So, I just got the basic game box, and played it for the first time using Stark vs. Baratheon. After a couple of games, Stark seems ludicrously overpowered; they have loads of deadly characters, strength boosters (winterfell castle et al) and, in general, very difficult to stop. Baratheon seemed very underpowered by comparison.

Are we missing something? If not, does the balance get corrected in later expansions?

Welcome!
FFG does a good job of trying to keep all of the houses balanced and no one house should be "ludicrously overpowered" compared to the others. Each House has its own strengths and weaknesses and the person playing Baratheon may just not be playing a house that is the best fit for him/her. You could also blame it on bad draw, so give it a few more games before you judge Baratheon as weak. When we started my group all thought Lannister was really OP and Targ was very weak. I haven't played with just the core set in a long time, but Baratheon is very good at rush - they can accumulate power very quickly while another deck is still trying to set up and Baratheon rush decks do very well in tournaments. Look to take advantage of your opponents' weaknesses - for ex, Stark doesn't draw as many cards as some of the other houses and is not so great at dealing with Intrigue challenges, so a Baratheon player could focus on discarding the Stark player's cards.
There are a lot of posts around the forums about the various strengths and weaknesses of each house so take a look around for some ideas. Here's a recent and rather comprehensive summary of each house:

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Core set decks are only for learning the game. After few games you should build your own 60 card decks.

Rogue30 said:

I disagree here, actually. Sure, for the hardcore CCG player such as Rogue30, the core set alone is forgettable. But a more casual, board-gamey approach to the game is possible (and legitimate), too. After all that is what the whole LCG shift was about, if I'm not mistaken - bringing the board gamer, who wouldn't touch a traditional CCG/TCG with a ten-foot-pole, into the game. Hey, worked with me.

IMO, you can get hours and hours of fun out of the core set alone, without ever spending a single dime on expansions, just playing the game casually with your friends and family. Playing competitively in tournaments and stuff is a whole different ball game, of course, but don't let anybody tell you that you absolutely need to go down the CCG road to actually enjoy the game. You don't. It just depends on what kind of player you are, and just how much time and money you wish to devote to the game.

To get to the original question: I don't think the House Stark core set deck is overpowered. In fact, I think the core set decks are balanced pretty well. It's been some time since I played with the core set alone, but I remember I actually thought that Baratheon was quite strong. Better balanced than Stark overall, not that much worse on Military, significantly better on Intrigue, able to grab power quickly with lots of Renown, a potentially devastating character in Stannis etc.

I suggest you play some more games to find out how to deal with the Stark Juggernaut. New players sometimes tend to overestimate the importance of the Military challenge, and underestimate Intrigue (I know I did). Also, this being a card game, the random factor is not to be disregarded. Depending on the flop and draw, the same deck can seem invincible in one game and utter crap in the next. Again, I suggest to play some more games and develop a feel for the whole thing.

The Core Set decks are balanced against each other, and I think they're generally pretty balanced fresh out of the box in a multiplayer format. It definitely depends though on how many players are involved (in other words, if you play 1v1 or 4-person multiplayer). Since most of the decks include only one copy of each card, it really depends on the draw...Targ is actually very strong if you draw into Forever Burning or get Daenerys Chambers + attachments out quickly.

I agree though that the Stark and Targ decks tend to be a bit better than the others, in large part because of the plots. Valar makes a big difference, and Targ has a plot that allows the opponent to kill a character (obviously a terrible plot to play in 1v1 though). As others mention, once you begin customizing your decks, you'll be able to improve efficiency. You don't really need to buy more cards though...try exchanging plots and neutral cards/events among decks to see what works best for you.

Ratatoskr said:

Well, I begun to play with core set (1.5 year ago) and after few games I just started to make my own decks, because it's more fun - it's card game not board game. Anyway I said "you should" not "you must"

Rogue30 said:

Hey, I agree. In fact, it was quite the same with me. All I'm saying is that there are players who approach the game differently, and they shouldn't be scared away, because the game *can* be played without getting into deckbuilding much and without spending a considerable amount of money for expansions.

Example 1: After I got the Core Set, I played a few games with my wife. It wasn't her most favourite game ever, but she liked it fine enough. After I started getting chapter packs and reading up on the game on the internet and stuff, she stopped playing with me completely. It all just got too big and complex for her, and she didn't want to spend the time necessary to keep up with me, and she wasn't into deckbuilding at all. No harm done, I found people to play AGoT with more seriously, and with the missus I play Dominion, or Battlelore, or Thunderstone,or whatever. Just goes to show that the minimalist, non-collectible approach *does* work with some people.

