I guess I find the Crone much more reliable than others. Of course, I have always been a Targ burn player, so it was a natural fit. It doesn't take extra work for me to draw from the Crone, as I'm generally burning anyways. The biggest difference I found was that I simply changed the ways I burned with it.

dormouse said:

Actually this statement is a logical fallacy as well.

Draw and gold does not "equal character control".

You can't just theory craft draw and resource generation in isolation without taking everything else into account. Having card advantage of playable cards is what matters. Gold and resource generating cards do not equal anything if the opponent can choke and lock out the resources by Plot (Rule by Decree, Blockade) and has additionally means of controlling resources. Baratheon has a proven means of generating characters on the table without gold. Greyjoy has many means of generating negative hand advantage and table advantage for the opponent. With the nerfs that people are tending to discount out of hand Lannister lacks any form of attachment control (which matters against every other house).

I think my problem with many arguments I read is people assume that "draw + gold" automatically equals character control when in actuality it does not. There was a good article written by someone on hand advantage a while back that illustrates this point. The key is hand advantage and it seems to me FFG is rying to devise alternate means of accomplishing things like getting characters out on the table. Then it must also be pointed out that cards and gold don't win games, Power does. Like I said, cards+gold does not easily = power the way it did when a Stark or Lanni could use Castamere+Alayne Stone.

Actually gold plus draw does equal reliable character control. The logical fallacy comes only because I failed to include the build it would be put in... which should be unnecessary since we all know the main control cards for Lannister, what they do, how they work and what they synergize well with. Heck it doesn't even have to be out of Lannister. Let's assume every Lannister draw and resource card was neutral or in-house for the house of your choice. Now take any deck that isn't Lannister since the beginning of the LCG but placed in the top four and strip out its draw and resource engines and replace it with your favorite Lannister versions of it and lets see how many decks remain the same, fall apart, or improve, just by this change.

If I can draw three cards a turn from turn 2 on, every turn, as well as have 2-5 gold in addition to my plot from turn 1 on, all I have to do is have a moderate amount of character control in my deck. I'll draw into it reliably and have the extra gold needed to play it reliably... that means that gold plus draw (in a deck intended to control characters) equals reliable character control.

Sure power wins games... but how do you gain power? By winning unopposed challenges (which requires uncontrolled characters), winning power challenges (which requires uncontrolled characters), dominance (which requires standing character strength or unspent gold), or effects which grab power (many of which are on characters or otherwise require winning challenges). This is why a rush deck that can reliably rush, gain that needed 15 power in two turns, and control decks that can control challenges, most often by controlling the characters that would or could participate, have pretty much been the two most reliable deck types. We've had various flavors of those two builds, but nothing with as long a history of dominance or reliability as these two builds.

Rush seeks to "go off" before it can be controlled and is often almost entirely dependent on its flop/redraw. Control has fewer needs of a "Godhand" to do its work, needing to just get one or two pieces in play in the first turn and a road block or two. As such, control decks have a better track record. You need to have those pieces in hand and the ability to put them in play and you do that most reliably in this game by having draw and gold. Sure we could make an argument about resources in general, put into play effects etc, but those are all limited options that force us to play a specific build and lacks the options that actual Gold dragons in your pool gives you.

dormouse said:

Something I have been experimenting with to some success is a delayed rush deck that does not require a god hand. We should find out in a few weeks just how successful I've been!

Delayed Rush and Disruption are the other two deck types that have at various points done well... but have yet to shine. I am hoping as we move forward we'll see cards giving these builds some more tools to have their praises sung by more than the handful of people who like to buck the system.

dormouse said:

See, that's the thing that seems so strange to me. Maybe I'm just having fantastically poor luck, but even running the full Triumvirate as well as (at varying) points 3 Goldcloaks or 2 Qyburn's Informers, I'm not sure I've been off to that fantastic of a start with draw in Lannister in... ummm........... well..... uhhh................ Ok, so it does seem to happen to me pretty often in Martell at least. Getting three cards off of one card pays off.

Stag Lord said:

Funny enough, in the final at the DC Regional, Erick popped Dan's Maegi (which he just played that turn) with Varys. While there were other factors for why Dan ultimately lost the game, the fact that a draw engine was destroyed (he had drawn other burn cards throughout the game) was definitely one of them.

