Hey all, I'm a brand new AGoT player who just bought a copy of the core set and played my first game a couple of days ago! There is fortunately a playgroup near where I live and I hear it's pretty competitive as well. I am a self-professed Johnny/Spike player so I like to win using unconventional means. I like to employ underused strategies or factions (in AGoT's case, houses) that are deemed weaker than others.

A guy I spoke with from the local hobby shop mentioned that some people shy away from playing Lannister because they are the villains in the book series (I haven't read the books myself). Though judging from the contents of the core set and some of the posts in this forum, Lannister is far from being the weakest house!

Which house, if any, is considered the weakest in the current environment?

There is a "weakest House," but which one it is depends almost entirely on who you ask. That's how different the strategies in this game can be - weak and strong has at least a little to do with the player.

Lannister is actually fairly widely considered to be the strongest House, at least for Joust. The guy telling you that people shy away from them because of their role in the book is probably entirely correct for casual players, but tournament players flock to them - or at least until very recently; an "I'm bored of playing Lannister" feel has begun to take hold.

In general, Greyjoy is the House that is seeing the least competitive success at the moment. They have a lot of strong effects and good mechanics that somehow just don't pull together into strong decks for a lot of people. Find the right deck composition and they kick butt, though. Targaryen is not a popular competitive choice because they tend to be a very intensive House to play (lots of "moving parts" in their decks). However, the people that do play them have made outstanding showings.

Ask 10 competitive players what the "weakest" House is and you'll probably get at least 5 different answers (potentially 6 now that you can play a "Neutral Faction"). And I only say 5 when there are 6 Houses because I doubt anyone will say Lannister is the weakest. Now, ask them why they say something is the weakest House and you'll probably learn as much about that person's play style as you do about the factions.

I agree more or less with ktom. I want to add that Stark is the weakest House (at least in Joust). Win some big tournament with them and you'll prove to me that you are a very good player.

Stark weak ? I don't see it, I would say either Greyjoy or maybe Targaryen.

Lol, you guys are making ktom's case for him! The lack of agreement in determining a "weakest" house speaks volumes about AGoT's balance!

Let's change the question around a little bit: is there a particular house that is the easiest to collect as a new player starting from scratch? I realize that every house has cards scattered throughout each Chapter Pack, but not all of those "scattered" cards are useful. I suppose the most likely candidates would be Greyjoy, Martell, and Stark as they all have deluxe expansions.

TempestTenor said:

Stark, then Martell.

I agree and would say Stark, copy of the core set and Lords of Winter is an amazing start. Greyjoy is probably the hardest due to the format of Kings of the Sea, one of each card. So for a playset have to buy 3 of them.

Baratheon will soon be easy as well as soon as kings of the Storm comes out.

Rogue30 said:

That sounds like a challenge, sir =)

Easy to collect, but hard to play...sounds like Stark will be my first house!

Stark are really the easiest to play as well. Very focused on military challenges. Myself and the two other players I have taught all gravitate towards them and the kill, kill. Even my fiance liked them while watching the intro video cuz of their look with the winter theme and stuff. So maybe tournament wise they don't go very well but overall they are quite popular due to the games and the books. Stark family are all main characters in the books.

Toqtamish said:

I misspoke. I should have said "hard to win tournaments with" instead of "hard to play." =)

I would say that Bara is probably the weakest house right now, just because they aren't very versatile and they are easy to shut down if you know how to do it. Now once the bara box hits then GJ will easily be the weakest house. However, I'd say that there is very little distance between 1st and 6th place.

I've gotta second everything Staton said. Bara just gets shut down pretty easily, and when they do, the game ends. Abruptly.

But I definitely agree with the idea that there isn't much distance between 1st and 6th. All houses are good enough, it just comes down to the player and his or her playstyle, IMO.

If you want to give yourself a challenge ...

Play using the Neutral House ... but use characters all from Baratheon (and no neutral house cards!)

Staton said:

I can't agree with you. See top 8 Gencon decks . It's not coincidence. And Stark just got new, really awesome cards.

I'm confused at what your inferring Rogue.

A good portion of the players in that top 8, are people who would probably be there regardless of what house they were playing.

Just because a certain house isn't in the top 8, doesn't mean they are any worse than another house. The way I see it, experience makes the difference.

Husemann said:

Wow, that's a really cool idea Ktom, might have to try that one.

ktom said:

I could EASILY get behind that kind of tournament.

GenCon '11? lol

ktom said:

I've heard of events like that; I imagine that it would be tough to pull off in a regular "tournament" setting since a lot of players are kinda attached to the decks they built. But the experienced players would be more open to the idea of "sharing deck ideas" and then playing in an environment that emphasizes more player skill than "I've got a better deck".

I would suggest that the tournament be a non-elimination type. Each round, everyone plays at a different table, hopefully against different players. After a certain number of rounds (hmmm... how many games can you play in 8 hours?), tally up the win totals by deck and by player.

Heck, why not have a regular tournament on Day 1, and then the Top 5 from Day 1 get to play in the final melee on Day 2. The final format is this "pass your deck to another" format.

very interesting idea here ktom.

I would never give it legs to stand on in a CCG environment, with everyone freaked their Rare/UltraRare cards will "disappear." But it could actually be a blast in the LCG world...

I haven't played in a tourney yet. I play with friends, and am the sole provider of AGOT cards/decks. In a way, we do this already, as I need to pull each of them aside and quickly explain the idea behind the house, deck, and perceived play style. Often they end up playing it NOT how i imagined, and I've been pleasantly surprised on how they play the deck... granted, it doesn't always work out for them >_<

I haven't given up on GJ either. I only have 1 core set, so Martell and GJ at the moment are hard-up for some income generation... They tend to be the biggest under-dogs at the moment.

To the original post:

Depends on the local meta. It all depends on what other people are running. I made a Tully rush deck and went 6-0 at a local tournament in the summer, winning mostly because I anticipated how the meta was going to be. Then I lost two straight at 15-0 power to an epic siege deck the next week, mostly because I had never seen it before so I didn't know how it was working, partially because we were both playing decks based on character presence and I didn't beat it out of the gate. It then lost to a greyjoy unopposed deck that can abuse an opponent so violently I remain impressed to this day. A deck which I managed to beat in that 6-0 tournament. So it depends on the meta, and it depends on the player. I like having lots of characters on the board. Counting 18+ strength after your first marshall feels good. It feels horrible when your opponent flips valar for a second plot.