I recently said, "Maesters will probably become the next Wildlings" on the Maesters thread. What I meant is I'm concerned they will become powerful enough to dominate the environment. Maybe not them alone, but them and the Chains seem worrisome. The whole cycle is dedicated entirely to them, which pretty much ensures there will be powerful Maester related cards if history has shown us anything.

Maesters are cool, but I'm really not that amped up about them. Six months of one theme is just really boring, and has potential to be disastrous. The theme is more likely to be really good (i.e. Wildlings) or really bad (i.e. Night's Watch), than being balanced. I'm sure it wont be 100% Maesters, but the great majority of it will be.

Personally, I think FFG has its design scheme backwards, and are doing a great disservice to the game by pushing the mono-themed cycles. I don't have any hard facts or numbers to go by, but intuition and general conversation has led me to conclude that people are more excited about the House Box Expansions than they are with current CP cycle system. I'd take a new Targ, GJ, Lanni, and/or Martell Box any time before wanting to see a whole 6 months of just Wildlings/Night's Watch, Maesters, Armies, Kings/Queens, Lords/Ladies, etc. I'd rather have 6 months of improving Houses in general (i.e. Clash of Arms) and build on specific trait themes through expansion boxes. Actually, I'd still rather the boxes build on the Houses and just scrap mono-theme expansions/cycles. Themes are cool, but Thrones was at it's best right before white bordered cards were introduced, when each House was good and had in-House solutions. We're never going to bring the game back to the state it was (in terms of being really good and balanced) if we keep on wasting half a year throwing a single random theme or two into the game.

If it wasn't for the House expansion boxes (even if you decide to not count the Greyjoy and Martell boxes as actual expansion boxes because they were necessary due to being excluded from the Core Set) this game would have fell apart already. If it wasn't for the Targ box coming out next (every bit of paraphernalia has suggested it will be) the game would eventually fall apart, or at the very least Targ would remain the clanky House it is for a MUCH longer time. The only reason why Targ truly became competitive was because of Wildlings. Targ Shadows can be pretty good, but it's not good enough. It took some random theme to make Targ competitive. Targ and Wildlings: where's the thematic sense in that? If there is one person who believes that 6 months of Wildlings and Night's Watch did more for the game than 6 months of general House improvement, I'd love to hear you're reasoning because I can't think of one good argument to seriously support that belief.

It's because of this that I said Maesters will probably become the next Wildlings. I just don't find it interesting to have to meta against a single theme because the card pool has been inundated with 6 months worths of cards that support it. The game could never have had Wildings and been fine. The game could never have a whole cycle dedicated to Maesters and be fine. The game could not have in-House problems not be addressed (a.k.a. House expansion boxes) and be fine.

I don't need nor want Great Maesters. I want Great Houses, but I don't see the next half year fulfilling that desire nearly as well as it could have.

I understand what you mean.

My complaint is more along the lines of, the game feels so singular. A new theme comes out, everyone jumps to it, and everything else gets left behind. We saw it with seasons, we're beginning to see it with shadows, and it's going to happen to wildlings and eventually maesters.

These are all my opinions though, obviously.

Did I understand correctly that your grumbling is about Defenders cycle (bad) and not about Brotherhood one (good)? Defenders were very poorly tested. There are 37 neutral cards (which is a lot) and many of them are worthless or near worthless (except some wildlings of course), so there isn't many cool in-House cards. That's why people may complain. I just want to say that maybe only this one set is a failure and it won't happen with maesters.

FATMOUSE said:

BTW Isn't it the same with Stark?

The big difference is that wildlings/NW are neutral cards which makes the houses feel like an afterthought. Maesters on the other hand will hopefully be majority non-neutral and so they should very easily be able to fit into the current house themes while still expanding the maester themes at the same time.

There is no reason why a mono-theme cycle can't also push current house themes and expand its own theme. The problem as I see it is that we have had 1 cycle where neutral characters/theme ruled followed by another cycle where a major theme was neutral characters again. This, I think, is what makes the house expansion seem more important. If they do Maesters as mostly non-neutral characters then I don't think it will be as much of an issue.

I see what you're saying, and I too would like to see more development of old themes and fleshing out of various house options more generally, but I disagree that all these "mono-themes" are equally boring and/or bad for the game. Also, maybe other CCG veterans can answer this, but I don't remember the pre-LCG environment being particularly balanced...wasn't it pretty dominated by Stark (running that Stark-only agenda) and, to a lesser extent, Martell?