Kennon: Sorry about not realizing the "?'s" in your original post. It was rather tired when I read it and when I glanced back I simply failed to find any, despite them clearly being there.

Also, Dobbler definitely makes a good point about ex-Champion's, the decks they run at tournaments, and how the two correlate with Lannister being "on top." I am more or less convinced that the best players in AGoT can bring a non-Lanni deck to any tourney (of normal player skill distribution, perhaps not the "best of the best") and "easily" (perhaps consistently is a better word) finish in the top 4, 2, or 1.

Being a strong player is not just about what House you play. It's what deck you build and how you play it (and the game in general). Many times I've seen a strong player swap a deck with a weaker player, only to see the stronger player still beat the weaker player. Lannister is very strong, but if I want to win, I'll take Lannister over an ex-Champion or player of equal caliber any day.

dormouse said:

The fallacy is that having gold and having draw cards in your deck does not guarantee you can use them. That i why I sway playable cards in hand is different than just claiming a draw and gold advantage.

Maybe I am not ununderstanding what you are meaning by "reliable character control". What I am saying is that draw + gold does not automatically equal Power on your House (or other cards) nor even does it guarantee board position control. All it means is you can draw more cards and if the resource producing cards can survive long enough on the board then they can gain a card advantage. But if a House/Deck has mechanics that:

A) do not require a whole lot of gold to get massive characters on the board (Baratheon)

or

B) Work to obtain card advantage by denying the opponent resources and cards (Greyjoy + Rule by Decree, Blockade)

then gold and draw do not automatically equate "reliable character control" in relation to your opponent.

Ah no worries on missing the question mark man. I just couldn't help a poke back.

Kennon said:

I know, but I like to cover my tracks when "poking" at people; especially when I'm wrong

I agree with Dobbler that Crone adds a ton of draw to the environment and makes Targ very competitive. For an earlier explanation of why I think so, see my thread post here . The relevant paragraph is:

Twn2dn said:

Since I stated the above in mid-April, I've really begun to believe that Crones are not as strong as GTM, but they are still very strong. One reason for this rating is that Crones are expensive and low STR. Fatmouse mentioned that I drew into one Crone in the finals game and it was immediately discarded to Erick's Varys. Without more location discard, character-based draw will continue to be more vulnerable/risky. Also, Crone is only one card, and even one card can't correct a big imbalance since there's no guarantee you'll draw into it. (Lanni's draw dominance is not based on GTM alone. It has a lot to do with the flexibility/variety of their draw effects, as Jeff mentioned above.)

Another, and less obvious but more important, point is that the combo requirement for Crone is actually a pretty big deal. In the mid and late game, it isn't an obstacle: A Poison Wine (or even Forever burning + influence) with Crone in play can easily translate to +2-3 cards each round. With Fear of Winter, Blockade, and the current competitive decktypes (GJ/Lanni), however, much of the game can be decided by the first three rounds. (GJ's Fury plot targets Targ, and that doesn't help.) while I can likely count on drawing quite a bit late game, surviving that long is becoming increasingly difficult, especially when I am forced to setup with 3-gold, 1-STR monocons for my primary draw source. In contrast, Lanni can setup 1-gold characters (Tommen) or 2-gold locations (GTM) along with enough to ensure the setups are consistently more than 3-card flops, which is my typical setup if one of them is a Crone. Also, because Lanni will likely have more claim fodder after playing draw cards during setup since their draw cards are cheaper, Lanni should be able to better withstand a round 1-2 Fear/Blockade...and even draw during Fear, since their draw effects don't require playing extra cards/combos.

The bottom line is that Crone can definitely out-perform GTM and often does, but in games where the opponent puts the pressure on early (especially against GJ and Bara), I find that Crones are (perhaps counter-intuitively) a lot less reliable/helpful than a guaranteed one card per round. Also, in games where there's more targeted removal (Venomous Blades, burn, anti-ally effects, etc.), Crones can be pretty awful for 3 gold. In longer games with less removal, Crones really earn their keep. So for every game that Crone drew an outrageous number of cards, there's probably a game where a Crone was a liability more than a boon. (Put a different way, I always expect my first Crone to die and hope the second will draw an enormous amount of cards.)

It seems to me there are a few different questions being discussed right now.

