Yes! Compelled by the rock banned

*sigh* Nerfed again. And this time for a card that wasn't broken.

I think compelled by the rock was broken and I'm happy they got rid of it for competitive play.

Attachments are already pretty sucky anyway. This card gives (or I should say gave ) the best attachment control possible to the wrong house.

The other cool things in this FAQ is that they changed the Fury of the Stag from permanent control to only temporary control. I think this pretty much effectively deals with the issue most people had with the card. The Fury of the Stag card is right now probably as good or weaker than Fury of the Wolf / Fury of the Kraken.

Like Elooooooi (prophetically) mentioned, Alannys Greyjoy did get an errata in this next FAQ.

The Fear of Winter errata also effectively ends the debate regarding "play" or "put" into shadows: "Playing or putting a card into Shadows from your hand does count against the limitation set by Fear of Winter. Bringing a card out of Shadows does not count against this card's limitation".

Everything sounds very sexy to me to be honest

I know they need to happen, but I'm against most bans and erratas.

Bara Fury errata is good. It was needed, and something I couldn't really see getting fixed with future cards.

Compelled....??? Put me in the group of people who think this does not fall under the "Needed" category. It wasn't broken, and future cancels could have balanced it out in the card pool.

Everything else was just clarification. And good clarification at that.

~I'm just happy I don't have to sit down and watch anyone murder their cards without sleeves anymore!

I guess it would really hamper Bara to ban just Fury of the Stag. Honestly though, I dislike power-level errata enough that I'd rather see all the Fury plots banned than the change that was made. I don't look forward to having to explain to my Bara opponent that his card is not as good as he thinks it is the next time I play against a newer player for the first time. That's the kind of experience that sucks for new players.

Deathjester26 said:

At some point, though, if "no rotation in LCG" becomes the goal instead of simply the assumption, some bannings are going to be necessary.

I tend to agree that banning Compelled was not necessary on an individual card or power level basis (like Jaqen). I'm guessing it is more of a metagame/direction thing (like Pyromancer's Cache). It doesn't really fit with any of the usual Lannister themes and the ban does cut into Lanni's general dominance by taking away their ready answer to most attachment-based control. I mean, from a House identity standpoint, it belonged in Targ, not Lanni. Just spit-balling here....

o_0: I'm sorry but banning compelled?

schrecklich said:

Yeah, I agree. I don't mind erratas when they're clear/logical, except that when this type of thing pops up, it really feels bad for both players. I am happy with the errata for this particular card though. (Bara still neuters a Targ opponent for a round, just like the Targ plot neuters a Bara player for the round. Seems pretty even, with both sides having a fairly equal chance to kill off an opponent's character to claim/burn.)

As far as the other changes, I think they're good ones. I'm mixed on Compelled. I think the power level is fine at the moment, but I can see how Compelled could become a problem if there are a lot of good attachments in the environment in a few months. (Better to preempt any problems than wait for them to develop.) For example, it would be really silly if my opponent stole my Longclaw and then proceeded to bounce it around on his characters for the rest of the game. And I've always thought it's annoying that Lanni could easily steal/discard my attachments so that my characters were more easily targeted by Castellan. (I also agree with someone's post above that this was the easiest attachment removal to pull off...AND it targets uniques/non-uniques alike. The effect just didn't really seem to fit the house very well in my opinion.)

Taking a step back, erratas/bannings are probably inevitable in every competitive card game. And compared with other games I've played, these are all very minor/limited changes that, even if a bit controversial for some, aren't all that surprising.

Twn2dn said:

Yeah. Northern Steel, Winter Cache, Shadow's Blessing, Stinking Drunk, Hunting Spear, Blood of the Dragon, Aegon's Blade, The Dragon's Blood, Fishing Net, Taste for Blood, Flogged and Chained, Milk of the Poppy, Rusted Sword... The card is not broken? Come on! Exactly the same thing as Fury of the Stag.

Also, you forget, I think, that we have only 3 cards banned for now and all of them are from pre LCG era/design.

