I personally don't care to shuffle an opponent's deck. I figure if they feel they need to cheat to beat me, then I'll let them live with that. However, I'm not opposed if anyone wants to shuffle my deck. Doesn't bother me at all. I always use sleeves on all my playing decks.

I have no objection to an opponent handling, shuffling or cutting my deck. This is all about personal comfort level, and if my opponent is more comfortable by randomizing my stuff himself, - fine. I think that's a fine compromise twn2dn.

I recently learned that the reason for requiring sleeves was because of production issues on card sizes, and that FFG is taking steps to get the issue of sizes under control.

It doesn't bother me, though. I sleeve nearly all my decks, and the majority of local players do as well and pretty much exclusively when it came to their tournament decks, so I don't see any problems having to enforce this rule.

ASoIaFfan said:

Yeah, I think it'd be rare that people cheated in this game, even at a very competitive tournament, and I didn't mean to suggest that anyone I've played against has cheated....~though I do suspect Finite from time to time in friendly games. (Actually, and on a side note, when we play friendly games, we both are terrible with take backs and will sometimes back up several phases because "that's what we really meant to do." )

I've actually found that the people who play this game generally value the interaction among friends and good sportsmanship much more than winning at all cost anyway. But there are games where I just think to myself "man, my opponent is top decking so well he should buy a lotto ticket." In those cases, I prefer to be certain that my opponent's deck was sufficiently shuffled...we all get lazy, and sometimes the cards don't get mixed up quite as well as they should in between rounds.

My point is just that if there's any doubt whatsoever, it's MUCH better to ask to shuffle the opponent's deck beforehand than wonder for weeks after a large tournament if you lost that semifinals round because your opponent unintentionally stacked the deck.

Plus it avoids a CoC finals '08 issue....that almost brought the old ones back again!

Twn2dn said:

Maybe in the elimination rounds the TO should make it mandatory that opponents shuffle each others' decks. Problem addressed without the awkwardness of having to ask.

Funny thing is...our group always shuffle each other's decks.
And we only play casual.

I just hope that Fear of Winter will be baned. Hate this card;)

eh. Fear of winter, while a pain, at least rewards you for good board position, its not like you can flip it whenever you want and instantly have a 2 card swing for no cost (compelled by the rock).

I agree with Kuba. Fear of winter has an effect too strong for a claim 2 plot. While on the paper is not so good, in almost all game situations is breaking.

More often than not, a well timed Fear of Winter is a game winner, and not "just" a 2 card swing. It's stronger then blockade, and permits to who is already winning to win more in a way I haven't seen before while playing AGOT. It slows the pace of the play -which is already bad- AND fits in any deck. Is it good for the game ? I don't think so.

Yes I definitely agree about Fear of Winter. I don't understand what they were thinking when they made that plot.

The LEAST they could do was not give it a claim of 2. With a claim of 1, that card would have been still very good, but bearable.

Gotta say, I disagree. I think it is an awesome plot.

It forces players to deal with what is on the board - and just what is on the board. It forces people out of the "build like crazy, every turn" mindset. It forces people to look at board position in terms of quality, not quantity. And it is an opportunity to catch the people thinking of board position in terms of quantity napping - and to take the numbers away from them.

Our meta loves the thing and actually thinks of/treats it as a type of reset.

Dondiego said:

you say it yourself. A well timed fear of winter. It requires skill and timing. Does it let you take advantage of a situation you've created? Yes, but thats the point.

