Stag Lord said:

No, you don't get it because that is not at all what criticism is based on. Your comment is essentially a strawman which is a logical fallacy. Most critique is not at all based on it not "fitting your playstyle or philosophy".

It is based on the concept of Power Creep in continually expanding collectible game models.

Valar.

Marched to the Wall.

Milk.

Nightmare.

Distraction.

Claim.

Anything that kneels.

Anything that blanks text.

Need I continue?

There are answers. The game expands, so new things come out and change it. So deal with the changes.

LaughingTree said:

The printed it in the core set.

http://agot.dbler.com/index.php?view=card&arsenalid=20107

And then again in the latest series of chapter packs.

http://agot.dbler.com/index.php?view=card&arsenalid=29009

Edit: I forgot about Core Set Khal Drogo, who is effectively free: http://agot.dbler.com/index.php?view=card&arsenalid=20108

LaughingTree said:

Yeah - still not seeing power creep or anything close to it in the posts here. Ergo - my argument isn't a strawman. And you don't have to deifne ti for me - i took a few logic classes.

@Dobbler

I'm sorry if my post came off as agressive; it sure wasn't my intention - I just tried to show a PoV that, to my knowledge, hadn't been considered in the discussion - and that, as a matter of fact, at least partially, rings happen to corroborate (hadn't read his last two posts when I wrote mine). So maybe I'm not alone in this... but really, I AM sorry if I came guns blazing into here - don't want to offend anyone.

So, having put the apologies up front, I would like to discuss a few arguments with the community, only right now I don't have the time. When I do so, I'll be sure to post it here. In the mean time, apologies made, ok?

Mathias Fricot said:

If you use the following arguments... almost nothing is broken... Venomus is broken? in my opinion yes... that's why I changed deck building style avoiding 2 str char as I can... this is a good way for the game? No in my thinking...

In your list you missed Fortified position... I use it only because brotherhood are around... It is not good IMHO that I have to build decks cause "there are strong archetip" around... so why I have to take place for 13 cards in a deck to oppose brotherhood? I don't like it but I have to do it...

I think the Bara knight is a bad card... every baratheon deck will run it... everyone will start to play milk of the poppey and distraction (as already I do for beric). This is a good way to handle the game... no... but I have to adapt...

the comparison with wintertime marauders made me laugh... greyjoy don't see a good card from the core set greyjoy... Marauders has condition to be played... it is very strong but I play winter ONLY for a card... if there were at least other 2 cards like marauders I would agree with you... baratheon are full of good chars and now they have almost all... kneel is not the answer against laughing cause they are plenty of stand effect. They have banner that give vigilant quite easily... they have search maester to handle condition quite easily... he has perfect trait, good keyword (thx god someone aovoided to have the vigilant kw has was planned), perfect crest, awesome ability and cost like a raider 2 str that mill 2 cards... there are lots of answers, but this would not be an excuse to print such a card... I can create a broken location cause there is frozen solid around?

I'm only happy that I play stark and greyjoy so i never win intrigue... an asshai deck will be more unpleasant with this guy around :-)

But let's see how the enviroment will accept it... in various forum in europe almost only the bara player like it... and lots of them say it is undercosted and too powerful... and they are happy about this :-)

tovra.pt said:

We are good, I shouldn't take message board disagreements seriously. My bad.

~Except for Kennon, he is a Chump. Nothing he says is coherent or logical. He should be disdained with heaps of insults poured on his head.

Just going to add a DITTO to what Dobbler has posted. We both seem to see the situation from the same point of view.

At this point I think everyone just needs to step back from the keyboard. Take a deep breath and see what happens in both local meta and the circuit before this card can be truely dissected.

(eddit) my post was about his feelings on TLS and not Kennon. Although he may be right about Kennon I myself do not know him well enough to make that call.

~ Come on, guys, I haven't had a good card to rant about in ages!

Granted, I'm not taking this to Hand of the King or Cersei's Favor out of house levels, so maybe you can argue that I'm maturing a bit. Heck, I never even hit complaint mode for Wildlings the way other folks did. I just think that TLS has some pretty negative card interactions and puts design in a place that I don't think it's good to go. Maybe I'm not so much maturing as pretending I'm a designer now rather than a player. (I've still got spreadsheets of imaginary cards to prove it!)

@Staglrod, don't think I didn't notice you leave my name out of the list of people with reasonable views.

Dobbler said:

I would agree with you 100% if TLS were not in the house best fit to protect against this draw back with vigilant and a few other standing effects. I also worry about what TLS can do before the challenges phase vs. plots like RBD and with cards like Val and the Bara traitor.

My main concern is what this guy can do for Bara Rush. I admit, far too often Bara Rush fizzles out on itself due to its weakness in Int and lack of draw. Let's face it, TLS is a big plug for the weakness in Int. However, the draw is still a weakness (unless Val comes out too). I do think something needed be designed to help push Bara Rush into winning a little more frequently, and I applaud Alec for trying to do so if that was indeed his intent. However, I think this is one of the hardest aspects of the game to design for. The balance between designing a card that will help Bara Rush get to the finish more often vs. get their consistently, is a very delicate operation. Will TLS do this consistenly enough to be a problem? I don't think so right now, but the concern is there (for me anyways).

Lars said:

BTW, 5 minutes and a Game Misconduct to the Flyers fan for crazy talk!

Kennon said:

~ Yeah - with heaps of implied disdain. .

