The top 8 Joust Decks at GenCon, and the Final 4 Melee ALL featured the appropriate "fury of ..." plot. Obviously not all of those would have been up against opponents with the appropriate house-card to use the special ability, but there's a chance.

On the other hand, if there were to suddenly be a new house, that house would be guaranteed to be safe from that, and various other cards which specify targetting a certain house card, as they didn't exist when the cards were printed.

With the neutral house cards, players get this protection, but with a trade-off of having to pay a gold penalty on any non-neutral characters. It just seems like creating a whole new house would give that house a massive advantage, as no-one else would have specific abilities targetted against them.

Mighty Jim said:

You may have just inadvertently provided an answer to the question of "what mechanics or themes could set Arryn apart from other houses?" With the Vale, maybe being able to control targeting or manipulate challenges while not being particularly good at them would be something new. Lots of defensive type actions; redirection, limiting abilities, some cancels, all with appropriate costs of course.

For those of you that don't follow Cthulhu, a new faction has recently been added to the game there as seen in these cards:

I point you now to cards that I created and posted on the Cthulhu forums about the time it originally switched the Asylum pack releases (about a year before AGOT did)

Notice anything interesting?

So, in light of that, I can only assume that we'll see an announcement that House Arryn will be added to the game in it's own expansion roughly a year from now and the cards should look 90% like this fake card that some of you might remember that I mocked up prior to the release of House of Talons:

I would say their own house. You can say 'who's side are they on?' for EVERY house...they are on their own!!! Nuetral is good for things like Wildlings, or Brotherhood, or the such...but Arryns are one of the 7 great houses dammit!

If necessary, they can just be the weaker cousin since they don't get as much play in the books (although not much less than Martell really). In L5R that was the case with some houses like Ratling. Only diehards played them really, since it was pretty darn hard to win with them. Nothing wrong with that, and more variety (within reason) isn't a bad thing.

Mighty Jim said:

~Simon St. Vincet = Brett Zeiler = Heartthrob!!!

I wouldn't mind a year of releases starting with an Arryn expansion, and a CP cycle focussing on building up Arryn (with splashes of thematic cards for the other houses), followed by a Tyrell expasion and a similar CP cycle for them. Tully doesn't need its own house IMHO.

Hopefully this game has years and years for FFG to explore how far they can take it. It might be better to wait a few years (~1,000 or so, if ever) until there's more source material for Arryn.

Deathjester26 said:

I think my thoughts on this issue most closely mirror this. I don't think we need to add new houses to the game, but if we did, I think Arryn and Tyrell would make the most sense, while Tully really isn't on my list of houses I'd add. I see them more as a support house to Stark than a great house unto themselves.

I can´t see why house Arryn should be represented as a great house in the game. I mean they are definetely a great house in theory, but storywise they are far from being a great house that acts on it´s own till the end of feast for crows. So it would only make sense to give them their own representation if Martin get´s to release the next book very quickly and house Arryn does something that shows that they have awakened from their permanent hibernation.

I would like Tyrell better as an own house representzed house in the game, but i´m also fine with the houses like they are right now. Don´t forget that the neutral faction doesnt have any support cards yet. So we are at the moment waiting for some more support for "house" #7. Why we are talking about house #8 and #9 ?

Does the Neutral Faction really need any more direct support than every neutral character, attachment, location, and event that's ever been printed?

Gualdo said:

The answer to that problem is quite simple. A neutral event that says something along the lines of "while you control X House Arryn characters" or "do this to your House Arryn character." Problem solved.

My thoughts are closest to Old Ben. I don't see how adding House Arryn as a new faction is thematically "correct". They play a supporting role in the books, not a primary one. Every existing house in the game has chapters in the novels written from the perspective of members of that house. There aren't any chapters written from House Arryn's perspective. It seems safe to assume that that GRRM made this choice for a reason. Those houses with POV chapters are presumed to be the major players in the story arc, and thus in the "game of thrones" it portrays. House Arryn, however old it may be in the world's history, just doesn't cut the mustard as far I see. The same goes for Tully and Tyrell. And which Arryn character would get the King/Queen trait? Without at least one King or Queen, you don't get the play the game of thrones.

I also have gameplay concerns, most of which have been already mentioned. My number one concern is the pack dilution that would come from adding a seventh faction to the game. While a game like Cthulhu can support a large number of factions (eight now!) thanks to a resource system that supports mixed faction decks. This makes it far easier to introduce a new faction into the game as they can work as an enhancement to existing factions, while also increasing the utility of ALL non-neutral cards as they can work in a much wider variety of decks. AGoT's resource system, in contrast, is simply too punishing to include more than 1 or 2 out of of house cards in your deck, and then only on rare occasions. Thus, the overall utility of non-neutral cards is lessened. Treaty agendas help, but currently treaty decks are not really played in "serious" games (not that I have anything against casual games, but any design decision must support both casual and tournament environments).