Its like asserertion of might or make an example, you work hard to create a certain board situation (and resource denial or different forms of control are all board situations that require some effort) and then play a card to take advantage of it. Don't overlook the fact that it hits both players either, I've been testing it in a greyjoy deck, so naturally I went valar and then this and promptly drew a character and a location I wanted to play but had to make a choice as to which one i really could use (there was a wrong choice) so again even after I flipped it I still had to pay attention to the game and make a smart choice.

well I groan about it when my oppponent plays it, I still think it is a well balanced and interesting card. As ktom points out it really makes you have to pay more attention ot what you are playing the turns before it, but there is nothing wrong with it. Back to my comparison of compelled Compelled made you not want to play attachments against lanni it wasn't "oh should I play this one or that one...hmmm?" it was "crap, no matter which i play my opponent will be using it against me."

blockade, valar, and then this can be a nasty opening three plots, but your opponent must have top decking ability up the behind to be in a dominating position afterwards. Or if they are fairing better then you re-eximine your choices as to why. Maybe include all 3 streets and some Seas. Run the 'dreaded' auto-includes refugees. If you have cards in shadows (you know that great intrigue protection place) don't plan on taking them out till turn 4, etc

I think it will be pretty much an auto-include in most decks. And I don't know if it takes a lot of strategy to play it.

If you have board advantage - you play it. If not - you wait until you have board advantage . I guess the strategy you guys are talking about is tailoring your deck to ensure you have or will obtain at some point board advantage.

But it is by far the best choke in the game I can think of, and the 2 claim can really hurt.

I said a well timed Fear of Winter is a game win. But as Zsa points out, it doesn't require a genius to run it in every deck and play it when you have more board advantage. If you're skilled is game win, if not, you seriously cripple any opponent anyway with claim 2. And if you don't... you should have waited another occasion, but i see that anyone can recognise the right moment to reveal the dreaded plot. No drawbacks, and laughable when compared to the other claim 2 plots in the format.

The moment the opponent reveals Valar turn 3 or 4 , i know i just have to flood the board and play Fear of Winter the turn after to have a massive advantage. And if i run duplicates, bodyguards or saves, i can just reveal Valar myself to buy me 2 turns of board dominance.

I think too it's an interesting plot, but his power level is way above the LCG, and feared on par with First Snow of Winter, maybe.

Zsa said:

If you have board advantage - you play it. If not - you wait until you have board advantage . I guess the strategy you guys are talking about is tailoring your deck to ensure you have or will obtain at some point board advantage.

Actually, I'm more saying the card will force people to look at how they define "board advantage."

Dondiego said:

A well timed assertion of might or make an example is a game win too. The claim 2 is meaningless unless you do some more work to win those challenges and you probably still have to defend challenges.

You talk about clearing the board with valor (0 claim) and then using this, so your killing some of your own board, having 0 claim for that round, then playing only 1 card with 2 claim (still averages out to 1 claim per round btw) to win the game. In terms of power level for just revealing a plot to win the game fear of winter lags far behind winter festival..

Hmmm, I haven't had much chance to play against Fear of Winter yet. It does seem like the kind of card that leads to games that I don't like (as described in my "Necessity of Valar" thread - there are just so many cards that seem to reinforce good board position and make it difficult to catch up if you start out behind).

Lars said:

An assertion of might is a 3 power swing, one time. That's a win if you're on 12 power, right, but that's the only time. (When you play Valar, you usually rebuild the same turn, and don't want to wait to reveal Fear of W. to be limited in retaking the board And the more dupes or saves, the less you lose)

But the 2-4-2 plot that you choose to play *in the most favorable moment*, is, as the play situation I've encountered 99% of the times, a claim 2 military (that clears the opponent of chars more often than not) and a claim 2 in intrigue (in a format where draw isn't abundant at all). If you don't extract - at least - that from the plot, you've a serious deckbuilding issue, or a bad bad timing . BTW, after the military, 90% of the times is like a built-in assertion of might, 'cause of the unopposed power challenge at claim 2, except you don't have to play GJ with war crests, or bring strength 8 in the challenge

Anyway, the 2 chars less, the 2 cards less in hand, have an effect that impacts all the future turns. This is not the old AGOT CCG, where you can always draw and reveal more, or topdeck monster draws. In this low power LCG format the assured 4 card less (2 for the mil, 2 for the intrigue) in a turn where the opponent was -already- unable to rebuild 'cause of the plot effect IS a serious bet on a future win, unless your opponent is a topdecking monster.