1. Can a deck for a house other than Lannister be built to have as much draw as a Lannister drawing deck?

It sounds like the answer is probably "yes". Martell can build a deck with a solid drawing engine and be very close to Lannister, or perhaps even equal, in terms of drawing. Other house's draw is improving but not yet approaching Lannister or Martell. It seems like everyone's pretty much on the same page on this one.

2. Can a competitive deck be built for a house other than Lannister that draws as effectively as Lannister?

This is about the opportunity costs of including the cards that provide draw. What do you have to give up in order to get solid drawing? For Martell your only realistic options for draw are characters, so certain sacrifices must be made. Either you give yourself a bigger pool of characters than normal or you sacrifice characters that were being used for other purposes. Given the very solid events and attachments in a Martell deck and the need for resource providing locations (particularly influence for the better events and attachments) sacrificing in those areas is very difficult. The good news is that many of these cards give their draw immediately, so even if they're killed/discarded from play they've already served their primary purpose. The bad news is that the really solid drawing characters are either pretty crappy for anything else (Dornish Paramour and Skirmisher must be sacrificed for the draw, FBS is a 1 STR monocon, HM is a 2 STR monocon) or very expensive (Viper's Bannermen at 7 gold, though they are pretty kickass with Deadly and Stealth).

Of course, ANY time you include a card that's primary purpose is draw you're making sacrifices - there's always an opportunity cost. The question is how the cards that provide draw for a house interact with other cards in that house's arsenal. My belief is that Lannister's broader range of drawing cards in terms of types (characters, a great event and good locations) makes it much easier to manage that opportunity cost than it is for a Martell deck. Also, some of the characters that provide draw are pretty solid (Tyrion is a 3 STR bicon with Stealth, Qyburn's Informers is a 2 STR monocon but has Stealth and the Goldcloaks are a whopping 4 STR shadows bicon). This means they can fill roles beyond simple draw. Thus, the opportunity cost for including them is less. In terms of a card like GTM, the draw is so reliable that it's easy to see that the opportunity cost of including it in your deck is almost always worth it.

I'm certainly not ruling out that a competitive Martell deck with very good draw is possible, but I do think it's a significantly more difficult challenge than it is for Lannister.

3. If Lannister has the best effective draw in the game, does it matter?

In theory, no. One house is going to be better at draw, just as one house will be better at targeted kill, discard, etc. In practice? Lannister is still winning more than others, but it's not easy to parse out how much of that is a result of their strong drawing ability.

LaughingTree said:

That isn't a logical fallacy. You may say that you don't agree with it, or that it is wrong, but that does not a logical fallacy make. To the point that is splitting hairs since no matter what ones deck make up is you may have cards that are unable to be played at any given point in your hand. This game has only three mechanics if you have cards you cannot use but need to get some that you can, recurse cards that you have already used that would currently be helpful (requires you to have already drawn them and played them), search for the cards you need (an effect that in the LCG is no longer unilateral in most examples and restricted when it is), or draw more cards into your hand from your deck (which most players I know include reveal effects in this category). Guess between these effects which has more examples in this game?

Any deck that is intended to control characters needs to get the necessary cards into your hand, if the most effects to do so are draw effects then there is little point in arguing this particular aspect of my statement. Putting those cards into play (if they are characters, attachments, or locations) most often requires gold, or enough reducers to lower the gold cost to zero (which like reveal, most players I know most often lumped into gold). Events that don't require any gold will often require influence or the kneeling or sacrificing of a character which was put into play by gold.

Take your three best decks, replace all draw and gold cards with non-gold and draw cards and play them against your best second tier decks and tell me what your win/loss ratios are. A deck that seeks to control characters needs those effects in hand and a way to move them from in hand to play. The main mechanic for doing both of these in this game is draw and gold. Everything else is a secondary or tertiary means of accomplishing the effect and limit your house choices and build options.

Forced card disadvantage is certainly a means of disrupting your opponents ability to play the game, but if you rely solely on forced card disadvantage without the means to draw into more of it (so as to always have at least one effect to counter your opponents attempts to gain card advantage) and then the necessary resources to play the effect or put the card into play you end up falling behind... which means draw and gold (or bringing cards from your draw deck to hand and the resources to put them from your hand into play if you prefer) still become the number one means of ensuring that you are successful accomplishing what your deck is meant to do.

