Dobbler said:

Yeah, this is how my deck plays too. I throw in some Parting Blows as well, since they're so easy to pull off with those three characters and smooth out the draw. One advantage of playing Skirmishers with NE is that they can pull the last couple cards out of somebody's hand, so that it's much harder for the opponent to cancel NE.

WWDrakey said:

I just want to applaud this post - out of the box thinking, constructive rather than complaining, and probably a decent solution.

Something like this or some sort of 'remove this card from play' mechanic would suit me fine as well.

Going back to the original source of this thread (the 2 Champs and a Chump Episode), if you remember, Zeiler and Kennon both voted to leave the card alone, while I voted to have it banned or changed in some way during the podcast.

I think the community has reacted the in the same way....very differing opinions. Some people don't like it, some people don't mind it, some people love it. We have seen the full spectrum of opinions in this thread and despite disagreements, there has been some very good discussion.

kpmccoy21 said:

Believe me, I'm working on it, though.

Twn2dn said:

Thanks for the insight into Martell. It seems to me that Martell shouldn't have access to Recursion, seeing as they have plenty of in-house draw and reveal effects for card advantage. The idea of recurring Burning on the Sand, Red Vengeance, The Viper's Rage, etc seem really over the top. Recursion made some sense before the Box Set, but I think the time for them needing recursion has passed. If other Martell players see it differently, please explain the need to me.

Without Recursion, they can only pull off the above trick 3x, and rarely more than 2x. While a little sick, you are looking at 5 cards. Nonunique, but still 5 cards. I'll take my chances.

Just for fun add some Viper's Bannersmen, when you draw 10 martell cards a turn, what can go wrong?

Jef said:

The Draw Cap stops you drawing more than 3.

No it doesn't, because with Viper's Bannermen , you don't draw, you reveal and put into your hand.

rings said:

Are you sure you feel this way? Before NE came out you felt it would be a good reprint. Then not long ago (couple of weeks?) you regretted wanting it back and thought it was too good. Then you starting saying that you like the card and think it's fine. Now you're applauding something that would change the card you "LIKE" so much.

How do you really feel about NE? Are you uncertain what to think about it (there's nothing wrong with that if that is the case)? I get the sense that you love the concept, but feel uneasy about the card's better-than-expected effectiveness and impact on the game.

I'm also interested in hearing why suggesting banning a card can't be a "decent solution" and why it isn't constructive; especially when you consider the nature of LCG production.

I actually don't expect NE to get banned, nor do I think it will get errata again (cards don't get third errata, they get banned). FFG has pretty much said, "Deal with it" for most issues and usually tries to amend them by adding other cards in the environment. So if nothing happens to NE, the next quickest (could take months) and easiest solution is to introduce more cancel to the environment, which means we can expect Paper Shield (and hopefully some in-House cancel) to show up somewhere down the road.

Good points all around here, gentlemen. FATMOUSE has the rigth of it: three strikes and your out. If NE got errata's AGAIN - I'd be pretty disappointed. It would eb conceding that the card is a problem, but demonstrating that they are being capricious with bans. If its still an issue: it has to go.

Which i obviously don't think is the case - and kpmccoy sums up my thnking really well. The problem is Martell recursion - adn reveal which we are NOT talking about. rveal was a huge issue for me and many others in the summer before 5K - I hate to say it: but its pretty gd close to being there again for Martell. Jef nails it a couple fo posts up thread. THAT'S what breaks free events like NE and BoTS - Martell cna get to them easily adn efficiently and then use them over and over again. I'm not sure what to ban here - i don't think its NE, not sure its Burning (though i wouldn't shed a tear if that was gone).

I just wanted to reply to kpmccoy21's last post on this thread. I wasn't ignoring it; I simply haven't had the time to respond to it until now.

kpmccoy21 said:

If I thought the problem was Open Market, I'd be complaining Open Market. Open Market itself is very balanced. It has to be Summer and has a considerable cost; giving up 2 cards (3 if you count Open Market) for 1 can thin out your hand pretty quickly; especially if you're opponent is pummeling away at it somehow.

I've had plenty of games where I didn't use Open Market once (either not in play or using it wasn't worthwhile) and still was able to pull off some crazy stuff. Open Market was originally in my deck for pre-second errata NE. Anyway, Martell has enough draw and reveal to get you to those NE's without too much difficulty. At the last NYC meet-up, Twn2dn and I played a 9 (maybe 8) round game. I didn't use Open Market once and by the end of the game I had two cards left in a draw deck of over 60 cards. That was mainly due to NE's interaction with Martell's cards' effects. And no, Twn2dn wasn't playing a mill deck.

NE is simply an example of why powerful, zero-cost, neutral cards are dangerous. Players will eventually find ways to abuse it and what may have been a great card for one or two Houses now becomes a broken card due to the abuse that can be caused by other Houses.

