, if able, when he is killed. Vale Refugee is 0 gold, 1 strength tricon but is vulnerable during dominance like it's other refugee counterparts.

Try to figure out what the goal of your deck is. Obviously it's to win, but how is it going to win? Answering this question, will help you a lot when trying to determine the cost/benefit ratio of not only characters, but of any kind of card.

Hope this helps.

I personally (tossing out character abilities) tend to just go off of cost/strength ratio for lower strength characters. Anything that is even, and has at least 2 icons, especially at the 2 gold spot and below, is good enough for me. I look for a little bit more out of my 3/3's and above. Perhaps a keyword, crest, or something else. 3/3 with a vanilla character ability, 2 icons, and no keywords doesn't cut it for me most of the time.

One thing you want to carefully consider when building decks is icon distribution, so this may help in determining which characters to play. For instance, you want a good balance of all three types of icons when building your decks, so you won't get hammered in a game if you can't defend or win a type of challenge.

The other thing to consider, as mentioned, is gold curve. Finding the right balance of low cost/high cost characters is very important. Refugees are great claim soak, yes, but also really help on the flop (almost like card advantage in that respect) and help balance out your gold curve. I typically like to run half of my characters at 0-2 cost for this reason.

I would say that the in-house refugees are better than Vale Refugee because they are less vulnerable to a Forever Burning, Threat from the North, or Winds of Winter. I usually don't use the Vale Refugees because with 3 in-house Refugees, and 3 Carrion Birds, each house normally has enough good 1-2 cost characters that I need to make room for, that I don't have room for the neutral Refugees.

Question: I see your comment about including Carrior Birds, and many decks seem to run 2+ regularly. Are they really that important? I mean, I understand that a Summer or Winter deck can dominate if left unchecked. But it seems like there should be a better way (is there?) to combat seasons than playing a 1 Icon, 1-that has to attack to impact the game.

Thoughts?

The thing about Carrion birds is that, even if nobody's running a season in the game, they're still a good card to have.

1 gold for a character with stealth is already good.

Add on top of that the fact that it is the only non-plot card that can take out seasons (besides running seasons yourself), and you have a card that's included in almost every deck.

HomerJ said:

You can also run a White and Black Raven instead of Carrion Birds, but many would argue that's less efficient and less resourceful that running two Carrion Birds. The Ravens, Carrion Birds, and that one plot that negates Season effects for a round are the only cards that control seasons. A Time for Ravens, a plot which let's you search for any card with the Raven trait, indirectly controls seasons.

In general, season control is pretty limited, which is why most people run a couple of Carrion Birds in there deck. In my opinion, Shadows control is currently a bigger and more difficult issue.

As others have stated, I like the carrion birds whether I'm playing as or against a seasonal deck. They are very useful in their own right, can be played in any house, and if you do happen to go up against a seasonal deck, at least you have some sort of answer to their seasonal mastery in your deck (you still have to pull off the successful challenge to stop their madness, but the stealth will help with that, and as I always say, I'd rather have some chance than no chance).