Example 2: After getting the Core Set, I checked these boards to see which Chapter packs/expansions might make sense to get next. I found some posts that said that getting a second Core Set was essential, and a third was highly recommended, and that before getting any CPs, people should absolutely get the second Core Set. I absolutely guarantee you 100% that if I had read those posts before getting into the game, I'd never, ever have bought the Core Set. Never.

Cardinalsin said:

The Stark core set deck is good at killing, and not much else. It has almost no draw, and almost no intrigue defense, which means that the aggressive Stark player will quickly run out of cards in hand. And if you're using the assigned plot decks, that valar morghulis is more likely to hurt the Stark player than his opponent.

Now Baratheon wants to win quickly, so the murder-happy Starks can really throw a wrench in those plans. The key to beating the Stark core set is to play against its weaknessplay for the long game. Get Ser Davos into play early and use him as a claim soak (or use Lightbringer), and keep defending those military challenges so Stark can't accumulate power quickly. Focus on intrigue challenges early in the gameit will pay off in the mid-game. Don't overplay your handsince Stark has very few intrigue icons, your cards are safer in your hand than on the board. Remember, if he can't win in six turns, he'll have to that Valar Morghulis, and he'll probably wipe his own board. If you have a hand full of cards when that happens, you'll be in the dominant position (unless he dropped it in the first couple rounds, which is a good reason why you shouldn't play your best characters early in the game against Stark unless you have a way to save them).

Hope some of this helps. The key is a matter of perspective: Stark can look intimidating because they have such kill-potential. But the key to beating Stark is realizing that killing doesn't win you the gamenot directly, anyways. Stark can come at your with an 11-STR army with deadly, and you can defend with a 1-cost, 1-STR character, and then sacrifice him for claim. For all its bluster, Stark has gained effectively nothing from that exchangehe's gained no power, and now he has 11 less strength for dominance.

Thanks all. I think we probably are falling into the trap of overvaluing military challenges, though deadly still seems a potentially problematic ability when characters like Eddard Stark have it with not just a military icon but also a power icon. Still, will suspend judgement for now.

Well, not counting Hodor, who cannot attack, both CS Stark and CS Baratheon have exactly one deadly char who has a power icon (Eddard and Stannis's Northern Cavalry), so that' pretty much even. I'll grant you that Ned can be a major PITA, especially because his Stalwart keyword means that not even Motley or Milk of the Poppy will take care of things permanently, although both should be able to slow Stark down significantly.

In Military challenges, Deadly is not that big a deal. Just defend the challenge with one weenie of your choice (Knight of the Rainwood or Old Red Priest do nicely; Davos is ideal because of his save response - just don't pay that gold, though, unless you got a second one to spend). Kill that weenie for claim and Deadly is meaningless. You can also use duplicated Bob or whoever wields Lightbringer (just beware 2-claim-challenges). Then come back with your standing force and pummel Stark on Intrigue and Power.

Now that I think of it - you *are* sure you know how Deadly works, yes? I mean no offense, but the mechanic is often misunderstood by newer players. What it comes down to, basically, is this: Deadly resolves after claim, and targets only participating characters. So if you defend with one char and kill that one for claim, then deadly has no legal target and fizzles. If you win the challenge, or if you defend with more than one char, or if you choose a non-participating character fo claim, then Deadly kicks in. If you leave the challenge unopposed, then you still have to fulfill claim, and your opponent claims one power. So, the defend-with-one-weenie thing is often your best option against a deadly opponent in a military challenge.

Ratatoskr said:

Milk takes care of stalwart.

Rogue30 said:

It does? Are you sure? When exactly is the point that a moribund card loses its attachments? Isn't there a timing conflict? I find this situation a bit confusing.

Ratatoskr said:

If Eddard has Milk attached and he dies or is discarded from play, he becomes moribund. Stalwart is not there, so it cannot kick in and change destination - Milk works until step 6.

Ratatoskr said:

Actually, no - I hadn't realised you could take out a single defender as the claim and then leave deadly with nowhere to go. That's a helpful tip, thanks. (Of course, you need a low-strength character to make this work, but that's not usually that difficult to find.)

However, I'm not sure it solves the problem; deadly works in other conflicts than military, right? So this trick won't help for power conflicts.

Also, Stark has more than just Eddard and Hodor as deadly. You've got grey wind and shaggydog, too. And I consider ice to be a deadly equivalent (it's actually way better in many respects). But I must admit, there seem to be a lot less than I thought. Perhaps the draw has been having a bigger effect than I gave credit for.