I think Wildlings and Night's Watch are boring, largely because they muddle house differences and lead to cookie cutter builds. But I think shadows led to some very unique builds...a Lanni shadows deck felt and ran very differently from a Targ shadows deck. I agree that Targ shadows is a lot less (competitively) viable, but I think this is a case where there's one or two pieces missing rather than the whole mechanic is bad. If anything, the problem with shadows wasn't that it was "mono-themed," but rather that most houses didn't receive enough support for the mechanic. Brotherhood was also interesting, though its focus on neutral characters immediately following a set that focused on neutral characters did add to the sense that the houses have been neglected in favor of neutral cards.

With regard to Maesters, I'm less concerned. Unlike Wildlings, maesters tend to have house affiliations both in the books and historically in the CCG/LCG. Even if the next block introduces a lot of neutral characters though, maesters are at least more at home (flavor wise) working with a house than Wildlings are. More importantly, it looks like the maesters are likely to work more as utility cards...saving characters, searching/drawing, etc...then as standalone builds with strong win conditions. In other words, I'm still hopeful that maesters will play a supplementary role. So even if everyone plays with the chain agenda, I imagine we'll still see a lot of variety in terms of which maesters they run and mechanics they use.

All that aside, I would actually like to see more blocks like Clash of Arms that provide general support for houses. I don't think every block needs to introduce a new mechanic (shadows, seasons, etc.) or emphasis on a particular trait. Nevertheless, I like how the environment has developed in the past 1-2 years overall (though I can think of a few selective bannings/erratas would benefit the environment as a whole).

EDIT: It looks like Darksbane hit on a few items I was thinking of as I was writing my post. Glad to see others have similar thoughts/explanations

Husemann said:

Another reason to not keep introducing new themes/techs; although, it really isn't that hard to integrate older themes/techs into newer ones. It just hasn't been done.

Rogue30 said:

The Brotherhood cycle is definitely a better example of what a cycle should look like, even though some themes are pretty lack luster (i.e. Sand Snakes, Raiders). Clash of Arms is probably the prime example of what a cycle should like though (excluding the banned cards of course). Defenders did have a lot of neutrals, and I've always felt neutral cards to be very dangerous. Neutral cards should be designed to help balance, flavor the environment, not define it. That said, we're already seeing signs of making Maesters very accessible to any House (i.e. At the Gates), and I'm pretty sure most, if not all, the Chains will be neutral.

Rogue30 said:

I don't think so. I think the Stark Box made Stark competitive. The addition of Seige of Winterfell, Direwolves, more draw, and Frozen Outpost have made it better. Stark cards and tech (i.e. search) just meshed really well with the Wildlings, and Night's Watch and Wildlings before the errata. Targ is just clanky due to hard to create efficiency/consistency and a high resource curve. The Wildlings and Night's Watch solved both of those problems.

Twn2dn said:

That's because of the "House X only" restriction, which we don't know see enough of these days; at least not equally throughout the Houses. King's Landing was an interesting cycle. I think it did an OK job in terms of diversity (Greyjoy and Stark missed out). It wasn't really trait based as it was new tech based. A new tech spread out amongst traits is more exciting than a one trait spread out amongst older techs (not that we've seen much reach out to older techs). I guess I should make that clarification now then. A new tech cycle can be good for the game, but neither DotN nor SoO bought/bring new techs to the game. They just developed a trait. I admit it will be nice to have more Learned support, but to have an entire 6 months dedicated to it isn't very exciting, in my opinion.

Twn2dn said:

If the Maesters are House X only, then I'm willing to go with that argument, but we've seen very little House X only outside of events. Additionally, depending on how good that support is they may become ubiquitous, which I'm not convinced is a good thing. The fact anyone can fetch Luwin with At the Gates shows the potential silliness that may ensue in the coming months. I have nothing against Maesters, just 6 (possibly OP) months of them

And yeah, we definitely need some banning/errata.

I have to disagree, though I likely won't be going into much depth based ont ime constraints. I am excited to see a cycle based aroundb Maesters and the Learned Crest, which has really gotten short shrift in the LCG to this point. I can agree with people who say that a 6 month cycle isn't long enough to properly develop a strong theme, but the game is still receiving Shadow cards, which means that mechanic is still building.

I do agree that Wildlings has become very powerful in the environment, and that Night's Watch builds are woeful. But I also don't think that Clash of Arms was the best example of a chapter pack cycle. For one thing, it was originally developed as the next expansion for Five Kings, and was actually pared down 12-24 cards (whatever the original size of the set was) to 120 cards, so certain themes didn't come through. Same thing held true with Time for Ravens, which would have been set three in the 5KE block. Both of those sets were lacking when FFG decided to make ccg cards non-legal.

