Am I right in assuming that these can't be played together (as I undderstand it, only the North agendas which specify the fact allow more than one agenda at once)

does this seem a shame to anyone else? these seem like a really obvious thematic combo, and both seem sufficiently balanced that running the two together would not break game.

You are not allowed to place more than one agenda next to your House card at the beginning of the game, except otherwise specified.

I'm really not so sure that would be balanced to play both. Beric Dondarrion based deck are kind of easy to build and very efficient already.

thematically it does makes sense to run both.... thematically it does not make sense to have all 6 north agendas running... w/e

Mathias Fricot said:

Mathias Fricot said:

As long as you have an icecube in the middle of your side of the table and all your NW cards on one side of it and all your Wildlings on the other side of it you are able to run all 6 agenda. In fact they should make that required

ktom said:

Yeah, and considering how this would affect his standing with the people of Westeros, needing additional power to win the throne fits thematically as well.

If your running a Baratheon deck with trip Stannis Baratheon (DotN), it would appear thematic to have the wildling agendas and the Night's Watch agendas. But only if your playing against someone running the Others, and that might be difficult to arrange. The wildling agendas are for the wildlings plans, you know, go over the wall, kill some crows, conquer westeros (or part of)... if they are following Stannis then their agendas arn't being put into play, its Stannis' spiderweb that is being spun.

What I was feebly attempting to convey is that the mechanics will mimic themes of the books, but to accurately show all the intricacies of the novels we would need a tome for a rulebook.

I see agendas as the overarching plans of a house, or organization, as it struggles with another house, or organization, for power. The White Book, for example, is thematic. The kingsguard defend and when they don't, well, they die trying, or fail to die while trying - to me it adds some theme to a deck. I don't think its thematic to be dropping Nights Watch armies cheaper because your running Blood of the First Men. Some would argue that yes, a greater wildling presence would induce more people to join the Nights Watch and hold the wall, but that clearly isn't the case in the novel. There were not enough men to effectively guard the wall and the wildling threat was pretty serious. The letters did bring Stannis to help them, yes. But wait a minute, Stannis' men are not even part of the Nights Watch. So wouldnt it be more thematically correct for the wildling agendas to help Baratheon cards, not Nights Watch ones?

Using the plans of Stannis to justify using the 6 agendas doesnt really work from my perspective, especially for all seven factions.

I do find it pretty thematic to be able to run Knights of the Hollow Hill and the Brotherhood without Banners. Since they are two names of the same organization, or viewed synonymously as such.

I guess it depends a lot on why people play the game - I've seen competition decklists on here with Martell Wildling combos and other such strangeness, and if that's effective, then I guess that makes a good competition deck.

Personally though, the reason I enjoy playing AGoT is because so much of the flavour of the books is captured. The Starks have some serious military might, but are hopeless when it comes to intrigue (a little better with enough Tullys in the mix), the Lannisters always seem to have more money than you, and the Targaryens are weird.

On that basis, it does seem odd that all six North Agendas run together, rather than 3 and 3 (Watch / wildling)

Personally, I think I'll try the Brotherhood / Knights of the hollow hill combo at home anyway, just seems a shame it won't be making any public appearances in the hands of some of the top players - i'd be interested to see what it can do.