Lars said:

I'm just testing it now!

I will share the results as soon as I play some more games. As some of the war crests are also knights I'm trying the Knight's of the Realm agenda. One of the strenghts, comparing to Greyjoy or Stark, is that we draw sooner, thanks to the agenda. Maybe Stark has more draw, but the knights start getting card advantage from round 1. Another good point is the Fury Baratheon, very powerful against Martell Dondarrion decks.

On the other hand, Stark and Greyjoy have more crests to choose. In Baratheon we are very limited for the moment.

Lars said:

So you argue that, at 3g, 3str, deadly, war crest, knight, he'd be rather efficiently costed at 3g (I'd argue that's borderline 4g, but I'd be happy for this argument to agree that he'd be fine at 3g), and on the other hand, he'd be efficiently costed as a passive 3g hand protection card (which, again, I think is undercosted, but I'll give that to you for the sake of argument). And your conclusion is that, since he can't be used to attack at the same time as he's protecting your hand, that he's still efficiently costed? That's completely ignoring the fact that he gives the owner the choice of being able to use him at certain times, he always acts as a Strength threat to the opponent (i.e., he could always be used in a challenge, so the opponents have to take that into consideration), and, with the Power of Arms (and Distinct Mastery, which wouldn't be wasted at all in a Bara deck), he can be used as both at many times. On top of that, if he didn't have the passive ability, he would be, at different times, standing and others kneeling. So if he's efficiently costed at the stats he's at, plus he has a bonus added to him, then when he's standing, he's not correctly costed, according to you, because he's both a character with those stats/keywords/traits and the hand protecting card that you'd pay 3g for. That's the problem with the passive ability - it let's the owner essentially take advantage of both sides of this card at once.

You also bring up Brienne, who also can't use her ability at any time (only when she's participating in an attack), and she doesn't have a war crest, deadly, or the knight trait. Which makes her a weaker card than TLS by a pretty wide margin and still costed the same.

I'm sorry, but your argument isn't even internally consistent.

rings said:

Doctor Penfold says, "Nurse we need claim replacement. STAT!"

Lethuin said:

Lethuin said:

i'm not getting why its important to your argument that the owner has a choice. One I wasn't ignoring it, I was using said choice as a boon to my argument that if his ability is so import but its his deadly and war crest that make him so much better then 3 gold you are sacrificing one of htose for the other depending on which choice you make. Also, if strength threats were so intregal to the game War host of the North would be awesome. STR 3 doesn't really give him any advantage.

Lethuin said:

I'm not sure I get where you are going here, if you are saying power of arms because a bara war crest deck would be good....well then any person with a war crest should be +1 gold...but that isn't the case. Distinct Mastery can stand him back up sure, but if i'm playing against you and you stand TLS up instead of a renown character i'll take the trade off.

Lethuin said:

This is 100% true.

Lethuin said:

lets look at it a different way....what if he was a 3g location that had TLS's passive....do we care as much?

Also, people seem to be hung up on the knight trait, but there are plenty of characters that have a passive, a crest, are costed well for the stats, and have a benefical trait (you don;t like brienne, so compare him to cleftjaw (he has two good traits)...whose passive works really well in the house no matter what usage you have made of him).

Lethuin said:

and? thats the problem with triggered abilities too. would you feel better if he said RESPONSE: after cards are discarded from your hand kneel TLS cancel the discard? there isn't a whole lot of triggered effect cancel outside of greyjoy, but all you are really doing is adding to the myriad was of controlling him for one house.

Lethuin said:

really? i think people overlook the advantage of dual house, i mean martell and lanni both love having oakheart, ask a martell player how they would feel about him being lanni only. its pretty much the same for stark and bara for brienne). so well say dual house and deadly cancel out as they are benefits that the one has that the other doesn't. lady isn't a bad trait, has certain benefits over knight, and can be useful to a baratheon deck. Lets say those 2 cancel out also. Now we are back again to evaluating their passives. If you feel that TLS's ability is stronger then brienne's without ever seeing it play...well thats fine, tough to justify though. I see them as at least being equal the ability to stop an opponent from triggering effects in a challange can be just as game swinging as denying claim. so whats left between the 2....a war crest.....in a non war crest house.....on a champion card....People want to ignore the comparasion between him and the fish, but the noble crest is much stronger in stark then the war crest is in bara and I'd say that the blakfish got his crest for free too (or is draw, renown, bicon, 3 str, and a passive non-kneeling to attack for all house tullys worth only 3 gold? not to mention knight lord AND house tully trait since we are counting them so closely)

Lars said:

2 stength, however, is a VERY LARGE intrinsic downgrade in the present meta. Venomous Blade, 100 different Targ cards (without a combo, or easier combos like Threat/Forever Burning), Chillin' Ilyn Payne, anythign that hates Neutrals/NW (is there ANY Knight hate?), Grey Wind, etc.

