Arthur Lannister said:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but isn't that what this errata and the thread for the last several pages is about: the concern that the kneeling deck is the most powerful and dominant deck in the game right now? You say yourself you spent 4 months trying to find a winning non-kneel decklist, without success.

If this game becomes one where everyone runs the same deck (or slight variants thereof) because it is the only competitive deck, is that good for the game?

No, of course it is not. I'm the first to say it is too powerfull and that it is sad for game. But it is very boring to see that we are loosing cards one after one... I prefer to see anti-kneeling cards appearance to errata and bans, that's all. Stalwart shields and Starfall advisor are very nice for example.

I think I'm a better deckbuilder than player and I consider I'm innovative in my deckbuilds. Just take a look on the decklist with wich I won the European CCG and I think you'll agree with that. So reading Staglord saying the Lannister players don't think to build was quite wounding. But you're right, I've overreacted. Maybe because I'm upset to see my house of heart amputated of two cards in a very short time...

Sorry Staglord for my vindicative response

just hope the Clan mechanic will be great

I understand. For me, I love to play Martell (although I did play Greyjoy at Regionals), and when Prince's Loyalist was banned after nearly 2.5 years, and right before Worlds, I also was upset. And, yes, Lanni has lost two powerful cards recently.

I also am not a big fan of card errata, as I think it is lost on the casual player who never comes to the website to check such things (though the argument has been made that those same players also won't play in major events, where such errata may be needed). I mostly fall into the "ban it" realm, but that can make the game even less "user friendly" if done too often. And I would not have been for the banning of AGH. Sure, some cards could have been better templated to avoid errata (Toll Gate and Alannys Greyjoy, for example), while some powerful cards will slip by playtesters at least one of which went to great lengths to defend the LCG version of Jaqen H'gar. Even the "fix" they proposed made that card more powerful in certain decks, among them the Targaryen Ambush/Burn deck right before they rotated out ccg cards. I miss that deck.

I also see where you are coming from, that the card pool should bring about its own corrections a "reset" for Shadows comes immediately to mind but those solutions can be months if not more than a year away depending on the development cycle. Perhaps when such a correction comes along we'll see this card changed back to the way it was before, but I don't think that will happen.

Sezhed said:

I disagree. There should be checks and balances within the card pool, I agree. However, if one element becomes too strong, turning up the power on the other elements that fight that element leads to power creep, which invalidates all of the older cards that were less powerful and thus reduces the options available to deckbuilders. Also, if the solution to Lanni kneel is to make auto-include anti-kneel cards, the options to all other houses will be reduced as now part of their decks are already marked off for the anti-kneel cards before they even start deck building.

Also, I agree that the timing for this announcement is unfortunate. I also dislike errata in general (I'd rather just ban it and avoid all the in game moments of "what does this card really do now?").

~ Dammit Arthur! How are we supposed to have a good, nasty flame war if you civilly apologize like a gentleman?!

I do feel your pain - not an errata fan here either - but I think we all do agree that Lanni really stood to come back to the pack a tad. This may not have been the best solution....but obivously I'll take it.

Stag Lord said:

JerusalemJones said:

It's for this reason, at least in LCG, that making "silver bullet" cards are impractical vs. card errata. Defenders of the North still has two CP's to be released. Brotherhood Without Banners has six. Since Brotherhood Without Banners has probably already been printed, that means the earliest we can see these silver bullets cards (I'm assuming BwB doesn't have any) is in nine or so months. Maybe a bit sooner if there is another House expansion, but that probably won't be for at least another four to six months after Lords of Winter is released.

It's either cards such as AGH go unaddressed for half a year or so, or you issue a simple errata. Nate probably realized this and didn't want Lanni to go virtually uncontested throughout Regionals/GenCon. So he chose the easier, more efficient option of the two: errata.

Staglord, the war, we could have it playing cards, it's a better way to argue

I'll try to participate to the next OCTGN tournament, maybe we'll have a chance to play one against the other. And I want to show to the scepticals the power of the Martell rush

How strange, even as a predominantly Lannister player (ok, if you ask some people, more than just predominantly ) I find this errata to be both fitting an elegant. When the Guild Hall came out, I have to admit that I was excited at the prospect of the lockdown I could create, but I was also a little astounded to see just how much Lannister had gotten, and in such a repeatable manner. While I'm distressed that Lannister is continually nerfed, I find the particular way that this card was handled to be quite brilliant. In effect one errata has now damped the power level of two cards all while being simple to remember. Functionally the card hasn't changed, but with the addition of one tiny word "Limited" at the beginning a limit is imposed that is much easier to remember than something much wordier. As well, errata like this is likely easier to newer players than completely banning a card and possibly disqualifying players at tournaments.

