Look the title of the topic:

"where is the Errata for "Maester of Lemonwood"?

Banish "Complained by the Roc" is an excellent idea. But erverybody can play out-house this Maester, with Alliance plot...

Nawak je vous dis, nawak

What do you think the banning of Compelled by the Rock is all about? Preventing attachment control to anyone outside of Targ? Or preventing Lannister from having an exclusive, easy, House-only attachment control effect that includes permanent change of control?

Discarding Condition attachments is a far cry from taking control of any attachment and moving it to another character. The two situations are not comparable enough to say that banning Compelled by the Rock is as ridiculous as banning Maester of Lemonwood would be.

ktom said:

...adding to which you need a combination of 2 cards to pull it off properly in any other deck than Martell (Alliance), and that it's not even much stronger than any of Martell's other 2 gold comes-into-play characters... I'd say the card is good, balanced, and won't even make the cut in many Martell decks. =)

Besides, why is Lemonwood so much stronger than Maeser (well, it says so on the card...) Cressen? IMHO Condition is supposed to be the 'Ally' trait of attachments - a drawback that allows for a sligthly stronger card (Flogged and Chained, Support of Harlaw...) than otherwise, and is given mostly to negative attachments (Dragon Bite, Fishing Net...) because they don't have the double-weakness of positive attachments versus targeted removal.

Additionally, I'm thinking another reason why Compelled by the Rock was banned was to weaken Castellan of the Rock as he can only kneel characters without attachments. There is also a significant difference between stealing attachments and discarding attachments. Maester of Lemonwood only discards Condition attachments. He doesn't steal them, unlike Compelled by the Rock.

I don't say "Compelled" is bannish, so "Mestre" must be bannish.

But he is too powerfull.

Katagena said:

I misunderstood. I thought you were saying the Compelled banning was "nawak" and using an odd comparison to prove to point, not that the Maester of Lemonwood was "nawak" itself. Shows you how well I understand French.

He certainly is powerful, but I'm not sure that he is "too" powerful. Personally, I think Maester Cressen is more powerful than the Maester of Lemonwood and am more likely to play him OOH, but I guess it depends on how much a player uses Condition attachments as character control and how many they have out at any one time.

i think the maester is pretty well costed. 1 gold for milk - 2 gold and right timing to remove it. 2 gold for fishing net - 2 gold and right timing to remove it. 0 gold for bodyguard - 2 gold and right timing to remove it.

sure MoL could get all three at once, but thats devinly blessed timing.

Don;t underestimate the fact that it has to come into play, so either you are forgoing a character or using him without triggering his ability.

I absolutly hate seeing MoL in my opening 7 cards.

I don't see any problem with the Maester. I think that House Messenger is actually a better card than Lemonwood.

How many condition attachments are out there in the first place. The ones worth mentioning are Motley, Milk, Bodyguard, Flogged and Chained, Support of Harlaw and Veteran Marauder ( Flame Kissed also, but that one doesn't usually stick around to get discarded ).

How many will a deck usually have? I'd say less than 3 on average. Small chance you'll see more than 1 in play at a given time.

Zsa said:

The ones worth mentioning are Motley, Milk, Bodyguard, Flogged and Chained, Support of Harlaw and Veteran Marauder ( Flame Kissed also, but that one doesn't usually stick around to get discarded ).

Long Winter and Long Summer. Fishing Net. Locked Away. They're out there, we just don't pay much attention to the traits on attachments, generally speaking.

The interesting thing, of course, is that when people talk about how we need more attachment control in the environment, the offending attachments they cite as examples tend to be Condition attachments.

ktom said:

just to be clear, when I'm asking I'm asking for neutral attachment control. I never got why some houses, outside of targ where attachments are a negative to burn so to fule (pun intendend) one theme they devloped another (I really like the new targ location btw, talk about synergy among themes), got more advantages over attachment removal then others. I mean why does Martell get MoL and not Stark? A neutral printing of this guy might have made more sense, but as a Martell player I'm not complainign too loudly that he is in that House

ktom said:

Yup, there's definitely more, Shadow's Blessing, Stinking Drunk, Blood of the Dragon, Dragon Bite, but the problem with these is that they aren't as powerful or good as the other ones and as a result, don't see play that often.

I'm not very familiar with the talks regarding the need for more attachment control but I don't see why you would need more attachment control as it is.

Perhaps I'm missing something (and somebody will hopefully fill me in )