Rogue30 said:

Yeah, the allegory to fury of the stag is pretty good, since it was a non-conditional permanent steal (except stag had a condition). Actually, there isn't really any way to make a more powerful attachment control card (ok, maybe by giving the compelled ability to a character or location so that it is reusable). So, if attachment control can ever be broken, compelled was - though due to the double-weakness of attachments, this can be argued. Mostly I think that it is good that it's gone due to the way it was not fitting into the general power level of attachment control in the LCG as a whole, and in the 'wrong' house to boot. This should also give a slight more edge to Stark, Baratheon and Targaryen, since they are the ones with most of the more powerful attachments.

Rogue30 said:

I think this is just to be expected, since not all of the cards designed for the CCG fit into the LCG environment. The cards that don't fit and are too powerful are removed from the environment, and the cards that don't fit but are not too powerful (Secret Hideout?) are just not played. =)

So, I think the official verdict is that permanent steal should be pretty conditional, if exist at all? I myself am happy with the decision, on both cards. Although, I can see what schrecklich means regarding new players and Fury of the Stag - pretty unfortunate that.

ktom said:

I pretty much agree. Do you think there are any more "above the curve" cards from Clash that should/will be banned? I guess the most likely would probably be Castellan since he's so ubiquitous in Lanni decks. The Fury plots are also pretty ubiquitous, though since Fury of the Stag was just nerfed, I guess they want to try to keep them around instead of banning them.

I don't like auto-includes myself and I'd like to see as many of them gone as possible to be honest. That being said, I don't think the Castelan will get banned or deserves to be banned for two reasons:

- It is an ally card.

- The kneel effect is a conditional (without attachments) limited response

It is a very powerful card, but so is Venomous Blade, Flame Kissed, Forever Burning etc.

WWDrakey said:

Yeah it seems to be going that way. While there is other general permanent steal (i.e. Seductive Promise), right now the only permanent attachment steal that I know of is from one of Targ's unique characters, Krazynys mo Nakloz. However, for him to steal attachments he has to be in play (costs 3 gold), it has to be summer, it can only be done during challenges, and you have to pay the printed gold cost of the attachment. He also has the Ally and Mercenary traits.

That's the only other steal I know of for attachments already in play (I'm not including possible scenarios such as Balon Greyjoy stealing a Shadows attachment when it is discarded from a players deck as that attachment was not in play). Comparing Kraznys mo Nakloz and Compelled by The Rock, I find Compelled by the Rock to be comparable, if not stronger as it's more practicable. It's only requirements are that the you switch attachments between two characters and it must be done in marshaling versus dishing out at least 3 gold and making sure it's summer.

Compelled by the Rock didn't have to be banned, but it makes sense that it was. They could have nerfed it to only discard attachments, but Lannister would still be taking a page out of Targ's book.

Perhaps a neutral attachment control card is in the making or will be reprinted (i.e. Grand Maester's Chain). Until then attachment control will be an issue for all Houses other than Targ, but what House doesn't have a bunch of problems to deal with?

All this talk on Compelled, and yet not one mention that moving back to Shadows is a moribund state? We've pretty much always played it that way, and it may have actually been in the rules (can't remember off the top of my head) but I am glad to see more clarification about Shadows. And also nice to know like I assumed that bringing cards out of Shadows didn't conflict with Fear of Winter. This just might be my favorite plot right now, and I'm still looking at ways to capitalize on this plot. A dedicated Shadows deck with lots of cheap characters could be just nasty (I'm thinking Stark with Bran/Bodyguard where Valar becomes Fear becomes 0 cost chacter from Shadow in draw, Marshalling and big guy come challenges).

I'm saddened to see Fury/Stag toned down, but I can understand why. Compelled banned caught me by surprise, but I think ktom hit it on the head right ability, wrong house. And the clarifications of both Doran and Red Vengence will help clear up some confusion. A good FAQ, all in all.

A few minor changes as well in the Tournament Rules. Now we have to verify at the end of the game that all cards in Shadows have the Shadow crest, as an action of sportsmanship. The banned list doesn't include the Winter Edition Outmaneuver, but I'm pretty sure it applies equally to both cards. I think Outmaneuver and Gathering Storm were banned for Legacy just so there weren't different lists for Joust and Melee, which is sad because now I have to adjust one of my Legacy decks, at least. And Promancer's Cache is banned in Legacy now even though the format has tons of card draw.