There doesn't need to be new mechanics added for every cycle, but having a focus/theme to me is not a bad thing. And until we see what the cycle actually brings us we shouldn't be bringing down the cycle. Sure, Luwin is a great card, but what if every house's Maester has an equally good ability? Then we're not going to see cookie-cutter decks that play the same Maester. And we're not even sure if there is maester-hate in the cycle, which could easilybring balance to the theme.

Clash of Arms isn't what I'd be looking for in a chapter pack cycle. Perhaps it was because I wasn't playing at the time but of any of the cycles it felt the most... bland. Sure the cards were powerful but so many of them were so similar it just didn't grab me like the other cycles.

IMO the most fun I've had with a chapter pack cycle is the current cycle. I think the house themes and house centric packs are great and I hope they continue to expand on them. It has really added deck building variety to a number of the houses. If the Maesters act similarly then I think we are in for another great cycle, just hopefully with less neutral cards.

FATMOUSE said:

Well, Stark box was awesome, undoubtedly (BTW I think Stark are the most varied builds thanks to this box and that's cool), however I didn't see any direwolf or Tully or Siege winning decks. I think it's quality/quantity thing. Stark has more cards than Targ - it doesn't mean no one plays Targ (without wildlings) anymore.

And to repeat what others said: Mono-theme Cycles can be really good, it's just design/testing/neutral ratio problem.

I think that the problem is less about blocks that have a central/strong individual theme and more about the 'linear' design of new mechanics.

Speaking with regard to the game's underlying theme, I find that having six month cycles that focus on a certain aspect of Westeros to be a good model. It's nice to be able to spend a period of time enjoying 'The Greatest Hits of the Wildilings & The Wall Story Arc', then to shift focus elsewhere (e.g. 'Scheming and Backstabbing at Kings Landing Story Arc'). If we didn't take the time to look at those, perhaps less obvious, parts of Martin's world from time to time, then things would probably get a little bit dull after a while.

That said, I would certainly welcome a chapter pack cycle that re-did the nuts and bolts of the story for a change (and, with it, the nuts and bolts of the game itself). A sort of Core-Set of chapter packs if you will. Because, while taking a look at the off-piste sections of Westeros is fun to do and gives FFG the chance to vary up the play environment considerably; it can/does start to feel a little bit gimicky when every single cycle spends the majority of its time buzzing around a single isolated theme (or mechanic e.g. Wildlings, Maesters, Seasons). In other words: I have enjoyed the opportunity to spend time focusing on King's Landing, The Wall and The Brotherhood, but I feel ready to take six months looking at the essentials of the story once more, an exercise which I feel would keep my focus without requiring a particularly strong individual 'hook'.

Indeed, I would urge our (much valued and greatly admired, I'm sure) designers to take a leaf out of Magic's book and to recognise the importance of regularly taking the time to return to the foundations of the game in order to recalibrate and shore up the basics of the play environment. MTG's model for doing that is by cranking out a 'Core Set' expansion on a yearly basis. That's clearly not going to be the right method for FFG, but I for one would welcome their attempts to undertake a similar exercise with either a cycle of chapter packs or with a larger deluxe expansion that generally serviced the needs of all six existing houses.

Further, I think the thing which is frustrating people with current design strategy is the fact that cycles like DoTN have been very linear in their approach. Their themes have encouraged 'all or nothing' deckbuilding in which merely splashing the theme has been inefficient and in which using one themed card has automatically pushed players into using a second, which makes an even stronger case for a third, and so on and so forth. The internal mechanic has been doing player's deckbuilding for them, making anything other than a total buy-in to the theme unjustifiable.

The worst culprit for that was Seasons:

Seasons Says: "Including a single summer card? Good. You'll now need three black ravens; which are literally the only way to get your single summer card to work. Then you'll have no real option but to include three carrion birds, which are the only other way to repeatedly control your opponent's use of seasons and to recur your black ravens. Oh, and now you've done that, you basically have to include a Time for Ravens in the plot deck, it kind of guarantees your whole theme will get to 'go off' immediately. Which means you've used up at least 9 slots in your main-deck and one in your plot-deck, all just to switch on one card... so you'd better go ahead and fully commit to the Summer strategy, because focusing your deck in any other real direction will just be madly inefficient and will leave it bloated by an otherwise entirely useless set of narrow 'Summer' enablers. Kings of Summer Agenda, here we come!"

Wildlings were similarly placed; in that almost every Wildling (no Val, not you) was inefficient to run without an agenda, but became game-wreckingly good with three. Committing to Wildlings heavily enough to justify running a single agenda made adding two further agendas a no-brainer decision. A decision which in turn made running every single available wildling (all now underpriced, stealthy, hulks) similarily automatic. The net result being that the Wildling deck essentially built itself (and was then very very good) which meant that everybody was weilding essentially identical all-grey decks.