No one is saying just building a deck with draw effects and gold producers (or card reducers) equals a win, all decks need to gain the necessary power to meet the win condition... but if you build the bones of a decent deck and add a good draw and resource engine to it, you'll find it out performing similar decks with poor or no draw and resource engines, and often decks whose card power levels are even superior. If you don't believe me try the experiment, or we can hop on Octagon and we can try it there. We can each try it with a deck with no gold or draw and then the version with and see what the results are.

dormouse said:

Damon,

What you said was a logical fallacy. One of the most basic ones, a non sequitor.

B does not follow from A. You said "draw + gold" EQUALS (as in "=") "reliable character control".

Now, maybe you meant something different by "reliable character control" than what is normally interpretted but what you specifically said *was* a logical fallacy. It does not logically follow that having draw cards and gold cards in your deck automatically "equals" "reliable character control.

Maybe you are not seeing the point, but when you do split hairs to point out logical fallacies in other people's posts you really should be able to recognize it in your own. If the above is not what you *meant*, I perfectly understand but what you had typed was a logical fallacy.

LaughingTree said:

Maybe I should just provide 2 examples and end this discussion since going back and forth is getting pedantic and from your post you are simply not understanding what I am pointing out.

Lannister's gold advantage in the current card pool comes entirely from Weaponsmith and Steward, two characters. Because the game environment includes certain card effects and not others, (Valar Morg kills all characters, there is nothing that kills all locations) those cards are more vulnerable than others. So, in a situation like this: Lannister player players 3 Stewards. Next turn the opposing Baratheon player plays Valar Morg in plot phase. Suddenly the Lannister player just lost the gold to play the Stewards without getting any back. Lets say Baratheon player now drops a Bara Lord/Lady (using reducers if needed) along with 2 Royal Entourage for free. Suddenly Baratheon player has huge character control advantage on table without needing a card for "gold production.

Second, Martell has Red Viper with some attachments like Taste for Blood, Bodyguard and a dupe or two and Lannister probably has more characters on the board so Viper does not kneel to attack. Lannister, lacks attachment control. Unless you have plot kneels even Valar Morg is not going to necessarily help and there is certainly a possibility that a Lannister deck might draw more and produce more gold but Martell is going to win anyway.

Now, I really should say I am not disputing that Lannister has a draw and gold *advantage*. I simply do not believe that at the moment and particularly with the cards spoiled about to come out for Stark, that having a draw and gold advantage due to several cards automatically translates into character control. Bara has reducers and free to get in play cards that circumvent the need for having as much gold. These things must be taken into account before asserting that having one or two more cards for draw and gold automatically translates into an advantage of characters.

There is strategic interaction that must be taken into account. With cards designed to achieve the goal of winning Power on House/Characters without needing as many draw and gold production cards, then the equation is not as simplistic as "Draw + Gold = Character Control" as the two examples I provided illustrate. I hope that clears up any confusion.

I explained that draw and gold equal whatever your deck is intended to create... reliably. In a deck designed for character control (and I can't remember the last time I saw a Lannister deck that wasn't) then it equals reliable character control.

There is also Tywin Lannister and Hear Me Roar to establish their gold advantage. Valar may wipe out the characters that primarily give Lannister its gold advantage, but of course it also removes any character advantage most decks would have over Lannister, which translates to character control. First or Second turn Valar neutralizes most strong flops against Lannister, since one of the best way for overcoming their control involves swarming the board and simply having more characters in play than they can control at any given time... and even one marshalling phase with gold advantage puts Lannister ahead more often than not in putting out the needed pieces to their control...

So as I said in my first response, if there was a fallacy involved in that original statement it was only because I did not explain what "reliable character control" entailed, having done so now a couple of times, to prove the logical fallacy after the explanation of terms you have to show how it isn't true and considering this is one of the truisms of CCG's that is easier said than done.

dormouse said:

Sigh

Its a shame you have a hard time admitting you are wrong when you are blatantly wrong. The fallacy in your original statement is not *just* that you failed to include how every card in your build matters as to whether or not you can achieve "reliable character control" on the table but ALSO what cards are available to your opponent and how the *strategic interaction* plays out.

You did commit a non sequitor by asserting that "draw and gold" cards EQUAL reliable character control.

That is a fallacy because in a game where strategic interaction matters, including draw and gold in your deck does NOT EQUAL anything. If you want to avoid a fallacy in your statement you not only have to recognize the other cards in your build, but you have to recognize the cards in the other build and also the factor of luck of the draw.