Deathjester26 said:

BTW bump that to 10 min for being a Flyers fan.

First I want to apologize again if any of my comments were taken offensively. Reading back I could have phrased my earlier posts in better way that did not appear like a personal attack which was not my intention.

Stag Lord said:

Let me put it this way. I believe this card could very well be an example of power creep. You disagree. However, just because you disagree that this card is power creep does not suddenly transform my belief that this card is power creep into me not "liking the card" because it "doesn't fit my playstyle". I happen to like the card quite a bit (or rather I love the art and the use of Laughing in the name and I don't really have a playstyle. This card, errata or not, will be slotted right into my son's Baratheon deck since Bara is his favorite house. But I still feel the card is evidence of power creep for reasons listed. Now, fair enough that you disagree. No worries there. But just because you disagree (and all of us here are just stating personal opinions) does not mean my take (or anyone else's) is suddenly just me not liking the card because its not my playstyle. To make that claim is a strawman regardless of you believe there is power creep or not. You have your opinions and others have different opinions but if you are not accurately characterizing what others like me believe then that really is fallacious. I hope that makes sense to you.

Now briefly to recap why I think this card is undercosted for what it does. Without an ability at all, TLS would be played as an efficient quality character. At 3 Str for 3 cost with Deadly is already very good. No vulnerability to VB or solo Flame-Kissed thus limiting control options. With the ability as written it provides two extremely strong effects that are pretty unique to this card only. First is the blanket protection Intrigue and Plots like Rule By Decree. This protection effect is extremely strong especially in a house where that addresses one of its only weaknesses. Second is the superb synergy with other cards, one of which is already considered one of the most powerful cards ever made, Val. Val's draw effect as is has single handedly won me more games than any other single card in this game even with its drawback. A card whose ability eliminates that drawback is extremely potent in this LCG environment especially relative to any other cards that are currently available. I know how powerful Val is alone and a card that synergizes in a way to eliminate her drawback has to be recognized as amazingly powerful. And then there are plenty of other quality synergy tricks with Take Them, etc. So the ability gives both a powerful defensive effect and the potential for the most effective draw engine in the game which addresses both of the classic drawbacks to Bara.

Also let me say that it is not always sound to compare a card now in the LCG environment with a previous card from years ago in the CCG environment. So just because some card in the past was made that might have been more undercosted/overpowered (Loyalists, Jaqen, etc) is not a valid argument to use against a card in the current environment.

@ Skeletonator

While Daeny and Rakharo are solid cards, I don't think anyone can legitimately argue their abilities are even close to as game changing as TLS. And as someone pointed out earlier Daeny is one of only a couple cards in the entire LCG environment that have stats comparable to TLS for the cost. And again Daeny and Rak's abilities are really not close to being this good. Khal Drogo also is a staple in Targ but not nearly as game changing as this card. But Targ is getting a box set finally so hopefully they will finally get a powerful hard hitting unique like a new version of Daeny or Barristan or someone like Dunk or Egg or Bittersteel.

From my point of view, I'd have to say that the card is way too good for its cost.

The fact that there are WAYS of dealing with it does not make a card good for the environment and I think everyone can agree on this. Even some cards that were banned could be dealt with in one way or another. However, the cost/reward relationship was simply too high.

What if we get a character with 1 gold cost, 6 strength tricon. Character does not kneel to attack, and cannot defend.

You can also make the same arguments for this card that I've seen people make for TLS. It's very good, but there's ways of dealing with it. It's an exaggeration obviously but the point is the same.

I think the problem with this card could have been avoided if TLS had a gold cost of 5, instead of 3.

I also agree that cards like VB or BotS are unhealthy for the environment in their current format, even if I use them in my martell decks.

Zsa said:

I agree. Most of this discussion would likely have never happened, or at least been very much toned down, if it had costed 5 gold. But people look at the ability and (rightly so, in my mind) think there's no way the ability shouldn't be a higher cost...

longclaw said:

I personally think 5 would be over cost for this card. But would agree with 4, like the blackfish.

Ivengar has the right of it here. Five would be way, way too much for that ability and he'd be a little more than a novelty card. Four - i can't srgue. If he had been fure he would have still been solid.

Ya know there has been alot of theory bantered about in this thread. What we need is an operational test! How about an OCTGN tournament where we include The Laughing Storm?

and yes this is a shameless plug to hijack the thread and let longclaw and gualdo know it's time for another tournament :-)

What say ye?

orclrob

goshdarnstud said:

I didn't see this mentioned anywhere so far, so I apologize if this has already been brought up, but isn't TLS in some ways a double-edged sword? What about times where the player would want to discard cards? A Baratheon player with TLS in play cannot cancel a NE, right? I know this is a pretty weak argument (ok, really really weak argument) but I figured I would say it anyway.

Skowza said:

When cancelling Narrow Escape, you discard your hand, not any cards, that's the reason Darkstar doesn't come into play there, and the same reason TLS has nothing to do with NE.

So, that's not a flaw.

well if tls is on the table when a narrow Escape is played and he is soooo overpowered why would you want to cancel it anyway

I actually don't see much point in him outside of a knights deck.

An asshat deck has enough intrigue icons to not worry. And a rush deck requires perfection in execution, and considering he lacks renown... I don't see him adding anything there.

I see him as a trap for the overly anxious folk that have the need to toolbox. Unlike old qOt he doesn't stop the player from doing the challenge, he might have been interesting as a martel card though.