On the other hand, blocks with a more modular design, mechanics like Shadows have been far less frustrating, as they've contained discrete options for each house and because many of the cards (e.g. Syrio Forel, The Red Keep, Varys, Qyburn, Kings Landing Assassin, Pyromancers Apprentice, All of the Mercenary Armies) have been good in their own right, without requiring that they be run only as part of a dedicated 'Heavy Mono-Theme Deck'. We have enjoyed them more (so far as I can tell) than other blocks, because they have given us not just the option of buying in to the latest theme and having a deck build itself before our eyes (take Shadow Agenda, run all the best shadow characters, mix in Tunnels of the Red Keep to pump them all up, go win several games on the trot. Hurrah!) but because their themes have been equally strong when splashed (see the recent USAvEuro tourney champion deck for a good example of this) and because their central theme does provide some kind of disincentive to fully commiting to (i.e. shadow cards will clog up in your Shadows Zone and you won't be able to play them to the board fast enough).

Long story short: I'd like to see the block after Maesters take a return to the roots of the game (Irone Throne edition style), reminding us what each house does best and giving us a few new options for each of the existing 'gimmick' themes that have gone before. From that point onwards, I'd like to see pack-arc themes being designed with an eye on more modular deckbuilding, where players wouldn't stand back from the arc and say "Great, I'm going to build the obvious Nights Watch build", but would say something like "I think that a couple of these 'Arryn/Tyrell/Sparrow/Reed' cards might be able to do something clever in a rush build".

Very good topic and answers all.

I agree that the best cycle so far is the current one. They did Brotherhood VERY well, and not in an overpowered way. And this comes from a Brotherhood fanatic who could have been pissed. Okay, I am pissed that they are not a little more playable with all the nuetral hate...but a well thought out, unique design. The other themes were okay, and each at least had an interesting aspect even if it wasn't 100% fleshed out (yet).

That being said, my favorite set of all time was Five Kings. It had great cards for all houses, good nuetrals, a fun theme that rewarded playing fun characters...just a great base set and it did a good job of balancing good cards for all the houses. That is tough to do (look at the Fury plots, or the To Be A events).

whether or not neutral-heavy themes have been good for the game, if i see another entirely new, trait-based theme enter the AGOT pipeline, i just might take one of my sharper trophies off my shelf and resort to seppuku. i couldn't agree more that we need an entire cycle of chapter packs (or two) of support for existing themes, especially the ones that never really took off but took up a lot of space (night's watch, clansmen, raiders).

Rogue30 said:

Twn2dn won the last NYC Regional with Stark using the Direwolves, beating out a Siege deck in the finals. Stark has also made the cut several times in different tournaments (without Wildlings), including Gilgamesh in the OCTGN tournament, if I'm not mistaken.

JerusalemJones said:

I think this desperately needs a disclaimer. We've gotten a whopping total of 7 Shadows cards outside of KL. Three if you exclude the GJ & Martell expasnsions. THREE!!! Two of the seven cards are useless Wildling cards and one is another bad Raider...in the wrong House! Outside of KL we've gotten 4 non-shadows cards that interact with the Shadows: Kingdom of Shadows (At the sweet retail price of $90!), Maester Pylos, Shadow Enchantress, and The KIng's Law. Two of those are Shadow hate (one of which is awful). Shadow Enchantress is very good. In total that's 11 cards that relate to the Shadows. Putting aside how bad some of those cards are, it's completely embarrassing that FFG that out of the ~450 cards that have been released outside of KL only 11 cards deal with the mechanic KL created.

Also, to say that we should hold off to see if there is Maester/Chain hate is basically admitting something is too powerful. To develop something very specific and then say, "Here are these silver bullets to deal with it" is a sign of weak design. Creating silver bullets, Traitors, etc. is a copping out from actually balancing the problem those hate cards address. Silver bullets are lame, and having to run them is even lamer.

Darksbane said:

Some cards may seem bland in CoA, but as JJ pointed out CoA was built originally for CCG. So some cards may not seem as useful as they could have otherwsie been. That said, the cycle did a very good job providing new options for EVERY House without feeling the need to create only one entirely new thing. instead it built upon what previously existed (CCG card pool); something we've overall have failed to see in LCG.

I think the Brotherhood cycle has been a great one. Like I said before, some themes (and therefore Houses) haven't really gotten what they deserve, but the fact that each House has been built on is a testament to the CoA model. It surprises me that people don't like CoA, but like Brotherhood, when Brotherhood is the most similar cycle we've have to CoA in LCG. The only difference is that BwoB may seem more "flavorful" due to developing specific themes for each House rather than general cards to assist each House.