Plus, he doesn't protect ALL yoru characters ALL the time (i.e. Valar). If you have 2 claim he doesn't cancel it. He is triggered (which makes it more weak than passive). He mainly can only protect himself (usually only a iconless 2 strength guy).

He is good, and he makes all my decks to be honest because he annoys people. But he is balanced because he is easily more controlable (and his ability is not very close to being as good).

But it isn't even close. How were are comparing passive, blanket hand protection abilties to triggered, one-time save abilities it beyond my ability to understand.

Hell, I would be fine if TLS was 2 strength. Really. At 3/2 his is balanced (in the current meta). The # and ease of controlling him would increase substantailly for 2-4 more houses using cards already in those decks.

And Brienne isn't close either. She isn't passive ALL the time. She works during one challenge, just to stop actions during that challenge (not claim). Her ability only works if she is in challenges which makes it 50% less useful (stealth, she woudl still die to deadly, etc.) and there are no easy 2-card combos that allow one of the main win conditions (card advantage) to be taken easily. She does nothing during Plot, Marshalling, etc.

I am willing to listen to comparisions, but those two just show how overpowered he is compared to other good cards in the game. Neither stops one of the basic win conditions (Aemon doesn't stop all killing, Brienne barely stops anything, even if you can get her in the challenge you want). Not even close.

You still haven't mentioned that (assuming you win initative 50% of the time) that he can still be in challenges and use his ability. You act like he will never be in challenges, but that isn't true in the least.

And, yes, if he was a 3-cost location I would be just as irritated with him. Maybe more-so (harder to control). As I would with any card that passively, turn-after-turn, stops any claim (much less all the abilities outside of claim).

Lars, I'm interested in your oppinion as to why FFG decided to give the card the House Bara Only restriction?

I can't think of any crazy combos that TLS could be a part of in other houses that it can't combo with in Bara.

For me, that restriction is the biggest tell that somebody somewhere thought TLS was a bargain at 3 gold, and that a lot of people would consider it at 5 gold OOH. I know I would in an Int light house.

Deathjester26 said:

I'd ask the same question about the blackfish.

rings said:

Rings I get that he doesn;t fit your playstyle, but he has no impact on a win condition....dunno where you got card advantage as a win condition.

can it help you win, yup. Does baratheon have overwhelming card advantage without him in the enviornment, nope. Is baratheon the best card advantage house in the meta with TLS? nope, he just jumps them from at best a tie for last to at most 3rd. and to get to third he needs a card that every other house has access to.

Lars said:

recall from my original spoiler article that it was a mistake that occurred when the blackfish was switched from a shadows version to the noble one i ended up going with -- for some reason we accidentally overlooked that the "house stark only" text remained, and by the time we realized it the cards had already been submitted for printing

Its patently clear Lars has the right of this. No one on this side of the argument is saying that he is balanced becuase fo teh cntrol effects out there - we are saying his ability isn't THAT strong that you have to run new control effects to address him. You are already running everyhting you need to deal woth him if you are running a competitive deck anyway. And really - protecting 1-2 cards a turn from INT challenges isn't going to suddebyl put Baratheon in the top rank.

My biggest issue (and where Lars and I part company) is the Val combo. i feel that letting Bara hit the draw cap every turn could be a real problem. But I honestly don't think that will stay for very long - ceratinly not through Regionals. Apart form that though - Bara gets a neat effect that is more of an annoyance to a control player than anything. Its not broken, its not overpwoered, its not environment defining and its (at best) marginally undercosted. Contorl players are going to have to learn to deal.

Lars said:

Comparisons with Maester Aemon are not valid at all. Maester Aemon does not negate "33% of the claim in the game".