Of course, I do take a measure of offense that this was issued during regionals season. These sort of changes should be made with more notice before larger tournaments.

Well, I still think the easier, more efficient option; the fitting and elegant option; the professional option, too; would have been not releasing AGH or releasing it in its current form. Any kind of errata, any ban of any card, means poor game design.

Good news; Arthur you suck

I hope world championship of USA, have more player this year ^^. 24 is not really interesting.

29 for French National. How many for European tournament?

It's a Joke. Don't kick me

Sezhed said:

~ And it's more important to live with mistakes, steadfastly insisting that it was intentional and not a problem, to show that the game is "not" poorly designed, then to step up and say "yeah, this was bad."

The point about the design and release cycle being too long these days for non-errata solutions is a very good one. Keep in mind that FFG can always repeal the errata if more functional silver bullets or alternative Lannister builds come when the design cycle catches up to the metagame.

We might not be able to agree on the treatment of AGH, but I think we all can agree this is amusing: www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/event-center/lcg-regionals-event/lucas-reed.png

Ah, a proud moment for the game's ambassador emeritus.

ktom said:

No, that's not the solution. Not having design mistakes such as AGH is the solution.

Sezhed said:

So the card should just be left as printed instead because it wasn't printed to its current errata? Would you have been upset if the card was printed as its current errata? Would you have posted something like this on the forums:

"Why is AGH a Limited Response? If it was just a regular Response this would be a much better and more useful card for Lanni players to build their decks (more options = more fun). Because AGH is a Limited Response, my opponents don't have to build wise decks to beat me (Lannis would use AGH all the time if it was a regular Response, period; you, as an opponent, would always have to try and do something about it). 'Why should I make the effort to think of a good deck that can use X? It's way easier for me to cry and cry and cry and beg for X to be changed to something better!'"
I can understand your frustration as a Lanni player seeing Lanni cards errata, but maybe you're taking it too personal. How do you feel about other erratas (i.e. Fury of the Stag)? As has been pointed out earlier, not all the cards were tested/designed for LCG. That's why we saw Compelled by the Rock banned. It worked well in CCG, which had a lot more attachment control, but is too powerful in LCG. To create "silver bullet" cards to address another powerful card is another issue in LCG. As I posted above it would take months to almost a year to see these kind of cards. Then there's the issue of whether or not the game is balanced if one House requires all the other five to run these cards in every deck.

Errata, while annoying and unideal, is the simplest, most efficient way of addressing unbalanced cards. LCG isn't CCG. Game design is much different. You can't just keep on printing more and more powerful cards to address other powerful cards. There just aren't enough card "slots" (120 cards per expansion set), nor enough time (20 new cards a month) to do so. More House expansion sets will probably help address this issue.

Even though there have been some hiccups along the way, I think the AGOT game designers have done a very good job overall. There will be more erratas in the future. If that bothers you, maybe you have to find a different card game. If you do find a game without erratas or cycling out of cards sets, please let me know. (It's for reasons like this, that a lot of people only play Dominion, lol)

P.S. Some people addressed what I said as typing this, but I'm too lazy to change what I wrote

P.S.S. "~" before a statement on these forums implies that the following statement is meant to be sarcastic

-I'm going to echo Rings a bit here, so forgive me. I can remember lots of discussion about power level of the relative houses, but nothing I would term as "whining" or "crying" about it. Desiring more overall balance between the houses is not a bad thing, people. While you may take issue with the way it was done, I think most of us agree that something needed to happen, and waiting until after Regionals would have been much worse (unless you just really like playing against Lannister - ~gotta love those Lanni mirror matches). I must admit I find it amusing that some players would complain vociferously on the one hand about the move and then admit that their meta had a gentleman's agreement not to play the deck for 4 months ("French Lanni players have sort of tabooed kneeling decks during 4 months") .

-I do understand and sympathize with concerns about the timing issues, and everyone's going to have a preference about the way they would like situations like this to be handled. ~Oddly enough, I would prefer the cards to be perfectly balanced coming out of playtesting as well. But the last time I checked, the design team is human, and as such, subject to mistakes. (~Except for the apparent angels on this foum - sorry the rest of us are offending you with our human errors.) If you want to play a perfect LCG/CCG, good luck. You could waste the next 20 years looking for it, because it doesn't exist. FATMOUSE and Ktom are absolutely correct that these things are not easily corrected in a short amount of time, and neither does the design team arrive at these decisions lightly, likely accounting for the "lateness" of the errata.