It would have been great if we could finish off Brotherhood and go into a cycle that builds upon the Houses even more to really flesh out what BwoB has given us, but instead we have to develop Maesters, and we're going to have "waste" precious card slots on developing a single trait rather than working on the Houses themselves. LCG is not CCG. The LCG model doesn't have the luxury to fool around with single trait expansions. Let's put it this way:

What if the Brotherhood cycle instead focused on a single trait instead of fleshing out each House? Do you really think the game would be in a better or as good state? Would a whole 6 months of just Knights have been better than what BwoB gave us? Should FFG the Targ box and instead release an Armies box? Again, why do we need 6 months of Maesters? Why can't Maesters be an expansion box, and instead have another CoA/BwoB cycle? Once a month we should be saying, "Let's see what new stuff the Great Houses got this time!" Not, "Let's see what new stuff the Great Maesters got this time!" I'm sure the Houses will still be built upon in SoO, but it's going to be to a lesser extent than it could have been because many of the cards are going to be specifically dedicated to Maesters. I'll admit, themes/traits are cool, but focusing on the Houses is a WAAAAAAAY cooler; primarily because it's WAAAAAAAY better in terms of improving/balancing the game and avoiding NPE (i.e. X trait is over-powered).

Just to clarify, developing the Houses doesn't mean traits/themes can't be developed. What it means is that priority is given to address House needs/issues. If a House and it needs a bit more INT; by all means, give it a Maester with an INT icon. When looking at another House, if it needs a bit more STR give it an Army. Flip this idea on it's head and you create imbalance. Why? Because traits/themes are not create equal. One House will benefit more from Maesters while another House will benefit more from Armies. Just like one House will benefit more from Seasons and another House from Shadows. By limiting design to one trait, you're limiting the ways to properly address the needs of each House.

LoneWanderer said:

Having the expansion boxes focus on the aspects of Westeros would be much cooler. It makes the expansion boxes less predictable, and gives priority to developing the six Great Houses this game is based on (Neutral Faction doesn't count), or "the roots of the game." It would actually allow for better development of those traits/techs. If there is a expansion box of Maesters and Maester related tech, then each time a House gets a new Maester in a chapter pack there would be a "core set" of cards that it will benefit from.

Imagine if Seasons and Shadows was it's own expansion box. A new mechanic would still be introduced, but instead of having to spend 6 "linear" months giving everyone Season or Shadow based cards and then completely forgetting about them, you could focus on House needs and issues in the chapter packs, BUT draw from those tech/trait based expansion boxes to address those problems. Traits, themes, mechanics etc. should be tools to develop each House; not the the other way around where we take each House and try to figure out how it could work with the trait, theme, or mechanic. The current design system is greatly limiting the potential of this game. Like I said before, if it wasn't for the House expansions this game would have fell apart long ago. What FFG is doing now if lifting a piece of stone and hitting it against tools to make a statue. I'm saying take the tools and hit the stone with them to make the statue. In the end, a statue will be made, but one is going to be A LOT nicer and get built a lot quicker.
rings said:

Five Kings was amazing. This game was at it's prime after Winter Edition cycled out and before the Core Set was introduced.

finitesquarewell said:

Agreed, except I'll probably just quit the game, and I'm being extremely serious when I say that.

I'd like to see a cycle where a cycle focuses on:

The Dragon Prophecy (Targ,Bara) - Asshai, holy crests, dragons.

Bran's Destiny (Stark) - House Reed, The Others, the crow, warging

Courtship of Dany (SPOILERS - which houses ) - Essentially unique characters specified in AffC themed around Dany, and a house specific agenda for each as to how they plan on using her. This in some sense has a similar theme to the Bara/asshat thing.

FATMOUSE said:

But the Brotherhood is a great example of how an cycle can have a theme/trait but still expand the core houses without touching that theme. 3 or 4 cards in each pack in Brotherhood cycle have been dedicated to Brotherhood trait/theme but the rest have expanded totally different themes. This is why I think you might be overestimating how much of the cycle will be only useful to Maesters. Using Brotherhood cycle as an example 3 or 4 cards in each pack were there to boost brotherhood, the rest of the cards ignored it completely, is it really going to be that bad to have 3 or 4 Maester centric cards per pack in this new cycle then? Given that the Maesters are going to (hopefully) be non-neutral for the most part this cycle actually gives them the chance to expand on each houses central playstyles and the cycle theme at the same time. Look at Maester Luwin, if he didn't have the Maester trait he would still be a decent character in stark, giving you 2 icons, 3str, learned crest and card advantage. Unlike with Seasons or Shadows or Wildling/NW or Brotherhood they don't have to devote a bunch of cards in the cycle setting up a whole new theme or playstyle. I have no idea how the cycle is actually setup but I'd say there is at least as good a possibility of it being much like the CoA cycle with some extra Maester stuff as it has of being like AToR cycle where you have to devote 20% of your deck to the new theme to be make anything work.