First, all Maester Aemon does is save 1 character from being killed. Against 2-Claim Plots Maester Aemon is in deep trouble. He is only saving 1 claim from military in a Round because he has to Kneel to activate his ability. Against a Siege of Winterfell or Dothraki deck or any 2 claim plot, Maester Aemon's 1 save is not going to last long. At only 2 Str he is vulnerable to burn and may be killed in marshalling or at start of Challenge phase before he even makes a save. So in practice Maester Aemon does not "negate 33% of the claim in the game" at all. Usually not even close as he is vulnerable, his effect is not naturally repeatable and he cannot stop 2-claim plots. I run Aemon out of many of my decks and the statement that he negates military claim is just inaccurate as his ability does not negate military claim the way TLS ability negates Intrique as well as any other discard from hand effect.

can it help you win, yup. Does baratheon have overwhelming card advantage without him in the enviornment, nope. Is baratheon the best card advantage house in the meta with TLS? nope, he just jumps them from at best a tie for last to at most 3rd. and to get to third he needs a card that every other house has access to.

This is totally inaccurate. Bara Holy is currently the absolutely strongest hand destruction build in the game. Altar of Fire is currently the strongest hand advantage card in the game out of Bara Holy. So for some builds, Bara is already the best card hand advantage house in the game. Bara Holy with TLS+Val is hands down the best card hand advantage build possible in the LCG Meta by a long shot.

And Bara Holy was already a competitive threat. My Cali Con winning Lannister Wildling deck had its toughest match against a Bara Holy deck. Val literally single handedly won me that match as I was reduced to no cards in hand in no time and with any other draw effect besides Val I could not have recovered.

Card advantage is a win condition. Sorry, it just is.

Look at any World Championship (or European championship) deck, and see if it has card draw/advantage cards. Usually a lot of them.

You can't win just using it, just like you couldn't win using 100% characters or 100% control cards or 100% rush cards. But it is easily a major portion of any winning deck in any LCG/CCG/TCG. You can, of course, make crazy technical comments that just drawing doesn't gain you any power, as I could saying if you never drew a card it is impossible to win, but any competative player would tell you card advantage is a win condition *shrug*

Of course card advantge is big. That's why the Val thing is a problem. However, I just don't think protecting 1 or 2 cards from an INT challenge is that big. Big enough to be broken or overpowered. It wasn't when old QoT was around. And she shut the whole **** challenge down. We'll see.

Brienne is fairly broken: her presence is what makes Greyjoy - save, and Martell vengence non competitve. She can also hose siege of winterfell since the extra power is a triggered effect.

Here in my area many lannister players used to concentrate their challange phase in destroying opponent's hand (that was the style of the spanish champion) and then reseting the game with Valar Morghulis. They even played Shadow Politics.

In a military aggro deck it is important to protect your hand. Usually you achieve board advantage in the early rounds of the game, and your opponent usually tries to focuse his efforts in reducing your hand before going to Valar. With this guy you will have a good hand when Valar arrives, and maybe you will have Narrow Scape among your cards.

rings said:

QFT QFT QFT

I had decided to not really comment any further on this thread since I felt that there wouldn't really be any changing to either side and I pretty much said in my first post all that had to be said, but rings is completely right on this.

Card advantage is always on the forefront of my mind and gameplay. It IS what ultimately wins games. If you don't design your gameplay around card advantage you're going to find yourself losing much more often than not against those that do. Yes, Dagmer and Aggo can get you power directly, but card advantage is the enabler of all my power "grab" effects (I say "grab" because there are multiple ways to gain power in this game). My hand defines the actions I will be making in any given turn whether it's the present turn or 3 turns ahead. If I can lessen the odds of my opponent crippling my hand, sign me up!

I believe this is where we differ. I've always had the impression that you (Lars) believe power is #1 priority because there is techinically only one win condition in this game -- have 15 power (usually it's 15). I recognize and understand that, but there are other factors (i.e. card advantage) in the game too important to ignore.

bloodycelt said:

Brienne is very good, but not broken.

Stag Lord said:

Please tell me that you've NEVER played a game where losing just one card from an INT challenge didn't change everything. You know you can't.