Add to that the fact that there are houses like GJ and Stark that literally can bring the claim to 3 (or 4 in the case of GJ), bringing the plot to the legitimacy of an asymetrical reset...and in any case all houses can in some way exploit it, in a way that ,for what I've say here in Europe, the plot is an auto-include in all the decks.

It's not an auto win 'cause you still have to choose to play that. But don't really see where's the difficult to recognise (I don't say the perfect, but at least) the right moment.

I have not played with it or against it enough to have a fully informed opinion, but my early reaction is that it's a strong but not broken plot. There are already potent plots that can let a player with a strong position capitalize on that that (e.g., Rise of the Kraken, Blockade) and the mutual impact that this has does hamper how the strong player can take advantage of his position (do you put another character into play as your one card or forego that so you can play an impactful event later in the round?). It also seems to increase the value of potent, higher cost characters over weenies which a lot of folks would like to see I think as you want your one good character that you can play (if you decide to) to make an impact. Also it may help against Lanni decks as it can mitigate their gold and large-hand-due-to-draw advantages for a turn.

Dondiego said:

Its still the same concept as the plot, just a diferent flavor. You are looking at your board position (if you got to 12 you have to have a fairly strong board position) and then choosing the best way to exploit it. W/ Assertion of Might or Make an Example you are just chooising to do the work first, with Fear of Winter you are Freazing your board position where its at and then doing the work. and its not only one time. If you screw up or get it discarded from your hand from some reason you have 2 more chances to use it, the plot you have to wait 7 more rounds for if you screw it up (very easy to do as the plot doesn't stop the opponent from playing against you).

Dondiego said:

(When you play Valar, you usually rebuild the same turn, and don't want to wait to reveal Fear of W. to be limited in retaking the board And the more dupes or saves, the less you lose)

you expect an awful lot of rebuiling from a 2 gold plot and with 0 claim to prevent your opponent from rebuilding. If you have that many dupe or saves on the board it doesn't matter what your next plot is you've pulled so far ahead of your opponent it won't matter. The issue you seem to have is that fear of winter hurts your opponent from rebuilding the turn after valaor, which means valar and not fear of winter is whats bothering you.

Dondiego said:

But the 2-4-2 plot that you choose to play *in the most favorable moment*, is, as the play situation I've encountered 99% of the times, a claim 2 military (that clears the opponent of chars more often than not) and a claim 2 in intrigue (in a format where draw isn't abundant at all). If you don't extract - at least - that from the plot, you've a serious deckbuilding issue, or a bad bad timing . BTW, after the military, 90% of the times is like a built-in assertion of might, 'cause of the unopposed power challenge at claim 2, except you don't have to play GJ with war crests, or bring strength 8 in the challenge

Okay you have no GJ war crests nor can you bring 8 STR in a challenge, but you can only play one card. You need to have a hell of board advantage to wipe out your opponent as you describe. This board advantage is something you have already created. The plot doesn't create the board advantage. The plot says "FREEZE!!!! play with what you got." If you are winning 3 challenges against your opponent w/ 2 claim and at least 2 are unopposed then 1 of 2 things is going on. 1) your opponent doesn't understand the concept of defending key challenges or more likely 2) your board position was already so dominate that it didn't matter what plot you had out you were probably going to do achieve 3 challenge wins w/ 2 unopposed anyway. I'm not getting the hate for a plot that rewards you for work you already done in the game. If the plot said take 3 cards away from your opponent and then no one can play more than one card.... then maybe I'd say its overpowered. Since it doesn't say that it slots into the same category as all the other cards that let you exploit a board position that you have worked to build up.