But I really don't want to start the NE discussion again. I just wanted to say that Open Market is not the problem.

I will add that i do agree that Martell shouldn't get any additional access to its discard pile. I rather see more reveal effects if Martell is going to get more card advantage; however, Open Market's conditional effect and cost make it more than fine based on my experience with it. If Martell didn't have access to such ridiculous cards, it wouldn't even be worth running. It's why it hasn't seen much tournament play. That, and Winter used to be more prominent and other Martell builds (i.e. Wildlings, Super TRV) more "obvious."

kpmccoy21 said:

~To stop six gold swings Varys' and Arys' gold cost should be lowered to zero. That way they can only cause 3 gold swings...

Discarding a X gold character for 3 gold isn't an X+3 gold swing, it's an X gold swing. Ally is suppose to be a negative trait and i don't see a problem with the one-shot removal of them. Varys, a neutral character, demands that an Ally be in play or he will discard himself. Arys doesn't have this drawback, but that's because he's an in-House (dual-House really) character. In-House cards are suppose to be better than their neutral counterparts. It's why in-House cards have OOH gold penalties and neutral cards don't. Playing a House is suppose to offer you certain advantages other Houses don't have access to. Lannister and Martell are known for their character control. I don't see why they can't have a character with a one-shot ability like Arys. For other Houses to use him, he costs 5 gold. I think that's more than fair. Also consider an ability like his is contingent on your opponent. Many of my decks have little to no Allys, limiting the utility of Arys' ability. It's also why i usually don't run 3 gold Allys. A 3 gold Ally needs to bring A LOT of utility to my deck for it to make the cut. Most of them don't, which is why most of my Allys cost 2 or less.

kpmccoy21 said:

I don't see how if hypothetical-Beric would be bad for the game that makes TRV bad for the game; at least that's what you seem to be implying. CBK and CBD are extremely powerful. I think hypothetical-Beric would probably be too good because of them; getting more use out of them than if he instead had TRV's immunities. As a neutral he's also a bit more accessible. I'd have to try him to be certain whether or not such a Beric would be balanced, but I'm thinking it's unlikely he would be. Part of the suspicion is that my Black Friday deck would have been at least 10x better if it was running hypothetical-Beric instead of the real one. It doesn't matter either way because one card being overpowered doesn't automatically make another card overpowered.

Really though, TRV is what 5-cost unique characters should look like. I'm not saying every 5-cost character should have his ability, immunities, etc., but 5-cost unique characters should be changing the dynamic of the game when they hit the board. They aren't worth running if they don't, and it's why most of them don't see play. If each House had a 5-cost unique character on par with TRV, that would be pretty cool. Is TRV overpowered at 4 cost? Absolutely. At 5 cost? He's just right, in my opinion, and it's a shame most of the other 5-cost uniques haven't be designed to the standards that were applied to him.

kpmccoy21 said:

The Blackfish plays to and emboldens the identity of one of Stark's main strengths - winning military challenges. I don't see how or why this a problem. If the Blackfish was filling a weak hole that exists in Stark, there is a very fair argument to be made against it, but there's no reason why Stark can't have a character that lets them draw a card after winning a military challenge as the attacker. Every House needs at least a bit of access to draw and the Blackfish helps provide some of it to Stark. He's simply a very good 4-cost character, but he's no TRV. His cost at 4 is fine and if other 4-cost characters look worse compared to the Blackfish in comparison, I'd say that's a criticism of the weaker card - not the Blackfish.

So if we look at Stannis, I do agree that because of the current card pool (lots of good Lords) that he is underwhelming for a 4-cost character, but this doesn't mean Stannis should be the picture-boy of what a 4 cost unique character should look like. The bar can and should be set higher. Stannis' ability probably should have read as "only Lord characters may be declared as defenders" or "a Lord character must be declared as a defender in order to defend the challenge." Such a Stannis would be providing two powerful effects you are ascribing to the Blackfish. In fact the existing-Stannis does try to do that, it's just that his ability is too conditional.

The Blackfish provides power and draw whereas Stannis was meant to provide power (renown) and more power (win unopposed). There are many cards in this game that should be better than they are given their cost. However, people usually don't talk about applying errata to a card to improve it. I dislike over-costed, underwhelming cards just as much as I dislike overpowered, under-costed cards. i could bring up and talk about cards that could be better, but, sadly, there are too many to discuss, and cards never receive errata to be improved so there isn't much of a point to such discussion other than hoping the designers won't make future "bad" cards.

kpmccoy21 said:

To an extent , it is an LCG vs. CCG vision. Neutrals allow you to smooth out your decks and in a CCG that is very important because it's unlikely for many players to have access too all the great cards in the House they want to play. It requires lots of money to be able to do that and not everyone can or wants to spend that much. Neutrals are thrown in to make the game more accessible and easier to play. In an LCG, this problem does not exist. Every card is extremely available. In CCG I may have The Iron Throne , you might have The Vale , and someone else might have neither. But in LCG it's practically certain everyone will have The Iron Throne, The Vale, and every other power card in the environment that is worth the cost (in game, not on eBay ).