And silver bullets are rarely a good solution because of how much they weaken your deck against matchups in which they become dead cards. Most people don't like dead cards in their hands, ergo, most people don't run silver bullets, and the problem remains. Make the silver bullet too strong or useful and the opposite problem rears its head - no one can play the offending house. So those kinds of solutions, in addition to being too slow to release, are notoriously difficult to balance and may end up causing more harm than good. Even with a properly balanced silver bullet, without search plots, how much is three copies likely to help against a deck with 25 kneel effects? I happen to think, for all their admittedly many faults, erratas or strategic bans are better solutions.

-This is not a case of lazy or incompetent players unwilling or unable to find a solution to the current reigning deckbuild, so let's please be reasonable, okay? That's extremely insulting and flies in the face of all evidence. Fleeing to the Wall? You've got to be kidding. I played Zsa's Lannister Shadows during the semi-finals, and I was running Fleeing, which greatly contributed to my winning the first game. And only game. Once he saw how effective it was, all that remained was to avoid overextending his locations. A character-lite deck doesn't have as much room for error on that score since it will likely see Fleeing twice in a game, given how slowly it can sometimes accumulate power. The first time doesn't hurt it much, but the second time... But a Lannister Shadows deck running 25-30 characters? It's a breeze to play around Fleeing for Lannister Shadows. The only reason I ran it was because I knew Greg had played his Char-lite deck in the first OCTGN tournament and lost to Erick in the finals. Who played Lannister Shadows. I knew the plot would likely do nothing against a careful Lannister Shadows player. I even hit Erick with it in a very optimal round in the first game of the tourney and he wasn't phased by it. By the time I had a decent opportunity to play it (i.e., he had more than 3-4 locations), he already had the game in hand. Thanks to one card in particular - what was it? Oh yeah - Alchemist's Guild Hall.

-However, I also take issue slightly with "in the middle of Regionals," as technically that is the case. But other than the one at FFG, it's two weeks before the next one and before Regionals Season really kicks off. Certainly not optimal, but more than enough time for Lannister players to adjust.

-Believe me, I also would like another option than Lannister kneel for Lannister players. But how many other houses are also pretty much locked in to an archetype? If you want to play Targ competitively, the only option is burn. If you want to play Bara competitively, power rush is the only option. If you want to play Greyjoy competitively, the only option that has performed well thus far is Winter control, as UO has not been successful (which may open up if Lannister is reigned in). And so it goes. As more cards become available, this should change, but Lannister does not have the monopoly on only one competitive archetype at the moment, so that argument doesn't wash.

-With regard to Lannister's power level or having two cards less than the other houses (or one and a half, however you want to count an errata), I find that amusing as well, given how efficiently Lannister does everything . Kuba's straight hyper-kneel which used a total of 4 Shadows cards finished second in the European side of the tournament and lost to Erick's Lannister Shadows in that semi-final ( decklist here ). ~I think Lannister is gonna survive. For the sake of disclosure, I have played either a Lannister House card or Martell/Treaty Lannister at every major tournament I've attended since January 2008, including Chicon 2008, Origins 2008, Worlds 2008, and Worlds 2009. Lannister is my second favorite house and I play it quite often, but like Kennon, for the good of the overall meta, I'm willing to take the hit because in the grand scheme of things, Lannister will be just fine.

Like Ktom, I don't understand the logic of - 'the card shouldn't have been printed, but now I'm unhappy they are attempting to rectify the situation.' That just doesn't compute.

-My number one concern is that the environment is balanced for all players of all houses, and if that means stepping on a few overpowered cards of one house, the end will justify the means and support a healthier game for all. And I think that deep down, we all know Nate and Design has this goal and the game's best interest in mind as well.

P.S. - Arthur, we would love to have you (and all French/Spanish etc. players) in the next OCTGN tournament! And I'll be rooting for your Martells, whether they are rush or control.

FATMOUSE said:

No, if the card had been printed to its current errata from the beginning, I wouldn't have used it but I'd have no complain. We were getting a lot of good cards back then, so no problem about AGH being not that great.

Actually, when I got the chapter I originally thought it was Unique. Because... it was far too good to be a non-unique. I understand to some extent that the card was designed a long time ago for a different environment but, come on, in that case they should have redesigned it. That kind of things are their responsibility. "The card is what it is and it's no one's fault: now we change it, and shut your mouth" doesn't sound like the best philosophy for a card game.

And I think AGOT is a good game overall too; if I didn't, I wouldn't play it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a critic view of it. When they're wrong, they are, and it's their fault and they should try to avoid similar problems in the future (and I don't talk about the untimely errata as much as about letting obviously overpowered cards in the environment).