I understand that few cares about "other formats" like classic highlander ... so sorry if i bring the topic out to light...but i don't see how the hell Compelled by the Rock is more game-breaking then, let's say, King's Landing promo.

Lannister, to stay "in house", has so much ridicolous cards to play with, as Seal of the lion , Wheels within wheels ... seriously, there are plenty of cards that are to be banned in classic (even if i am against ban in that format...) before C ompelled by the Rock .

If that is for game balance, please, explain why is the Brothers at war agenda is still legal in that format. In regards to Compelled, the play I've seen the most with the card is to Benjen Cache the Compelled to move a Swayed by the light against Baratheon. And i've seen it a lot 'cause, as Stahleck results says, Baratheon Brothers composes the 50% of the playfield in classic highlander.

I hope it is a miswriting... how else is Pyromancer's Cache , just to speak, less object of banning in respect of Compelled in the classic format? Have a look of the power level of the non plot-cards banned in the format... There are 6 (Six) of them. Is compelled really as powerful as The things I do for love? Or Counterplot? Please...

Again, I understand that the market now is LCG, but please be respectful for those who have spent a lot of money in the years past, and still want to enjoy the old cards.

Sorry for bad english, and no pun intended, i just want to understand those choices that seem to me unreasonable. I know this will have little or no echo, but i'm between the few who still play from Westeros to the latest Chapter Pack. We Exist. Consider us a little.

Dondiego

Dondiego said:

The banning of Compelled, Cache, and Jaquen are only for LCG. Is there an updated banned list for Legacy?

Its in the tourney pdf.

As far as Brothers is concerned... it gets its a$$ handed every year at gencon by a lanni knights deck. I think its a viable option, but I don't think its bannable yet... not unless someone comes up with a deck that can't be beaten unless you target brothers specifically. Granted... the only update was adding compelled and cache.

I'm thinking we should try to establish a classic format again. Maybe use OCTGN2?

@Kpmccoy21: the ban is for legacy, too. Last page of the tourney rules

bloodycelt said:

Obviously I don't know the oversea playin' field, but the fact that Bara Brothers is the most seen deck here (at least 50% of last Stahleck, around 4050 % the last month at Modena, Italy. It's not whole Europe, but i think the trend is similar in other countries) must put some serious concern about it.

I think highlander metagame (if any but the interest is strong here) has already adapted to the infamous Baratheon Brothers, packing more First Snows and Catastrophe to try to slow the 6-7 cards setup, and reserving more and more slots to anti-power grab techs in the house deck. I'm strongly convinced that a well built Brothers deck, well driven by a competent player, wins costantly by turn 2-3. And even if it does not costantly win tourneys, remains to say that nobody play the Baratheon in other ways: no Heir to the iron throne, no Threat, no agenda-less. And I think that when a card flattens the game, 'cause it's an automatic choice in every deck of that kind, it deserves to be banned. The Brothers agenda is like that, Compelled by the rock, IMO, isn't. Gathering storm was in all decks, and Outmaneuver in those who rushed to the win. But those are plots that you can choice, so have another impact. To speak about house cards, Jaqen was obviously in all decks, and Pyromancer in all Lannisters, at least. (But still i can't understand why ban Pyromancer's, leaving Seal of the Lion legal. More hard to remove, the effect is almost always the same, except you draw more when you need it the most. But again, developer maybe tought that banning both will have crippled house Lannister of his most defining mechanic: card draw? And wasnt' pyromancer affordable OOH?).

The examples can continue with Counterplot and Things i do for love, both an automatic choice, both of a power level above the maximum.

So, we have 7 non-plot cards banned. Is Compelled one of the 7 most feared cards of the whole game, since Westeros edition? I don't think so. It's more powerful and more included in decks, then, just to say, Massing at twilight, Injurious poison, Put to the torchsword, Wheels within wheels, Support of the kingdom, Fire from the skies, To the wolf banner, Red Viper WNE, frozen solid,From winter's touch returned, and so on?