Is TLS broken? No. Is he overpowered? At 3 cost, yes. He's clearly a sign of power creep, and I suspect we'll see more similar cards to come. If they do, I'll gladly be the first one to point it out. There are other "similar" cards to TLS but none of them give you the same bang for your buck (close, but not the same). I'd take TLS over Dagmer, Aggo, etc. any day. Having a character that can protect from 99% of hand removal effects (not just 1 or 2 cards from an INT challenge) or be a great as an attacker or defender in MIL or POW challenge for 3 gold is a steal. It's unprecedented even though I wouldn't be surprised if the Dagmer, Aggo, etc. argument was used to justify him somewhere in the design process. So yes Lars, given his stats, his ability is what ultimately pushes him to the edge of being a higher cost (probably 4). Could he get a bit more at 4? Probably. Could probably have gotten a Lord trait at that price, but we all know Alec wanted a low-cost card. He just got a bit more at that cost than most of us would have expected.

Let me iterate again. I'm not saying he's broken. All I'm saying is he's not your typical 3-cost and is therefore a sign of power creep. And please don't come back with the Dagmer, Aggo thing. Both characters are very good, but stay just under the threshold of being 4 cost. TLS (even if only a bit -- I'm sure some would argue more) breaks it.

How is this thread still alive?

Sure. Everyome has lost a game becuase tehy lost the worng card at the worng time. will TLS save me form this? Sure - at leats once.

I'm not seeing hwo this is a bad thing though. we will ALWAYS protect my hand? No. will ti always come down to oen card - again, no. you're convicne this is power creep - i'm not. Ist a neat ability for a House that ceratinly needed ti - and givne the realities of teh current environmanet i'm not at all convinced he moves Baratheon up dramatically or that he is bad for teh environment. Again - we'll see.

And yes - the val thing needs to be fixed.

Intentionally Anonymous said:

QFT

I thought we had all pretty much reached consensus about page eight or so. FATMOUSE is rigth on one thing - i doubt anyone's mind is going to be changed at this point.

And when bloodycelt showed up, I was REALLY sure the thread was killed. But no.

Intentionally Anonymous said:

People kept on asking questions and making arguments. I made the terrible choice of not sticking to a single post and addressed them

I will now leave this thread forever.

FATMOUSE said:

This is a personal gameplay style though. and honestly TLS doesn't do a lot to change your personal style. Card advantage can be gained in many many ways. TLS at times stops one. he doesn't stop you from working and making gameplay decisions to get it back. He doesn't stop you from drawing cards (unlike king stannis who no one is complaning about). He doesn't stop you from running a reset. If you don't have card advantage you can still win the game, heck baratheon wins the games many times without discarding a single card form the opponents hand.

Its yet another reason why I don;t have a problem if you tooks TLS and swapped none of your characters can be killed with what he says. We talk about the Rock Paper siccors nature of the game all the time, TLS doesn;t change that. TLS can be the rock to an discard form hand deck's siccors, but gets papered over by a kill deck....~darn.

Someone remind me how unbalnced and badly designed Cat of The Canals was becuase of the type of immunity she introduced into the environemnet and then remind me how much she gets played.

I just want to give a massive shoutout to Alex for helping to make this message boards the most lively they've been in ages.

That said, yeah, I still think that Cat was a bad place to go. And Jeppedo does actually play her pretty often. While she's not necessarily broken on her own either, I can't help but think that she is likely influencing what sort of weapons see print.

new field report! I have played two new games against martell and won both of them. some more things to consider:

- With TLS your hand is a refugee for events. Usually knigths (or armies with war crest) don't have many intrigue icons, and your events in hand are very vulnerable. In Stark I lost all the time my Price of War or Die by the Sword before using them, so usually I'm forced to play them very early. Here, with TLS, you can keep them until you have the right target, and not waste them breaking streets or killing small dudes cause you know that you will loose the cards in the intrigue challange.

- If I draw Narrow Escape, and have TLS on the board, I can deploy more aggressively, as I know that my Narrow is save and I don't have to worry so much about Valar. Of course we have to take into account milk of the poppy and other ressources, but I hope you get the idea.

- Even if my opponent has more knights than me, I can reach the draw limit with Val and TLS. (Darkstar and Ser Arys are knights!)

Kennon said:

Damnit, it's Alec, with a C! Dont' make me come in here again!

skeletonator said:

Oh believe me, I know. I just like to make sure that you're still lurking to see it. Kinda like talking about good ol' Stags.