Hmm... interesting. I disagree almost entirely about the current setup of expansions, cycles, traits, and balance or lack thereof. If I didn't have friends in from Virginia that I need to go meet, I would write further. Expect a more detailed answer from me as soon as I get the chance. Possibly later this evening.

@FATMOUSE - I disgaree. I like the themes and mechanics explored. I can have a deck that completely ignores Seasons and there were several cards in each house that was not involved with seasons that could (and did) find there way into decks. Same with KLE. CoA was interesting in the exploration of the effects of War on Westeros, but outside of a handful of cards significant portions of it doen't see play now. Why? Is it because it is no longer the new hotness?If so then that is our faults as players, not the development team.

Are you a play tester? Have you seen all the cards in the Maester cycle? IF so then you probably should have spoke up during play testing. If not then you have no idea how pervasive the theme is, how dependent the house cards are going to be on maesters and chains, and basically should just wait until you see what is actually released.

Just over a third of the cycle is either a Wilding or Night's Watch card or in some fashion interacts off those traits, including the Agendas and plot. I don't see that is really being that much of an issue especially when you look at some of those cards being reasonable cards to include in at least a couple of social decks not based solely on the Wilding/NW theme.

Now if you don't like the themes I get why they are an issue. If you are not a fan of the what they do, I get that. But the very fact they exist you feel is pushing the game in the wrong direction?

I can't agree with that. And it sounds like most people don't either. Implementation of something in a fashion you don't like, sure, but the concept is what you seem to feel is flawed (going by the title as your thesis statement and the post being your supporting evidence).

Darksbane said:

Yes, there is frankly too much underdeveloped themes, traits, and mechanics in this game to keep on introducing new ones. We only get 240 cards a year from chapter packs. That's nothing compared to what the average CCG gets in a year. Second, putting aside how not-so-great the Brotherhood theme is (at least in the competitive sense) and how useless the Neutral Faction is (I'll gladly accept being proven wrong if someone can show me a good deck), when FFG announced BwoB, Nate mentioned how each House would have a sub-faction developed for them. When SoO was introduced, there was only talk of Maesters and their Chains. This means we can expect greater emphasis on Maesters/Chains than we did from Brotherhood. Instead of 3-4 cards a chapter pack, I'll wager we'll see twice as many cards (~8 per chapter pack) somehow related to Maesters/Chains.

You may not feel like ~8 cards a chapter pack is a lot, but it really is when you consider how many themes we still have underdeveloped and the small number of cards released each year. Even if those cards aren't neutral and are specific to certain Houses, you still have the issue of trying to shove the cookie dough (the Houses) into the cookie cutter (Maesters) rather than using the cookie cutters (Shadows, Raiders, War Crest, Knights, Armies, Seasons, etc.) to cut out the cookie dough. Maesters are nice, but they are nicer for some Houses than they are for others. In CCG Maesters fit very well with Martell, and I suspect the same will happen again. I also suspect Targ may benefit more so than other Houses because of attachment control. Maesters are fine, but you're missing that point that there are MUCH higher priorities that should be addressed at the moment. The path of mono-themed cycles is not a sustainable one. I was relieved BwoB removed diverged from it, but now were back on the same path.

Darksbane said:

The difference with Luwin being a Maester and not a Maester is that he'll benefit from all the Maester tech. For example, you can fetch him in any deck with At the Gates, which doesn't really make thematic sense and destroys the distinct flavor and style each House is suppose to have. If At the Gates (I think I said it was 3-3-1 in the Maester's thread when it's really 3-1-1) was 1-1-1, 1-3-1 like On Raven's Wings, or in-House Maester only then I wouldn't have a problem with At the Gates, but I suspect there will be a lot of "silly" Maester related cards. The fact that there is one, makes it more likely that there will be more. Luwin having House Stark only would have been cool too. More House X only cards (outside of events) would further strengthen individual Houses and give the game more distinct flavor; at least we've seen a bit of it in BwoB.