And then there's game balance. AGoT is a deep, complex game. Adding a seventh house is only going to make the already difficult job of balancing the houses even more of a headache for the design team. It seems the environment is finally seeing a decent balance among the houses. It's not perfect, but definitely better than the "How do we beat Lannister?" times of a year ago. Is now the time we really want to complicate things?

Finally, what would the game gain from a seventh house? The game gets richer and deeper with every expansion. The house specific deluxe expansions are doing a good job so far of adding new viable builds for the houses they represent, and I have faith that they will continue to do so. CP cycles have added seasons, shadows, stackable agendas and the neutral house affiliation. What is the game lacking that requires a seventh house, along with all of the potential pitfalls it brings?

Old Ben said:

I don't think so. In my view, the nuetrals should for the most part be cards that can be easily incorporated into any house's deck (obviously certain cards will work better with certain houses based on mechanics).

So, I don't think there really is a 7th house right now. Arryn or Tyrell would be the 7th IMO.

Regarding story reasons, I suppose it depends how far back you go in the storyline. Lysa certainly played a part, and the only reason for a slumber ( I would definitely argue with permanent) was Jon Arryn's demise. Though, yeah you could definitely make a case for Tyrell before Arryn.

I guess I'm somewhat surprised that there's really any opposition to adding a few houses. I haven't seen an argument yet that persuades me against the viability of any added houses.

JeffK said:

The POV angle is interesting - I disagree in that the POV's are constantly changing, and sticking strictly to that we wouldn't have seen the houses we currently have back when this game originally started.

I disagree on the King/Queen trait; but, that could be because I've been playing since before that trait was part of the game & it's skewed my view. So, should Martell not be a house because they don't have a King? - what about Targ, who only has a legendary character? Also, strictly speaking, using that logic there shouldn't be a House Lannister, as their only Kings/Queens have the titles based on having a last name of Baratheon, so you should fold them into House Baratheon.

JeffK said:

I really don't see pack dilution. Even going with 9 houses - that would provide for 2 new cards from each house & 2 nuetrals, or a minimum of 4 usable cards for each house with each pack. I say minimum, because they could always print a small number of dual-house cards. Is this really that different than now? Have they really eliminated all of the filler cards to date?

Regarding balance, while always a problem for the designers, and in a state of flux, I'm not convinced that it would be that much harder to balance. The game did fine going from 3 houses to 4, from 4 to 5, and 5 to 6. I'm not sure why a 7th or 8th would produce any more pitfalls. Furthermore, as it slows down the number of cards added to house, it should help the designers monitor the power levels as the living card game matures and progresses.

Personally, I'd rather see them as separate houses even if it meant they were generally weaker than the other six.

The resource system for this game really isn't much of a problem either. The deluxe expansion pretty much includes all the resources you need, and most are house specific. Only the Seas are shared, and that's easily solved by either coming up with a new sea, or just slighly modifying/reprinting the current Seas and including in the appropriate expansions (Arryn - Narrow Sea make A/S/B; Tyrell- Summer make Ty/Ta/M, Tully- Sunset make Tu/G/L)

I agree with OldBen and JeffK for several reasons.

First, as far as mechanics go, I can't think of any significant holes that can't be filled within the existing six-house framework. So adding new primary houses seems unnecessary from a mechanics/gameplay standpoint.

Second, adding a seventh+ house adds more complexities and limitations to the game. Looking strictly at the mechanics of the game, the main thing a house affiliation does is raise the cost (generally making it cost prohibitive) to play a card from any other house than its own affiliation. In a few cases, a second limit (House X only) is added to further restrict deck building. Given the number of houses and current restrictions, I personally am more than satisfied with the complexity of the deckbuilding decisions; and in those instances where I'm not (ie there's seemingly not enough choice), it has more to do with the lack of cards in existence rather than the lack of houses to choose from.

As a sub-component of this, although designers are creative, the number of potential mechanics that exist in the game is not infinite. I guess what I mean is that the more houses there are to divide up mechanics, the fewer mechanics each house receives, so that each house becomes more specialized. This isn't terrible, but it does make the houses less flexible and robust. Now adding a seventh house and stopping there probably wouldn't ruin all the other six houses, but adding 10 more houses likely would. The question then is at what point do you stop adding houses, and why even begin to go down that route when the current six-house framework seems to be working.

