Think also that in a night watch deck, Val + TLS + Dolorous Edd = 8 cards every round they are alive.

Anyway, not having claim in the intrigue challanges is not the end of the world. You get power through unopposed and you can trigger effects by winning, like Fury of the Sun, Cersei Lannister, Condemned by the Council or Wars are Won by Qills.

In the next series of chapters we will see the new plot that searches a maester. So having Maester Aemon from the beginning will absorb one military claim per round. I'm an aggro player and i'm a little worried about that, but I will not say that this will be boring.

matamagos said:

Correct me if I'm mistaken and excuse me that I have not kept up with this extensive thread/discussion (maybe it has been noted elsewhere).

Isn't there this game mechanism called drawcap keeping TLS in check?

dolorous edd says you can add +1 to the drawcap for each the north agenda you are playing. :-)

Gualdo said:

So let me see whether I got that right:

You have to have 21 Power to win and must have the three characters in play, one being dead destroys that nice stratagem...only to draw 8 cards instead of 2 (or three with the knights of the realm agenda)...

I'd say not worth the effort and the planning at least the way I like to play.

And by the way... the card Val gives you never enters your 'Hand' in game terms (although other draws don't say so either) in the least that's where clarifications could start with if the card is too powerful with Val.

we are speaking about a combo that can fill in a night's watch deck... we are not saying it is competitive or destroy the game... speaking about metamagos he had against me at stahleck draw cap at 9 thx to Val and dolorous Edd... lol...

its good that over the top and ridicolous finaly got noticed. its a shame that it didn't get noticed about some of the complaints about TLS.

Lars said:

You're going to have to be more specific than that. "TLS should be 20 STR" is obviously ridiculous, but I haven't read many complaints about the card that are this over the top. I think it's completely reasonable for people to say that TLS' effect undermines a key challenge and integral (balancing) effect in the game. It's also fair for people to consider this overpowered or somehow unbalancing.

Honestly, if you're not going to advance the argument one direction or the other, than why even post? I've been happy the last several years that AGOT forums tend to lack the craziness (read "trolling and flaming") of other forums. A bit of logic will go much further than drama. (I dunno, maybe I'm just feeling grouchy after watching all the grandstanding of the State of the Union.)

Separately, I'm very interested to see what local metas report about this card when they put it to the test. I am also VERY interested to hear what the 2 Champs and a Chump have to say in their next podcast (wink, wink). It sounds like Kennon and Dobbler both tend to agree that the card is a bit unbalanced (hope I'm not putting words in anybody's mouth), but that they disagree on whether it will pose a problem to the environment. In any case, that's a discussion I'm looking forward to. When is it going to be up?

We were looking at uploading our analysis of the newest chapter pack this week and saving the TLS discussion for next week, but I think we could be convinced to reverse the order if popular opinion is otherwise.

Kennon said:

I think I've seen enough TLS discussion to last me a life time. Please talk about something else. XD

Kennon said:

Well, you asked for public opinion, so...

I'm fine if you do the Dreadfort Betrayal stuff next. It would be cool if you proxied TLS into some test games before discussing him on the 'cast. I'm with Saturnine, we've had enough academic discussion, it's time to get some field reports.

I think you will find it will be the 1,000 pound elephant in the room if you don't do it first *shrug* You might try to stay away from it, but like all spoiled cards it is now part of the meta and hard to ignore.

Yeah, it'd be a bit like if the political commentary on today's blogs failed to mention the State of the Union. I don't think you have to spend a lot of time on TLS (and like the State of the Union, there's probably going to be some superficial moments in the post-release discussion), but maybe 5 minutes or so hitting on the most interesting/not immediately obvious issues would be good. Everybody knows it's going to be some time before the complete verdict on TLS is out, but I don't think you have to choose between complete/final analysis OR timely/news-breaking reporting...you can do both. (Just my own thinking, but I'll be happy with whatever you guys decide.)

Ratatoskr said:

See my previous post in this thread about an OCTGN tournament were we feature this card :-)

Twn2dn said:

one I never said he should be 20 str. Rings used hyperbole in his argument and now I get critized for using even more hyperbole, fine.

2) without going back through 162 posts pplus the article comments I'll paraphrase some that I remember that weere at the least over the top:

TLS destroys intrigue challenges

TLS forces people to run character control (yes ridiculous, if you can ignore character control without TLS in the environment right now then you can with him in the environment).

TLS ruins the metagame as you now have to plan for him in every tournamnet

TLS was an intentional screw over to control players

That int claim being denied is an unfair thing to do (especially since claim denial is found many places, in different forms, throughout the environment)

That TLS, Val, and maester ameon/cresson are going to stop the opponent from winning a game.