Indeed, my worry is that this errata might not be enough to change the situation anything more than marginally -- I guess we'll see over the next few months, eh?

finitesquarewell said:

well it does make martell rush a little more viable.....tad bit.

finitesquarewell said:

QFT

ktom said:

I don´t know that deck, but i wonder why Alchemist Guildhall gets the errata and The black cells not ?! I mean isn´t it the same repeatable charachetr control which is possibly available for every house with the shadow agenda ? Anyway i think the errata is good for the game. Some mechanics tend to work too good.

Sezhed said:

Yeah, fine. In an ideal world, I agree. But since the design mistake was made, what should they do about it? "Not make design mistakes" is not an answer to that question!

"My car has been stolen! What should I do?" "You should have locked the garage."

Since it was printed as it was and it has been deemed a "mistake," what should they do about it? Leave it alone? Sit there and say "it's not a mistake or a bad thing," even if it becomes clear that it is (**cough** Prince's Loyalist **cough**)?

When a mistake is made, it is important to learn from it and not make future mistakes. Agreed. But you should do that learning after fixing the current mistake ! It sounds like you are advocating a "the mistake was made, leave it alone" position - which I personally disagree with. But if that's not your position, what do you think should have been done to fix the AGH design mistake now that is has been printed instead of issuing the errata?

Or do you think AGH wasn't a mistake, is fine as is, and didn't need errata at all? That would make sense, too.

Old Ben said:

I would guess it's because Black Cells controls its target for a single phase. AGH controls its target for the rest of the round.

Old Ben said:

Well, I would see that more of a problem with the Shadows Agenda than Blacks Cells itself. The Shadows Agenda is suppose to let you take advantage of OOH Shadows cards (i.e. Venomous Blade). That said, I think the Shadows Agenda is fine and balanced. It requires you to run more Shadow cards since you need a card in Shadows to gain power for unopposed victories. Lannister Shadows Agenda is very very good, but it's slower than a Lanni deck that doesn't use the Shadows Agenda (this comes from the player that wrecked about every deck in our meta and in OCTGN with his Lanni Shadows Agenda deck, except for Lanni hyper-kneel decks that didn't use the Agenda).

You also have to consider that it costs 1 extra gold to bring House X Shadow cards that don't have your House affiliation. For Lanni to have the same effect of AGH x3 with the Black Cells, they have to run the Shadows Agenda, which requires a different build, and pay one extra gold for it. I personally think that's a fair trade off and Nate probably feels the same as well.

Additionally, Black Cells is a Bara card. Bara doesn't have ubiquitous character control (i.e. kneel) nor resources (i.e gold) like Lanni does. It's possible that the Black Cells may be errata, but I doubt it. Some people have pointed out Valar Dohaeris + Black Cells, but that combo calls for a much different Bara build from the rush builds that are generally seen (Vigilant + Valar Dohaeris.....ouch). Non-Bara Shadow Agenda decks can utilize it, but they are paying what seems to be a fair cost to do so.

ktom's point about it only lasting for the phase should be taken into consideration as well.

ktom said:

Given that the mistake has been made, and given that adding silver bullets against it is not a possibility for some reason (I think it is, but let's assume it's not) I would errata the card too, because it's a necessary evil. But:

-I wouldn't have made it in the middle of the regional season. Before it, great; after it, not so great. But if the errata is issued in the middle of the season, some players (the ones who played early) have classified for the nationals using a deck that relies heavily in AGH, and all other players who haven't played their tourneys yet don't have that resource anymore. That's a strange and unfair situation that should be avoided. If the errata had been issued 1 month ago, right before the beginning of the regionals, I would have no complaints about the timing, even if I had to rebuild my deck for them. At least it would have been fair for everyone.

-I don't think AGH needs to be obliterated like this (as long as the Castellan is in the environment, the errata'd guild will never make it into a Lannister deck). I think making it Unique would have been enough. But this is more subjective than the previous point.

Strange, why are you so certain that the Guild House is entirely unplayable now? Or at least, as long as the Castellan is around. While it might be slightly more difficult to consistently trigger the Guild House as opposed to the Castellan, it gives you greater flexibility in targeting locations if need be and does not have the "no attachments" restriction that the Castellan does which allows me to likely target beefy characters that players around here have been learning to protect with attachments. Obviously, I have not had the chance to play this out and see what effect it really has on my deck yet. Likely I think it will force me into some more difficult choices between the two during gameplay, but I still intend to test for the next few weeks with both still in my deck. At most, I think that I might down to two copies of each in the deck. Less chance of doubling up on Limited Responses, while still giving me ample opportunity to draw one or the other. Might just be able to use those two extra deck slots for something interesting.