Twn2dn said:

That's how I read it too. You bring the attachment out of shadows, and then the card text (passive or triggered) tells you how (and when) to attach it.

I'm not super stoked that there is a difference in how the two are played (not super bummed either), but I really do think this was probably the easiest way to explain how to interpret the rules that were already written, instead of writing a new set of rules for each type.

Skowza said:

Deathjester26 said:

Deathjester26 said:

The entry essentially says "it is OK for a Shadows attachment not to be attached to anything before its 'attaching' text kicks in." It was this "comes into play without actually being attached to anything" difference from playing an attachment from your hand that really made people want the bit in the Shadows rule document to work independently from card text. Now we know for certain that it doesn't. This is simply another part of the Shadows mechanic that doesn't quite fit in to the usual timing mechanic (like how it effectively creates full Player Action Windows for limited use within the "Begin Phase" Framework Action Window).

ktom said:

Twn2dn said:

~Why? What's wrong with it?

Dragon Skull is not reusable (except with Lady Dany's Chambers), and even if it is reusable, it costs 2 to put back into shadows and 1 to bring it out again.

VB just kills **** with pritned strength 2 or less, so strength buffs don't work, and are inifintely reusable because you'll almsot certainly lose at least one challenge per turn. Oh, and they're free to reuse.

The banning isn't the most....sublime...way to take care of the wildlings. But, it is acceptable. I know Zeiler's fix, and it was a good one IMHO.

The army is really the one taking the hit. They are just okay now...just like any powerful characters that cost 5+. There is a BIG difference between paying 2 for a strong character that can be killed, stolen, knelt out than paying 5 for a strong character that can be.

I will still play them in my 'non-agenda' decks. The uniques are really good (Val being #1, but Mance and Orwell being good as well). Although from what I have seen so far, it won't take much for Maester Agenda to take over that spot. Stark WL's took the biggest hit, but I think they are still viable out of Lanni and maybe Martell.

Good work on Narrow of course - I assume it has a 100% approval rating.

The rest are rule things where my eyes started getting glassy.

Where is the link to the FAQ? btw...How is everyone doing? Just doing my annual check-in while trying to decide if I want to play this game again.

mathlete said:

Just doing my annual check-in while trying to decide if I want to play this game again.

~ Start back in now and avoid the April HBO rush.

FAQ is here.

Thanks Kevin! I miss the game but I miss the longtimers who are my friends (like you) even more,

mathlete said:

i'll answer both of these questions for you at gencon 2011 when you hsow up to the ccg hall

Mathlete!!

Good to see you, ser.

The BotFM ban is irritating. I don't think that it should have been banned, it is not completely broken. Almost every deck runs a Valar, but you don't ban it just because it is a staple. Sure Wildlings get some big armies for cheap, but there are only three in the deck, it takes a lot more power to win the game, and they can't run any other agendas.

I think that the Wildling/Watch split was enough, this seems like just persecuting a deck because it is good. I liked the Wildlings as they were; I think that they made houses/themes that were otherwise sort of lame actually playable.

There is my 2 cents.

Tomdidiot said:

FYI:

One of these: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (a tilda) implies sarcasm on these forums.

I think that the Wildlings were too strong, and I'm happy to see the ban.

That said, does something have to be completely overpowered for it to be banned/errata'd? I don't think so. Look at Compelled by the Rock or Pyromancer's Cache? They were strong but not necessarily NPE.

I find it ironic that some players who say they prefer the system of "selective bannings/erratas" over rotation and/or deckbuilding restrictions appear to dislike bannings. I don't mean to imply that anyone who objects to this particular ban is a hypocrite, or that just because one supports the selective banning method that person must support this particular ban. I just want to point out that bannings like this one are EXACTLY the type we are talking about when we voice our opinion for selective bannings over rotation.

With regard to this specific card, if any card were to be banned in the current environment, I think this is a darn good candidate.

I support the BotFM ban; I do think there were other options that could have been considered, but how many times should FFG errata a card before deciding to ban? I think one is enough, and there was already one errata for Wildling Agendas so the ban is perfectly reasonable at this point. Wildling decks were preventing other deck types from being competitive and maybe this will finally be the end of Wildling dominance... they are still quite playable, just no longer OP.

Skowza said:

Good point...although you hope that one erratta should do it, if done right.

Although, they didn't erratta this specific card, really - just all the North agendas in general.