3) there are plenty of posts in here that don't advanced an argument i decided to add to them...shoot me.

I suppose whether or not TLS is overpowered remains to be seen. At least I'm not able to tell conclusively yet. But he looks dangerously close. In the end, we'll just have to wait and see.

I guess what really irked me about reading the spoiler was the stated objective of creating an overpowered card. That seems to be the path towards a boring metagame dominated by hard counters back and forth. He said he wanted to make a card that's auto-include in any compatible deck. That's power creep by definition, isn't it?

You forgot the following:

Every intrigue challenge thwarted by TLS will cause god to kill a kitten. < ( God's favorite house is Martell).

TLS stopping intrigue is an act of terrorism... if you are found trying to transport tls at an airport... security will throw you in Guantanamo Bay.

Playing TLS with a member of the opposite sex will give them TLS.

If you play TLS westbhoro baptist church will picket you and your daughter's dance recital. (Visit godhatestls.org).

TLS may cause cancer, FFG is currently in litigation due to not providing a surgeon general's warning.

Stag says TLS is borken. 'Nuff said.

TLS stole your girlfriend, crank called your mom, and pooped in your cereal.

Lars said:

Yes, but I did it on purpose to prove a point (hopefully).

The point is that repeated people are using saying he can be killed, knelt, Milked, controlled (which is 100% true), so therefore he isn't overpowered. A 20-strength, tri-con character for 1 gold that draws a card every turn isn't overpowered...if you are using only that logic.

It isn't hyperbole. It is just saying that can't be the only reason he isn't overpowered (otherwise, the above character isn't either). Some very good points are made on top of this (and against this), but many of the responses were basically 'he can be killed/controlled so he is okay', which just doesn't fly for me. Maybe it does for some people *shrug*

Examples of other powerful characters are more helpful, even if they haven't convienced some of us yet - and even more of us are more annoyed by the direction of the card than the actual card (PASSIVE abilities that shut down claim if not specifically controlled). ~Again, I think the same people would be annoyed if no characters could be killed while he was standing, so maybe it is icon-racism...

rings said:

~Nah, that's why Westeros Bleeds was reprinted so we could have a Baratheon character that negated military challenges also. It's all a grand conspiracy to make Baratheon top house by GenCon 2011

I think it has to do with what TLS can do in between marshalling and when he is removed.

He is 3 STR deadly, so on offensive he can kill 1-2 characters. On his own in one turn he can protect 1 - 2 cards from leaving the player's hand. On Average he might last 2 turns. In the early game before the reset, he can be devastating. But just as devastating if not less than Golden Tooth Mines, or Val. His key role is protecting narrow escape, and allowing the bara player to have a few backups if he can't push before the reset. (My assumption is in control Bara... they usually have asshai which can protect your hand almost as effectively).

OTOH, Lannister builds usually have enough redundant kneel to keep him from being useable for at least 3 turns. More if they get Lannisport Brothel. Targ and Stark standard builds also have enough control to remove him, granted Stark might not need to. Martel has A Game of Cyvasse. Baratheon and Greyjoy have to rely on good old Milk.

To be useful, he would need to be put in 3x or rely on Summoning Season considering that his ability is less useful as the game drags on.

Now compare with Rings: 1 cost 20 str guy. This is more of an economy issue, once a char is 5 str or higher... its less of a distinguishing factor. We already had this problem with the wildings.

rings said:

and even more of us are more annoyed by the direction of the card than the actual card (PASSIVE abilities that shut down claim if not specifically controlled). ~Again, I think the same people would be annoyed if no characters could be killed while he was standing, so maybe it is icon-racism...

no one wanted to address my brienne of tarth comparision buti'm going to raise it again. how is he any different from her? becuase of deadly and a war crest at the costof being house bara only and not dual house?

and i know there is a tilde but i'd be fine with a character that said no characters could be killed while he is standing. heck I think greyjoy has one of those almost already. Maester Ameon isn;t running wild in the environment and forcing people to play a certain way and he negates 33% of the claim in the game too....nor do I think having aemon and TLS in the same deck will be devistitingly hard to overcome.

One of the aspects to consider with TSL is their combinations, as it's a character extremely versatile. Brienne, for example, doesn't have such adaptability and doesn't interact with other cards as TSL do (although she is a very good character).

Interactions:

Knight trait -> Knights of the Realm, Muster, Tourney for the Hand

War Crest -> Price of War, Die by the Sword, Power or Arms, Distinct Mastery

Ability > Val, For R'hllor, Ser Preston Greenfield forme Kings of the Storm (another good knight, I don't know if he was mentioned before)

And I'm not talking about a list based on TLS as her single pillar. Many of these cards fit well in any knight deck or in any deck playing enough war crests.

