If i have to pick a card:
Men With No King.
While there is no anti-steal tech in the game, the perma-steal cards are powerful, adn this one might be the most powerful since it has no restriction on who to steal. The new Reek can be pretty bad, as can Dubious Loyalties.
But I'm on the anti-ban side with Ktom and Krew.
- Blood of the First Men
- Val
- Varys
I also don't feel that anything needs banned but if I had to pick one card it would be Fear of Winter. Its not OP its just unfun.
I used to hate Fear of Winter, but now I love it. It is a lot more strategy than you think it would be, and it helps handle some cards that might get too powerful (Dobbler's agenda, weenie decks). It is also good when you have good board position but your opponent went all in getting card draw going.
Anyways...I would say either the Wildling Army (still just WAY too efficient @ 2 cost for 9 strength stealth deadly war crest two icons).
But probably most of all, Castellean of the Rock. I see him out of house more than any other card, and so therefore it gets my vote. And I am a Lanni-lover.
Dobbler said:
Clearly I didn't state my rules well enough
Lets assume you are forced to ban one card. No choice, you have to choose one and ban it. And no errata, just straight banning.
And yes, I have an agenda with this thread. Basically I'm trying to get a straw poll on whether the online community feels a specific card needs to be banned. If someone wants to post a reason, thats fine, but not essential for me.
Hmm... in that case:
Highgarden Cavaliers.
If I were in a position where I must ban a card, this is the one that I choose as I think the current environment actually allows for a variety of creative decktypes as we recently demonstrated at DoIaF and the loss of Highgarden Cavaliers will have no appreciable effect on the environment.
Well over here the narrow escape abuse haven´t started jet, so no opinion on this one, but we are very used to Venomous blade, and it´s not that a big deal.
But the card I´d really like to be out of the environment is the new Salladhor.
I was so happy when he rotated out, just because he adds a big luck aspect to Baratheon, as in getting him early and keeping him for more than one turn alone could win you a game, disregarding the rest of your deck. (and even that Lady that can stand him in the marshalling is back too)
Just my 2 cents
I join the idea that nothing has to be banned, but the errata on NE is not enough i think
and especially no GTM, VB or Fear of winter. Their just very good cards making threats in the environement (except for GTM)
I just can't get behind banning VB after playing with First Snow of Winter. That plot destroyed whole archetypes.
ShivesMcShivers said:
I just can't get behind banning VB after playing with First Snow of Winter. That plot destroyed whole archetypes.
I don't understand what it has to do with VB.
I think it's the comparison between a plot reset for two strength or lower characters being more powerful than a reusable attachment that kills one character at a time. Environments being different though, issues change. I haven't been playing very long in the lcg environment but I haven't found VB to be a huge deal. I think for the time being, I'm in the camp that doesn't really think anything is ban worthy.
ShivesMcShivers said:
I just can't get behind banning VB after playing with First Snow of Winter. That plot destroyed whole archetypes.
True, but First Snow of Winter hits all players. You can run VB with only weenies in your deck and face no repercussions for it. VB is an extremely strong, hypocritically, unbalanced card, and I personally find that frustrating -- no card should be allowed to so powerful and yet so unbalanced. It's a big reason (but not sole) why themes like Night's Watch or Raiders won't become competitive. Both have too many weenies. And yes, time has shown again and again that Martell is popular enough (especially in the US) for one to have to be prepared to deal with it.
Mini VB rant aside
the most likely card to
actually
be banned is probably Val or Blood of the First Men. I doubt either will be, but they just seem like the most realistic candidates. If Narrow Escape isn't banned then my guess is that Paper Shield or something very similar is coming back; although, I wish we had it now
I guarantee Val isn't going anywhere.
I'd rather ban Valar (the crutch) than Narrow Escape.
If i had to pick - Castellan. Still.
Ridiculous card.
Stag Lord said:
I'd rather ban Valar (the crutch) than Narrow Escape.
yea, thats it! ban Valar, if you really need to ban a card (which i dont think necessary).
For a card to be considered over powered and therefor a target for banning it would have to show up in all decks as an auto include. The only card that comes close to that is Valar M.
So if someone was holding a gun to my head and said pick a card to remove from the game I guess I would have to say Valar M. Now personally I love that card and although I would not use it in all plot decks I would end up using it in at least 85% of my plot decks.
Ivengar said:
For a card to be considered over powered and therefor a target for banning it would have to show up in all decks as an auto include. The only card that comes close to that is Valar M.
So if someone was holding a gun to my head and said pick a card to remove from the game I guess I would have to say Valar M. Now personally I love that card and although I would not use it in all plot decks I would end up using it in at least 85% of my plot decks.
Well, under that logic I could create an event card that said "Any Phase Lanni Only: kneel all characters and locations, they don't stand during the standing phase" and it would be okay, since only 25% of decks would run it.
Valar is ran in 85% of decks let's say.
V. Blade has to be in 100% of competative Martell decks.
Therefore I would have to agree that Blade is more worrisome - but it is a good counter to already strong cards/stategies so I am more okay with it.
Interesting commentary on Valar. I haven't used Valar at 2 out of the 3 last major tournaments I've played in for the last year. I didn't use it at Regionals or Days of Ice and Fire, though I did at Gencon. I had winning records and certainly don't feel that any of my losses were for lack of Valar. I felt quite comfortable and competitive without.