This brings me to my third point: If there's no gameplay reason to make more houses, then it's a decision based on flavor, which is very subjective. If seventh, eighth, or ninth house options are desired for flavor, it's also hard for me to see why Arryn should be first on the list. If anything, I see Wildlings as a justifiable seventh house much more than Arryn, which doesn't seem interested in capturing control of Westeros in the books...at least not as much as Lanni, Stark, Targ, and Bara are. (Actually, it's always kind of struck me as strange that Wildlings and Nights Watch are represented as neutral characters in this game, since Wildlings are by no means neutral in the books, and Nights Watch are more anti-Wildling than they are neutral...more of an "agenda" than a faction, I think. But those were decisions made a long time ago and are now part of the game's legacy.) I think the main lesson is that flavor is probably not the deciding factor when it comes to adding houses, and in any case, deciding which houses/factions warrant additions as major houses in this game is subject to opinion.

On a somewhat related note, I see the Neutral House Card as much less useful for Neutral Characters (which don't actually need a house card anyway to work together) and much more for trait-based decks, such as Kingsguard or Maesters, or thematic/combo decks that combine pieces from multiple houses. This means I'll be able to combine gold from Lanni, burn from Targ, and draw/control from Martell for a nasty combination of ALL-STAR cards. Alternatively, if I want to play a deck composed of all 0-cost characters with a few events, I can draw from six houses worth of 0-cost cards. This also makes existing and future traited decks (ie a House Arryn deck) playable even if cards with that trait are scattered across several houses.

Its amazing how conservative this forum can be in terms of changing the game dynamic.

I'm not persuaded by any argument against adding at least one and maybe two more Houses to the system. It all seems like aethetics to me - and IMO we'd be better served with more independent Houses. It would make it more like the books - and that is always my primary concern with the game.

Stag Lord said:

How would we be better served? I've seen lots of posts about what wouldn't be a problem, but nobody has said anything about how the game would actually benefit from the addition of a seventh house.

And I don't even agree that it would make it more like the books. Show me a POV chapter from House Arryn and tell me who their royal candidate for the "Game of Thrones" would be and I might be more inclined to agree with you. And, just for the record, making the game more like the books is pretty low on my list of concerns. Fun, game balance and deck variety all rate way higher for me.

And don't tell me we need a seventh house for deck variety - Magic has been going strong with a huge variety of decks for 17 YEARS with only five colors. I'd rather see a wider variety of options within the existing houses than see a whole new house added, which will only make adding variety within houses that much more difficult.

Oh, and disagreeing with you doesn't make me conservative. It just makes YOU wrong.

LordofBrewtown said:

Martell has a Queen, so they're covered. Lannister's Kings/Queens may have gotten the title via House Baratheon, but they are clearly working for Lannister's interests, not Baratheons. How can Arryn play the "Game of Thrones" if they don't have anyone to put on the throne in the first place? And, as it seems in the books right now, they don't seem to have any desire to do so in the first place.

"I really don't see pack dilution. Even going with 9 houses - that would provide for 2 new cards from each house & 2 nuetrals, or a minimum of 4 usable cards for each house with each pack. I say minimum, because they could always print a small number of dual-house cards. Is this really that different than now? Have they really eliminated all of the filler cards to date? "

Pack dilution will happen. Enough to be a huge issue? Probably not, but without some actual compensating gain I just don't see a reason to dilute the packs even a little. Currently each house will get about 12 cards per cycle (taking into account neutrals, plots and agendas). With a seventh house it would go down to 10. Where's the benefit to make up for that?

"Personally, I'd rather see them as separate houses even if it meant they were generally weaker than the other six. "

Bleah! I would hate that even more. Why on earth would I want to play a house that was intentionally made weaker than the main six? That would just a be a total waste of cardboard, IMO.

"The resource system for this game really isn't much of a problem either. The deluxe expansion pretty much includes all the resources you need, and most are house specific. Only the Seas are shared, and that's easily solved by either coming up with a new sea, or just slighly modifying/reprinting the current Seas and including in the appropriate expansions (Arryn - Narrow Sea make A/S/B; Tyrell- Summer make Ty/Ta/M, Tully- Sunset make Tu/G/L)"

My concern isn't about making sure Arryn has enough resources available to them. That's a non-issue, as you say. My concern is that the resource system in AGoT means any house specific card is only useful for it's own house due to the 2 gold OOH penalty. Cthulhu's resource system, in contrast, encourages multi-faction decks. This means any new faction can immediately be included in competitive decks since they can be used to complement an existing faction until they have enough of a card selection to be competitive on their own. It also means that any non-neutral card has more general utility in CoC than it does in AGoT thanks to its ability to be included in a wider variety of decks. This makes pack dilution less of an issue. As a result, it's easier for CoC to support a larger number of factions (although there are those CoC players who think that adding the eighth faction was not a good idea).