I already provided two stone card examples from real games that PROVE my point and illustrate that your statement as you wrote it was a logical fallacy. You can argue till you are blue in the face about what you *meant* and you can add plenty of after-the-fact disclaimers but that doesn't change the fact that your original statement was a non sequitor. GO back and read my examples;

These are not the droids you're looking for. Move along.

Deathjester26 said:

awesome use of one of my lest favorite quotes as it always over quoted.

A thought that occurs to me in light of the last few posts has to do with this reliable character control and Valar. Particularly the comments about knocking out Lannister's gold producing characters. While Lannister has means to continue playing threats to the board thanks to their draw and gold production, they are notoriously light on means to keep those threats in play. Gilded Plate is the only in house save that I can recall, and I think most of us can agree that it's really not that great. Still, it's playable and Power of Blood will keep your nobles alive but between power non-uniques and the popularity of Shadows builds, competitive Lannister decks are driven away from using it. While Bodyguard is still quite useful in Lannister, I still see it coupled to better use with the Noble heavy Baratheon and Stark builds that also use Power of Blood. Some of my more difficult games have been against this type of build where I can't effectively remove threats from the board in order to use my control on a growing board presence while mine is not equalized by Valar or the like.

Kennon said:

But, you don't necessarily need to kill off all their threat characters do you? Just control them. As long as you can either A) Kill of non threat characters to keep your oponent's character count down to a manageable size or, B) force your oponent to flood the board, reducing their cards in hand while you build up a hand advantage, and then valar, you should be ok shouldn't you? Of course you have to keep some control card in your hand while you're doing this in order to continue your lock post-Valar, but that's not too tricky. Do you feel this is true, or that this breaks down somewhere Kennon?

Also, I don't think Lanni's gold is what it used to be. IMHO, the Steward and Weaponsmith are most advantageous in the early game. They provide you early resources, before your more reliable resource locations can build up. Hopefully once Valar hits, you've been able to set up your resource base, and have pleanty of cards in hand to then flood the table with more control.

Kennon said:

I was thinking the other day that Lanni could use the guy from the Valyrian Premium Starter that acted as a save. Might add a little diversity to the house.

Kennon said:

No, no, I wasn't saying that Lanni was really hurting for some in house saves. I was just pointing out that is one of their weaknesses. Personally, if you have gold + draw, I'm ok with that meaning your cards are going to be a little more temporary and force you to keep playing more or two use something OOH.

A + B = Sigma. Before this statement can be deemed to be a logical fallacy or not you must know what A, B, and Sigma are, and then it must be tested to be proven untrue. A, B, and Sigma have now been defined, I've given you two very good experiments by which you can test to see if it is untrue... of course even if both tests come out positive it is not absolute proof that the equation is true, but if either of them fails it does prove that it is not true.

Lannister Weapons Smith, Lannister Steward, Tywin, Hear Me Roar, that is a possible minimum 8 card advantage to gold production Lannister has. Eight ways of generating gold to power various effects and put cards into play. The top Lannister decks currently are control decks, where they seek to repeatedly shut down their opponents ability to execute challenges by hook or by crook (but mostly by kneeling). The fewer characters you have on the board the easier it is for Lannister to control your characters. Using a character reset to remove their gold advantage also typically would remove a number of your own characters, there by making it easier to control what is left on the table. When the kill switch is thrown on the Control deck and Cersei, Jaime, Tyrion, or their other challenging characters hit the table you will have fewer characters to be able to engage them with, two of those are control cards themselves, and the third powers off a number of their cards often used for control in Lannister decks so it is not uncommon to see them. Their presence and your lessened character base increases the chances of their gaining power, though truthfully I've seen good kneel and Shadows control decks out of Lannister win games with turn after turn of challenges by refugees and other "cannon fodder."

As to the Viper, Lannister may have no attachment control, but they have access to a number of locations and attachments and plots that negatively impact the Viper, controlling him very effectively, and even easier ways of controlling the big bruisers of a number of the other houses. They just have to be able to get them in hand and be able to afford to put them in play.

I've countered both of your arguments, if you aren't willing to try the experiments I suggested then there is no point in continuing the discussion. If you are correct either of those should be able to prove it, you lose nothing in testing it. I maintain that the statement I made is simply an expression of a truism of CCG's, is it the absolute nature of it you are reacting to more to that than the actual meaning or worth of the idea-ology behind it?