Anyway, the game REALLY is a hell of a lot more fun when the primary objective is to design cards to improve each House and not just make and develop seemingly random stuff. Continually forcing new themes, traits, mechanics not only makes it more difficult to do that, but introducing something new and then rarely touching upon it again cheapens the value of those cards. I'll personally say that it's very frustrating buying cards that have new bells and whistles and have them not developed any further (or not well enough: Kingsguard is one of many examples) once a new bell or whistle comes out. I think it's wrong, and I rather spend my time and money on another hobby if this is how things are going to be.

Penfold said:

No, but if you look at each cycle you can see a similar and patterned structure. The information that has been released (articles and spoilers) and the history of this card game is what I'm basing my analysis on. Is some of it speculative? Yes. Am I really being unreasonable based on what the game has shown us so far? I don't think so. I also don't think it's wrong for me to express early criticism of this cycle, nor do I think it's wrong to do it on these forums. That's what they are for. I'm not accusing you of saying that what I'm doing is wrong, I'm simply stating I don't find anything wrong in what I'm doing in this thread.

I thought Wildings/NW was going to be really cool, and it was for a bit, but it eventually became a fiasco. I really don't want to be duped again. There is also nothing speculative about older themes/traits/mechanics being left in the dust. They have been. Just look at the card pool and you'll see it. The card pool is being flooded with new and shiny things while everything else sits yelling to integrated into new cards but isn't. I don't know when cycles/expansions are designed, but I know they aren't designed they day before they come out. I'm guessing (and hoping) bringing up these points 7 months before the next cycle (the one after SoO) is to be introduced is enough time to share my thoughts and ideas about this game. Enough time so that the designers can take into consideration what has been said (if they care) when designing the next cycle, box expansions, etc.

Penfold said:

I'm sorry but ~33% of a cycle (with only 120 cards) is a lot for a new theme that will take 6 months to fully flesh out and rarely be touched again. Note this is not just Wildlings, but also Seasons and Shadows.

Penfold said:

I have no problems with themes. I think they are really cool, but the designers have failed to continue developing them after they have been introduced; primarily because they keep on introducing new ones. Also, Houses >>>>>>> themes/mechanics/traits. The latter should be used to flavor the former, not the other way around like FFG has been doing.

What I've proposed is to change priorities. Introduce new themes, mechanics, traits, etc, but do so through expansion boxes. Then have the cycles reach out to those boxes in ways the best fit each individual House. So one House may reach out to Seasons more, another Shadows, another Knights, another Maesters etc. The chapter pack cycles are the crux of this game. It's what we spend the most money on. The Houses are the crux of this game. it's what the game is built on. We don't have House Maesters, House Knights, House Armies. We have the 6 Great Houses. Introduce new themes, mechanics and what not but don't let it dictate what the Houses get each 6 months. Right now the tail is wagging the dog. We need House box expansions because the cycles have so poorly developed most of them. Traits, themes, mechanics should be box expansions, and Houses should be developed through cycles.

There are so many themes and so much work to be done of some Houses though, that I think we may need to stop for a while introducing new themes, traits, mechanics and use both the box expansions and cycles to develop the Houses and existing themes, traits, mechanics to where they should be.

Penfold said:

you unduly assume that playtesters have a voice in design decisions concerning themes within sets. hint: playtester influence at that level is somewhere between negligible and small. so whether or not fatmouse is a playtester is irrelevant to his decision to foment widespread anger based on some assumptions and extrapolation given the nature of what's been spoiled for maesters so far (that they are based on strong characters that can be played between houses, and cheap neutral chain attachments that likely will be very strong given the sideboard agenda and the spoiled chains thus far; and that maesters as a theme will be playable out of any house, thus requiring some neutrals, etc.), and the design crew's multi-cycle record concerning pushing brand new, trait-based and/or neutral themes.

Fatmouse, I agree with a lot of what you have said.

Unfortunately, it's late here, so I can't spend too long telling you the stuff I agree wholeheartedly with, and must instead deliver a short rant on why I disagree with you on the subject of mechanics being created then left to rot.

The problem with the majority of new mechanics implemented to date is that they are incredibly limited and isolated in the way that they have been designed. Take Seasons for example, absolutely no way at all for a new card to interact with summer/winter unless it has some kind of ability that specifically says " I do cool **** when one of those two crappy ravens is in play ". Likewise, Wildlings, it's very difficult for a card to interact with a Wildling deck unless its trait is 'Wildling' (whereby you get auto-included into the Builds-Itself-Tri-Agenda-Juggernaut we all know and love) or unless it specifically reads " I meddle with Wildling traited cards in the following fashion... ".