Cardinalsin said:

Slight misunderstanding here: Of course Stark has more Deadly chars than just Ned and Hodor. I meant that Ned is the only Char with Deadly that can attack in a Power challenge (thus creating the problem you mentioned above). As we've established earlier, Deadly in Mil challenges is somewhat easier to handle, and those Direwolves have only a Mil icon.

So, yes, Eddard is a beast to contend with. As Rogue30 has pointed out, Milk of the Poppy works on him, so that's a good way to deal with him, if you can draw it.

And yes, Stark has lots of good kill effects. It's what Stark does. They also have some of the best events in the core set. So of course they will win lots of games, if the draw is with them and they are played well. But Bara has good cards too. They can grab power quickly with all the renown and Bob's ability. Support of the Kingdom can tip the resource balance in their favour. With a little luck, Stannis can be a beast. Melisandre can counter Ned's renown. And, maybe most important of all, don't disregard the Intrigue challenge. Sure, at first glance the Military challenge seems so much more important. But Bara has the edge on intrigue, and they should use it. All those nifty Stark cards mean squat if they end up on their discard pile. Plus, you should often be able to win those intrigue challenges unopposed, which will help with the power grab.

I've played a lot with the core set in the beginning as well, but I found Lanni and Targ to be the better houses with those start decks.

And since those decks have 1X copy of most stuff in there, they are not consistent, which means any deck can win if they get the right cards in their hand and the other doesn't. The best example I can think of is what Dan already mentioned - the recursion from Danny's Chambers with flame kissed and possibly forever burning as a bonus. You get those three cards and bang bang, the entire stark deck can simply suck it .

Or get Robert with Lightbringer on him. Or compare a lanni game where you get Golden Tooth Mines in your setup and one when you don't get it at all.

Zsa said:

Did you alter the plot deck for Targ in Joust? I'd imagine "Condemned by the Realm" is somewhat of a drawback, no?

Well, having played a few games I'm feeling more sanguine about House Baratheon's chances. Though Targ seemed a bit weak to me!

Condemned by the realm isn't so bad though. Play on turn 1, you have 13 turns before it actually impacts on you.

Cardinalsin said:

Assuming you didn't put out any characters in setup.

Ratatoskr said:

Yeah you're right, it is somewhat of a drawback, and very silly for joust. After playing 2-3 games with Targ regularly, we decided to just blank that plot card in joust.

You could still make it work though, by playing it first turn and making sure your setup did not include any important characters or better yet no characters. Still very silly though, but very good card for melee in my opinion.

I'd like to throw in my first impression of my two first jousts last night (with a friend who tends to complain a lot).

First joust: Me Lannister, him Baratheon

Summary: He kept draining power from my housecard with power challenges, hindered my characters with milk and motley (Tywin Lannister with motley!!!) and accumulated 16 Power in about 5 rounds. Me 0 Power.

Second joust: Me Stark, him Targaryen

Summary: He kept complaining that his Plot hinder him more often than not, I played 3 characters in setup Hodor, Pup and Idon't remember. Had Arya and Nymeria in my starting hand, found Winterfell Castle using a plot (time of building or similar), was able to play Eddard, Jon Snow and Rodderick Cassell in the second round and third round, and had winterfell kennels played with kennelmaster summer and shaggydog still on my hand due to lack of gold. My friend was able to fight through some victories (mainly intrigue or burning attachments, forbbidding military challenges), still I won after 5 rounds 15 to 1 to the constant nagging of the poor beaten dragon...

Well it doesn't seem to be that equal chances, although I tend to believe, that I had a lucky hand drawing in the second joust...or did we both make any grave mistakes?

Darksbane said:

I thought you were only allowed to play characters with "setup" as a keyword - which I haven't seen any of in the starter decks. Have I misunderstood the rules on this?

From the core set rules:

Game Setup

. . .

6. Place setup cards

. . . When placing your setup cards, you may place up to 5 gold worth of characters and/or location cards from your hand facedown in front of you. You may not play attachments during this step unless they include the "Setup" keyword in their game text; your setup must also include valid targets for such attachments. . . .

Cardinalsin said:

Cardinalsin said:

I'm afraid you have...

You're allowed to place characters and locations up to 5 gold in setup, you don't gain any advantages for that cards until the game begins. You may only play attachments during setup that have the setup trait .

Or am I mistaken

Ser Folly said:

You are correct.

On an unrelated note, I'd be nice if FFG made some changes to the forum tech. The quote and edit functionalities are abysmal.