Dondiego said:

no one ever said it was old CCG. According to your assumption Rule by decree is an auto-win plot, I've seen it get more then four cards. Answer me this, how is this plot any worse then lets say blockade, valor, fleeing to the wall, or wildfire? is it becuase it prevents your opponent from playing more then one card? it does the same to you. LGR brought up it hurting a lanni deck because it takes away lannis two main advantages: card draw and the godl to spend the cards it draws. You think lanni wants to flip this plot when it can draw 2-3 cards and afford to play them all?

heres a use of the plot that doesn't require superior board advantage. Against a draw heavy deck Play this plot turn 2 to freeze the cards in the persons hand then next turn flip rule by decree. It doesn't require a dominate board position and is take a little bit of skill to use (your not just looking at the board and saying, wow I'm so far ahead I can win this turn).

As for exploiting valar, well GJ doesn't need this plot to exploit valar as it has Rise of the Kraken. Lanni probably wants to play as many cards as it can after a valar as it is not heavy on saves or has a lot of cards in shadows it wants to get out (in which case again the lack of a true way to get at cards in the shadows area is the problem and not this plot).

Dondiego said:

every house can use it has never really been an argument for banning in my mind. For GJ or Stark to exploit it in the manner you describe it takes playing a card from hand (at least for stark, i'm missiing how GJ raise claim by 2) so if they want to make a 2 claim claim a 3 claim I bet the run a different 2 claim plot so then can play characters as well as the event (or again if they can steamroll you in military and only need to play one card they don't need a plot to improve the board situation and can do it with mutual cause revealed).

And again I'm not a person that has a problem with auto-includes. Is it an easy way to build your deck, sure, but wait till you see a card get used in a way you didn't think about, i.e. Alyne Stone in a martell deck, then it probably doesn't matter how many auto-includes you have you got beat by someone with the ability to think aoutside the box while you were using an 'auto-include' because its and 'auto-include.'

Dondiego said:

you bring up the right moment, but again to you the right moment appears to be a place were you already have achieved your foot on the opponents neck, what you're next plot is doesn't really matter. What would be funny is if you go valor, plan on having fear of winter as your next plot to explot it and then I flip my own valor, opps there goes your perfect moment and guess what you can only play one card this turn, now I have 2 turns to build up my draw and be ready for you again.

Have to chime in with the crowd that thinks this card is interesting, not overpowered. The strength of the effect is on par with Valar, but not stronger, and I really like how it can be used interestingly in houses that play 'out in the open' (using effects on cards that are in play - take GJ warships for example), and it really changes the game environment in interesting ways. Suddenly playing Valar might not be that good an idea, if you don't have the resources to build back up, and your opponent has this in his/her plot deck. Also makes Baratheon plot manipulation more worthwhile.

Just my thinking about this plot... it is the card that I waited for my play style... aggressive... I love it... and I will use it in all my grey, stark decks... the thing I love with it??? I block control houses that base themselves on event... and know that my opponent have to choose: or one char or one (and only one) event is amazing.

Lars said:

I got to say I agree with most things that have been posted PRO Fear of Winter. It's not the board advantage you work for that worries me the most. It's stuff like a good setup on one side and a mediocre one on the other side. That's not really work you do in the game... we'll see how it plays out I guess. I don't hate the plot (hate is a strong word for feelings towards a card anyway ), but I don't like that it's as good as it is. I would have been VERY HAPPY with the same plot - but a claim of 1 instead of 2.

The plot effect is also a more powerful choker than blockade will ever be. And the fact that blockade has the same initiative but a claim of 1 says a lot in my opinion about the power of this card.

I think that this plot appear in most decks from now on (which I don't like), but I've been wrong before .

Zsa said:

the difference is that blockade is very easy to get around if you are prepared for it (have a lot of reducers in hand or gold providing locations the board) form perspective of the person playing it. Yeah you get a +1 bonus to claim with FoW but you are facing the same limitations as your opponent when you flip this plot.