I'm behind the ban. Though I don't find it logically inconsistent that someone may be against this ban but still be pro-spot banning versus rotation. The turn in the argument is based on whether you feel this card was warping the environment and stifling development or if players had not yet fully explored the options of dealing with the decks that keyed on this card.

IOW personal opinion is still going to llow someone to be pro-spot ban and against banning of some cards.

I don't believe the player base really had fully explored the options available to beating out the Wilding deck... but it was definitely warping the meta-game in an unhealthy fashion so I approve.

There gets to be a point where if everyone is collectively deciding that wilding is the most powerful and so everyone should play it or build specifically against it that wilding decks are over-represented in tournaments and the non-wilding decks tend to be too narrowly focused to handle the non-Wilding decks as such don't make the final cut and everyone points to the tournament results as proof of what they already expected to see, unaware that they caused it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In this case... I disagree with that argument. Ithink that they really were ridiculously strong, and that while I think a couple of deck types could have been explored that would have beaten them and still done well in the field, it would have required our best builders to make such a deck and our best players to pilot it to get any real traction , and that sort of reinforces the idea that getting rid of tBotFM was the correct decision.

Wow. I hope that made sense. Too much coffee.

I totally agree - they were not unbeatable, but they were:

1. VERY consistent. Many of the decks that could beat them, were not solid enough to make it out of swiss. Red Viper, Lanni Kneel, and others could be exceptions especially after a few meta cards, but as Erick (and others) showed, in the hands of a good player they were hard to beat even after the meta knew of their power.

2. Their very existence shut down SO many deck-types. I remember multitple time when I had an idea for decks that were destroyed by 'what if they have one or two nine strength deadly stealth armies out'...and that is before 'combo's' like Frozen Outpost. I would start adding cards that stopped these armies (which were the main problem IMHO), while the Wildling decks didn't have to - watered down deck, meet tight deck.

rings said:

I do find it interesting that all the focus on banning/errata has been on the agendas and not the armies. Not that it matters now, but did anyone ever discuss or condier banning/errata the army card versus the blood of the first men agenda?

I wondered that same thing. The armies are always used as the example for why the agendas were bad for the game. Why not change or ban the armies?

Kennon said:

Kennon said:

The Armies were certainly the most popular example, but by no means the only one. Cost reduced Skinchangers were really good; so was Mance, Val, Osha, Orell, etc.

Stealth, +1 STR is still good, but no longer are Wildlings the most overly cost-efficient characters in the game; keep BotFM around, and they still would be.

I really like what banning of Blood of the First Men does to the environment, and am whole heartedly in support of the ban. I simply did not like the way Wildling dominance was twisting the meta, making certain builds/themes completely obsolete and limiting deck building options considerably. Not to mention watering down house flavor until everything tasted the same... Maybe now we'll actually see some more decks with "After you win..." effects again.

As far as solutions go, I think that banning BOTFM was one of the easiest and cleanest. Banning the stealth agenda would have been too harsh, and banning the +1 STR would not have affected the environment enough. Errata would have had to affect all three of the agendas, otherwise it would have become pretty hard to keep in mind. Limiting all of the agendas to non-uniques could have been a decent solution, but that would have limited the game designers from making interesting unique Wildling characters down the line. This way the Wildlings get to stay as a more living part of the game, which can better be added to later on, if the game designers feel like it.

FATMOUSE said:

The others were good, no doubt about it, but the ArmY (especially in combo with a few other cards) are what really limited deckbuilding IMHO. Decent solutions like Wildfire or even a Valar that you could get off (assuming no Narrow) were still much more moot. Say you get a Valar off and they only have 2-3 cards in hand. If one of those was an army, that fundementally changed the game much more than if it was Skinchanger/Mance/etc. It came down to efficiency, and the armies were 2 cost, 9 strength that combo'd unbelievably well with a decent location (and some other cards) due to their crest - compared to 4 strength for 1 that you could only use in one type of challenge per turn (Skinchangers).

Drakey - I haven't listened to the podcast, but I thought Zeigler put out there all the agenda's being limited to uniques (rather than non-uniques), which I would have loved. #1 I love uniques (broken record alert) and anything to make them more playable is good, #2 uniques have a built-in weakness (the dead pile) that makes running 3X them more difficult, #3 it would limit the more worrisome cards effectiveness (Army, Skinchanger, even the traitor). That army is MUCH more weak w/o stealth, especially if there is a mirror match w/ a lot of unique stealth out there. Limiting it to non-uniques wouldn't have solved any of the main issues IMHO.

rings said:

What?!