If this is done to limit Lannister in legacy, that may be fine, but then why don't hit other really key cards ? If that is done in response to the echoes of the Lcg community, it's a falsed choice, surely to be revised, 'cause in legacy the format is totally different, and a single card that is just "more powerful than ordinary" isn't enough to call a ban. Else, I don't get the reasons.

bloodycelt said:

That would be my wet dream But the amount of work to implement all card sets is really freakening, I fear... I'd like to listen to what Gualdo says about the time required to do that kind of work.

I made this work already for LAckey CCG plugin... I can make it also for OCTG2... it needs time but it is not impossible.

Since I started play in LCG I fear that italian guys will not play again with me if I implement CCG cards

Give me a reason to do that... maybe someone can trade me 5KE house cards??? Joking (?)

Freaking Compelled HAD to go - I can't beleive any tourney level player is even questioning that. Milk of the Poppy alone was virtually unplayable against the House AND it checkmated Bannermen - which gave Baratheone vigilant just about its only shot to beat Lanni kneel.

i have to tell you - i'm surprised Castellan didn't go as well. I guess I can live with it because he's a character - and easily dealt with. His ability is ridiculously good though, and the Limited thing just means he's tkaing out your BEST character every tunr. Your other guys will have to be dealt with by supplementtal kneel - not that there isn't baotlaods of that.

Fury fix is perfect - I used ot hate errata, but this one will be kind of easy to sell to noobs - most of them couldn't beleive how stupid good the effect was to start with.

I agree, Compelled's very existence offended me. And this is from a player who spent the last year playing Lannister before the Martell box got released. Absolutely unfair that the strongest house had access to that card while the vast majority of the rest of the environment is languishing without attachment hate. I don't mind so much about Castellan, although Castellan + Guild Hall is a freaking lot of control.

Fury of the Stag is still pretty powerful - not only do you steal their best character for the phase, you can also lock them out of doing Military if you go first. Not as good as GJ or Stark, but at least Bara can save it to play it later (since they usually don't play their To Be a card) to steal a character with lots of renown for the win. Late game, 7 initiative is probably going to go first, to boot.

Slightly off-topic, but building on the post from Dondiego, why do the cards banned in LCG have to be banned in Legacy? Is it just for ease or are they really that powerful? I'm not sure there needs to be a banned list for the Legacy since it is highlander format. I can see the case for Jaquen, the cards from Westeros Edition, and maybe the Prince's Loyalist. I think the rest would be fine in Highlander.

Alrighty, if everyone else is thoroughly agreed on the holy terror that was Compelled by the Rock (though, we saw little of that in our meta)- how about we get something similar to Bastard reprinted?

longclaw said:

In some games where my opponent gets out Castellan early, I walk away thinking the character remains too powerful. I used to think that Castellan would become less powerful as the LCG cardpool expanded. While that appears to have happened somewhat, cards like Guild Hall enhance Castellan's synergy, while the "limited response" restriction AND ally hate remains noticeably uncommon in the environment. Castellan isn't quite as strong as it was a year ago, but it's still the best 3-gold non-unique character by a long shot (I think), even more so considering how easy three gold is out of Lanni.

On the other hand, when my opponent never draws Castellan or I happen to get lucky on an intrigue and discard it before it hits play (both uncommon phenomena, I know), I sometimes (though obviously not always) feel Lanni has a hard time keeping up. Because kneel isn't permanent character removal, it does make some sense that it would be easier to pull off than other forms of control.

Since it's now clear that some cards will be banned, I am just curious what people think. Is Castellan a crutch, in that Lanni relies on it too much to take away? Does anyone think Castellan should be added to the list? (I wouldn't want Lanni to lose its competitiveness, but the power level of that particular character still seems a bit too high.) I personally can go either way on this, depending on my mood and how much of a role it played in my previous game against Lanni.

I feel pretty similarly to you, Twn2dn. I don't think Castellan is completely busted, but it does feel a little bit above the power curve in general and a bit out of character with the LCG as a whole - effects like his in the LCG seem to require a bit more work usually. I think it's okay if he stays in the format, but I won't be upset if he gets the boot because it will open up some space for variation in Lanni and take out one more card that usually isn't much fun to play against.