I think things are too complicated...7 houses in the game, 7 playable factions in the card game. All the rest is a lot of arguing about semantics.

You could make the same arguments against almost every house - they dilute the other house's cards, they create balance problems. Heck, Martell has taken most of Lanni's strengths already (card draw, intrigue stuff).

So...6 is the right number and 7 isn't? I guess I just haven't seen why. In theory I agree that SOME number is too many, I just think 7 is the correct number since that is the number George RR Martin used for # of houses.

~You really are going to argue against Martin on aGoT? Shame on you!!!

Seven houses in what game? The board game has six, with the first expansion. I'm not sure where you're referring to when GRRM said the correct # of houses is 7. I'm probably not as hugely into the books as some (I've read them all and enjoyed them, and pretty much left it at that until I discovered the LCG), so it's very likely I've not come across what you're referring to. Regardless, GRRM is an author, not a game designer. Heretical as it may seem, I care a lot more about the designers' ideas about what the right number of houses is than his.

As for 6 being a better number of houses than 7, none of us really knows for sure. Hell, maybe seven would rock! What I do know is 6 is working very well, there's PLENTY of design space left for the game to inject new mechanics and themes using the existing six houses and I've yet to hear a single benefit to the gameplay that a seventh house would bring. Without any clear idea of how it would help the game as a whole when considering the potential risks to the environment, I just don't think making such a sweeping change is a very good idea. "What could it hurt?" isn't the right attitude for something like this. "How would it help?" is.

rings said:

rings said:

Still, I'm not convinced that seven is somehow the magical number, even if it is more consistent with the books. In fact, the number of houses could change in the books anyway...Martin can add others in the future if he wants. So seven seems just as arbitrary as six or eight. At the end of the day, I think that gameplay should be the ultimate deciding factor (within some bounds of flavor). And I'm still unconvinced that there's a need to add houses for gameplay's sake. If that changes, I'll definitely be a proponent of adding houses.

So basically, I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of more houses, but I don't think designers should feel obliged to suddenly introduce a whole new major house (which would need the support of a separate box AND significant help the first few chapter-pack cycles). I think it's probably more productive to concentrate resources (time, money, etc.) on expanding the six we have rather than introducing something that will either feel too weak, since it lacks the support of the previous houses, or too strong in the long run, if the released box set attempts to compensate for early weakness.

JeffK said:

Well the main reason the game would benefit from a seventh house is it would be cool. Getting to play as a different house, try some new strategies, and just get to take the role of a new group of characters would be fun. Another benefit is if splitting houses with a playgroup on a budget, there's more options so latecomers can have more houses to pick from among their friends. In any case, was there similar opposition when Greyjoy and Martell were introduced to the LCG as their own houses?

Also wasn`t Martell introduced in the CCG before they had POV chapters? In either case I'd ultimately be in favor of the house more so if it was confirmed that Arryn was working on their own agenda, which it seems they will be given Littlefinger. Also the Night's Watch and Brotherhood don't have a candidate for the throne so why can you pick a neutral housecard and play with them?

Magic is also a lame game. There's a reason that there's only like three top tier decks at any given moment and they mix their five colors most of the time to create whatever flavour of the block is the most competitve deck. If you're arguing that Thrones isn't the same as Cthulhu because of the inability to blend houses or factions together, Magic isn't a good case because they blend as well.

JeffK said:

JeffK said:

Jon Arryn could have been King if he wanted it. Robert wnated it more - that's all.

And for the record - Robert's Rebeliion totally fails wihtout the arryns - no way do the Starks and Baratheons have the muscle to take down Aerys and Rhaegar. (Of course the Lannisters have a lot to do with this as well....)

Davy Back Fight said:

I'm not a fan of magic, trust me. My only point was that it's easy enough to have a lot of deck variety with a limited number of factions. If Magic can do it with 5, certainly AGoT can manage it with six.

If someone could come up with some central mechanic that would pretty much require a new house to take advantage of, I would reconsider my position. "Wouldn't it be cool to have a new house?" just doesn't qualify.

Stag Lord said:

Hey, way to make my point for me!

Jon Arryn didn't want to be King enough to fight for it. Hence, House Arryn is not a main player in the game of thrones. They're supporting cast.

And House Arryn SUPPORTED House Baratheon in the rebellion. They never sought the crown themselves. Once again, supporting cast.

Should GRRM change this in the next book (if we ever see it), your thematic argument will have more merit. As it stands, I still don't see the reasoning behind their being a house vying for the throne, which is what the game is all about. It's not about which houses are "major" houses - it's about which ones are trying to rule the realm.

rings said:

Actually, there are 9 great houses according to Martin.

Lannister, Stark, Baratheon, Greyjoy, Martell, Targaryen, Tyrell, Tully, Arryn