Lars said:

Brienne of Tarth is definitely very good, and it's a bit surprising more people don't play with her. I feel removing hand control is a more powerful than removing triggered effects during a challenge (although I'd say the two are closer than probably what most people think), but for the moment and for argument's sake, let's suppose their abilities are of equal value. Let's also say for now that Knight and Lady are equally positive/negative traits. Let's ignore House X only and dual House affiliation. TLS should definitely be House Bara only, but since both cards are Bara I don't think the distinction is that important here. So what's left? Deadly and war crest. I'm not sure about you, but that's a big difference in my opinion. Brienne doesn't stay a 3 cost if she gets Deadly and a war crest. She easily goes to 4. So why doesn't TLS go to 4? Now take the chains off the argument and most people will probably agree that TLS' ability is at least slightly stronger (probably more so for many; for one he can take advantage of more combos) and Knight is a better trait than Lady. It becomes obvious at this point that TLS is under-costed. I said as much in my single post way-back-when. I believe longclaw mentioned it once as well.

Cost is a huge factor in determining whether or not a card is over-powered or not. I think pointing out Brienne is a good example of showing how TLS is a sign of power creep (which I also mentioned in my other post). TLS is under-costed and whether people realize it or not, him being at 3 gold and not higher is playing a significant role in people's assessment of him.

matamagos said:

so by the same logic Core Set Catelan Stark is equal to TLS if she had a keyword....

and the for r'hollor and the preston greenfield 'interaction' is a joke (i forgot to include that in my over the top synopsis)

FATMOUSE said:

everyone keeps making a big deal out of the war crest.....the war crest is ok....if he is not house bara only bara is not a war crest house (and yes maybe he takes him a step in that direct, but its not like you slot in 3x of the war crest control cards or swap out power of blood for arms....) its almost a non factor in bara.

Deadly.....ok its a good keyword, is it renown? no. is bara already loaded with deadly so its making them the deadly house....uhm no. It adds a little more to the house but it also counters out the fact that to use his deadly you lose his ability (seems pretty balanced right there).

Knight is a better trait in house then lady for sure, but its not like lady is a bad trait. and its not like bara needs 1 more knight and it would be a lot worse if TLS were a lord.

The cost I'm still not seeing. take his ability out of his cost and he is well costed for 3 gold and 3 str there are 5 other characters with deadly @ 3 cost and 3 str. dagmar cleftjaw being the most comparable (~i feel like i'm buying real estate....) with a war crest and a kick ass ability (one that has a more direct interaction on the win condition of the game). the other 4 are in 2 houses, targ (daarhio, aggo) and lanni (bronn shagga) so they get and advantage just by having 2, and the characters they are on are solid at worst all have abilities (daarhio's might be a negative ability, but he gets a 3rd icon). So i'm not really buying the deadly makes him undercosted.

furthermore to use is deadly, icons, or str you lose his ability so either you paid 3 gold to protect your hand from discard or you paid 3 tgold for an approtiately costed 3 gold character.

If the argument hinges on the ability being worth more then 3 gold....well its tougher to argue that since the abilities effect on the game as yet to be seen. I still maintain it is not overcomable, it does not create an NPE, it does not make a baratheon deck too hard to beat nor does it make it any faster. There is a lot of concern about its power level when coupled with other cards but there is really only one legit concern and lets be honest that card is a power level concern without TLS.

Lars said:

There are other ways to play Baratheon beside the classic power rush deck with elegant people and renown. Maybe in these strategy TLS is just a good character, but not broken. If you remove the crest, the trait and deadly I would agree with you. He is not so powerful.

However, why not through away the two copies of Power of Blood and replace them for Power of Arms? The Knights of the Realm deck is proving quite strong in my meta, and they don't take many advantage of Power of Blood.

I think Kings of the Storm has given us enough cards to play other strategies, so we should consider TLS in both cases, no just in the classic renown list.

ok....lets consider him in a war crest bara deck. bara has 6 other characters w/ war crest. 2 of them cost 3 or less, 1 costs 4 and the other 3 are 5+. so its not like they are going to spamming the board with an additional 3 cost war crest. one of those has renown....they all have no attachments (since we are counting keywords). there is not a lot of synergy amongst them (one is anti shadows , ~and devistiated the shadow agenda, one is very helpful to rush, and a third is anti opponents war crest). I guess you can build the deck that rings fears with TLS and King Robert's Host....but they both have to stay standing the whole time and don't really help out with the war crest events if doing so....

compare to GJ or Stark Warcrests (or even targ dothraki) and you'll see a bara warcrest dekc is a longway off and a war crest sub theme just doesn't cut it.