I don't think its so much het game defining nature of VB. All in all, you need a lot more than 3 VB to have a winning martell deck. What I think the reason is that there are so many threads about this is that its really just an annoying card to be on the losing end of. Not game defining, just very very irritating. Was it my choice? yes. Because me, personally, I don't play Martell - and it irks me when my characters start dying 2 a turn because my opponents wheeling me with them, for zero gold. Should it actually get banned? Of course not. It doesn't destroy every deck archetype. It's not like when winning was a matter of "who gets out Jaq first." Is it effective against army decks like Stark and Wildling? No. Can you get rid of it? Certainly. Valar, if its in play. Kings Law if its in shadows. The targ plot. Blank it and kill the character. raven it and shuffle. Bounce it back up using Bolton. There are plenty of ways to deal with the attachment's presence, we just don't like having to deal with the attachment's effects. Do I enjoy it killing Edric Storm? No. Do I think it defines the entire environment? certainly not. Should it actually be banned? No. If you actually think it should, I think you should accept the challenge as a player; find a way to beat it, or find a way to suffer through it. Thats my two cents anyway, take it or leave it.
Kennon said:
Interesting commentary on Valar. I haven't used Valar at 2 out of the 3 last major tournaments I've played in for the last year. I didn't use it at Regionals or Days of Ice and Fire, though I did at Gencon. I had winning records and certainly don't feel that any of my losses were for lack of Valar. I felt quite comfortable and competitive without.
Kennon said:
Interesting commentary on Valar. I haven't used Valar at 2 out of the 3 last major tournaments I've played in for the last year. I didn't use it at Regionals or Days of Ice and Fire, though I did at Gencon. I had winning records and certainly don't feel that any of my losses were for lack of Valar. I felt quite comfortable and competitive without.
1st: One of your wins at GenCon was against me so that doesn't count in favor of Valar
2nd: Were you running Wildfire or some other reset mechanic in the deck or are you just crazy like that? (Maybe you discussed it on the podcast, but I'm saving that for my run tomorrow morning)
Surprisingly enough, I don't recall discussing it, at least on the pre-tournament analysis episode. I may have discussed it during the post-game.
But, yes, I was running Wildfire Assualt instead of Valar at both Regionals and DoIaF.
The Siege of Winterfell
I don't think venomous blade needs a ban, just an errata to be able to come back to shadows only if you loose as a defender.
Cards that need a fix are val and narrow escape :
Narrow escape is just brutal, you can play 2 in a phase, last joust game I played, my opponent had to reveal his wildfire assault as 7th plot, I was behind, he played NE, i dropped my 4 cards hand just to see him played a 2nd NE and with no cards in hand everyone came back. I was schocked, it should say at least limit 1 per phase so that when you play the huge cost of dropping your hand you are penalized again. Of course I lost this game.
Val allows you to draw 3 cards per turn, easily. Since you play from your deck you can keep cards in hand, she is what makes wildings strong. More than the army. Even with a limit 1 per phase she would still be played (since stleathy intrigue icon is needed in wildings decks). And wildings would still be strong yet manageable.
Control decks are, today, inferiors to rush, aggressive decks. Mainly because of narrow escape nerfing valar morgulis that is needed for a healthy meta, or else the one who drops the strongest characters and more numerous win the game, not the one with the finest and cunniest strategy. Besides, valar prevents for dropping all your hand and have 15 characters on the table, making hard to think the challenge phase, easier (and games are quicker) when fewer characters are on board. It makes players think instead of just dropping mindlessly.
Mathias Fricot said:
I don't really use control, so I have not suffered from the effects of Narrow Escape yet. That martell card that lets you see someones hand could be useful, that way you know if they will have it before you flip your valar.
Observation point ist the name of the card. And yes, that card should be banned, because i never knew why it was printed.
By the way confession should be the most elegant choice to to look at an opponents hand and remove narrow escape etc.
I haven´t played much lately but i couldn´t recall that narrow escape has ever been a problem.
So, observation point is my suggestion for the banned list.
elwe said:
I don't think venomous blade needs a ban, just an errata to be able to come back to shadows only if you loose as a defender.
Cards that need a fix are val and narrow escape :
Narrow escape is just brutal, you can play 2 in a phase, last joust game I played, my opponent had to reveal his wildfire assault as 7th plot, I was behind, he played NE, i dropped my 4 cards hand just to see him played a 2nd NE and with no cards in hand everyone came back. I was schocked, it should say at least limit 1 per phase so that when you play the huge cost of dropping your hand you are penalized again. Of course I lost this game.
Ktom and others can correct me if I am wrong and I should look at the new eratta before posting but I will post anyways and we can all learn from my mistakes.
Your hand is a constant. You have anywhere from 0 to X number of cards in your hand at all times. Just like your dead and your discard piles exist if there are no cards in them so does your hand. So the "cost" to counter NE is to discard your hand. Not discard X cards from your hand. So if you have a hand of 0 cards, you discard it and cancel the effect of NE.
I just played against Narrow Escape for the first time in a tournament on Friday. I now see why many people find it too strong. I still think the -2G Wildling Agenda (forget what it's called atm) is a much bigger NPE, but 2x Narrow Escape is ridiculous when played two rounds in a row.