The reason we're all loving the BhwB cycle so much is because its cards feel much less linear than those which have come before. Its themes have been so much more flexible and porous. For example, Dothraki can slot into regular targ decks without feeling stranded and useless (can seasons cards like Ranger of Winter do that... no they absolutely can't), and, likewise, Targ cards that care about Military Challenges, or which happen to have the Dothraki trait (a theme easily splashed onto almost any new targ card, regardless of its actual mechanics), can be worked into the dedicated Dothraki tribal deck. It all feels so much more free flowing, because we know that (in the case of everything other than Sand Snakes and Raiders) new cards will arrive to bolster the old tribes and that cards from the tribal CP cycle will be brought forward to compliment new themes (see: Horseback Hunters slipping into any kind of 'ambush theme build' that ever crops up).

What's the point of all this? Well, where you're saying that you don't want to see themes being left behind and forgotten about by FFG; I'm saying that FFG should stop giving us mechanics that can be left behind at all. Guff like Seasons(which is a pet hate of mine, I confess) relies on designers to keep feeding it with new, incredibly narrow and dedicated, cards in order to stop it from becoming a white elephant. More modular design like BhwB's tribes (where those tribes were moulded round commonly encountered traits) stay fresh simply by coming into contact with other similar mechanics.

At the end of the day, I suspect that we broadly agree about this stuff and that the above rant is directed at a fairly minor difference of opinion between us. But then, that's how all the best rants get started... or something like that.

By the by, and straying off topic here, the one theme I am conflicted about is Shadows. I absolutely love Shadows and want to see it implemented as a regular mechanic in Thrones (i.e. to the point where players would find a CP Cycle without a Shadow card unusual, in the same way that they would, in the wake of IronThroneEd, find a cycle without a single character with a Crest unusual). However, I am aware that it is essentially a largely linear mechanic that can't be interacted with unless a card specifically says so. On the other hand, Shadows cards can be made that are decent in their own right, which interact with a host of other non-shadow cards, and which don't require a dedicated shadow-heavy deck to operate (see: Small Council Chamber + Questioned Claim engine). In other words, I realise in my heart of hearts that Shadows is deeply linear, but love it so much that I want to see it given a regular place at the dining table.

Fatmouse, in the most hetero way I can manage this statement, you have stolen my heart.

Now I'll admit, I mostly payed attention to the earlier parts of what you posted. Mainly the part about traits already made need to be explored further before making new ones. This has been a real annoyance for me and you really voiced what I had been trying (and failing) to say the entire time.

I agree with a ton more but, like everyone else, I'm on a time crunch.

Yeah, put me down as "like the new traits/themes BUT would prefer to see them fleshed out more in upcoming sets rather than new themes introduced." With regard to maesters specifically though, I see it more as an existing mechanic and am happy that it's getting a bit more support.

LoneWanderer said:

While I completely understand your concern about linearity i think you're overestimating the difficulty of keeping older themes alive. It's actually pretty simple. Let's take the Seasons: The majority of Season based cards in ATfR were "all or nothing" cards. That is, if it was one season they're great; another season and they're horrible. The easiest way to incorporate Seasons into new cards is have the Seasons simply provide a buff. Take Robb Stark (LoW) for example. His ability allows you to give +1 STR to a single trait until the end of phase, but if it's Winter it's +2 STR. This is the easiest, coolest, most balanced, and best way to keep Seasons fresh. Don't get punished if it's not your season; instead, simply get rewarded if it is. Perhaps a character can get Stealth if it Winter, or lower the cost of an effect (i.e. Kneel two Noble characters) by one if it is Summer. Take Cragorn ; he could have his ability, but if it Winter he would take 2 gold instead of 1. Let season effects provide buffs; no punishment, just reward. I agree more cards like Ice Fisherman shouldn't be printed, but cards like that aren't necessary to keep the theme fresh and alive.

If you want to look at Shadows, what's so hard about having two Shadow cards a chapter pack? That's 10% of the card pool. Simply take a non-Shadows card and make it a Shadows card. Obviously, you just wouldn't randomly choose a card, but would it really be that difficult to make two or even ONE card a Shadow card in pack of 20 cards? The same could be done for Seasons. Simply have ~10% of cards relate to Seasons and another ~10% to Shadows. It doesn't overwhelm the environment with the mechanic, but keeps it alive and fresh enough to make things interesting and more exciting.

I agree something like Wildlings is more difficult to work with. It really is more "linear" due to the neutral nature of Wildlings, but something like Maesters, Knights, Armies, etc. is much easier to work with, and having box expansions developing and providing a core basis of support for those traits would make it easier to pick and choose traits that best benefit individual Houses (i.e. Bara may focus more on Knights than Stark, while Stark may focus more on Armies than Bara).