The only way to ensure this doesn't happen is by only having powerful cards be accessible to a specific House or deck build, or making sure if they are neutral, they cost a bit more than if they weren't. So yes, giving a House affiliation to a card goes a long way of ensuring that a powerful card doesn't become overpowered and abused. There's a huge difference in the power level of a GJ-affiliated Iron Mines and a neutral Iron Mines. Just as there's a big difference between a Val that draws when you control more than 1 Wildling and a Val that draws unconditionally. Venomous Blade is restricted to Martell, but sometimes House X only isn't enough to justify a high utility card with an extremely low cost. Wintertime Maruaders is fine at 3 gold, but obviously stupid at 0 gold, even 2 gold. Venomous Blade is simply under costed for all it can do; thus making it overpowered.

FATMOUSE said:

But Varys and Arys are shaping the environment as much as Venomous Blade. Why won't Rings, you and other players not play 3 cost allies unless they are game defining? These 2 cards. Why won't I make decks that center around 2 strength characters. Venomous Blade. The difference is I get a really good character with Arys and Varys instead of a repeat effect with VB. In my mind it's interchangeable in the current environment. Obviously you feel differently

[side Note: Are we ever going to see Bastard hate return to the environment. That used to be a negative trait too.]

A to the Blackfish, Stark had NO reliable draw before the Blackfish and house identity wise Stark had been getting search over draw for years. The Blackfish's conditions meshed well with the Guard at Riverrun, but if you are so worried about House themes, why not give him search? And no one pays attention to the Non-kneeling ability, but that's pretty powerful, even if it's conditional. Don't get me wrong, I like the Blackfish as is, but he has to be one of the top 5 most versatile 4 gold characters, maybe in both LCG and CCG combined, which fits the ned and the fact that he was designed by the world champion. He has absolutely no drawback and 2 abilities that were huge for Stark at the time(card advantage and power rush). With the release of Guard and Dreadfort, it's easy to forget how awful Stark hand advantage was 2 years ago.

FATMOUSE said:

~Do you mean to imply that Warlock's Servitors isn't worth 4-gold! Man...I'm going to have to rethink my deckbuilding strategy.

In all seriousness, I agree. It's also the case that some characters are initially *incredibly* powerful, but become worse as the cardpool expands. Stannis and Wex Pyke are great examples, but then these cards are still very good against many decks. (If I don't draw into my Viserys, or if I have already bounced him back to hand, and my Khal Drogo isn't in play, then Stannis is still incredibly powerful against Targ. He's also great against most Martell match ups.)

kpmccoy21 said:

I wouldn't say Varys/Arys shape the environment as much as VB for several reasons, but for the sake of brevity - I do agree both have a significant impact on the environment. The difference between you and me is not that I believe the pressures they aim to create (run less Allys, run less weenies) are bad; the difference is that they create such strong pressures that it's essential the cards be balanced.

Varys/Arys are balanced whereas VB is not. Everything VB can do for a one-time 2-gold investment makes it a very under-costed card. Most people actually do recognize that VB in under-costed, but many don't see that to be as problematic as I do. They simply feel VB's influence of the environment is an important and good one, and as long as that's the case, VB doesn't need errata or ban.

Obviously, I disagree. Not on the grounds that it's influence (weenie=bad) isn't good for the game (I'm fine with the existence of weenie hate; I've even said I'd be fine with a reprinting of First Snow ), but on the grounds that it's under-costedness is bad for the game because it gives Martell too good of card; helping make Martell a stronger-than-it-should-be House, and I think that puts a bad strain on the game. So i have no qualms with hate cards, but hate cards need to be appropriately costed/balanced. Varys/Arys are. VB isn't.

As for Bastard trait hate, probably not since most of the Sand Snakes are Bastards, but Bastard trait hate is probably the last thing on my mind in terms of trait hate. Refugee hate anyone?

kpmccoy21 said:

You're right that they didn't. They had a couple of draw cards (i.e. Sansa Stark , Storm Dancer ) but neither was consistent. Given the design of Storm Dancer though it seems like the designers did want to give Stark a bit of a draw engine, but it's one of those instances where practice won out over theory (or at least Stark Winter/Shadows didn't turn out to be so great). Draw was lacking in Stark, but that didn't mean Stark shouldn't have some form of reliable draw. The Guards and Blackfish helped create that consistency and I believe it was done in an extremely thematic fashion (around Stark MIL).

kpmccoy21 said:

Other than a cap, is there really a difference between searching the top card of your deck and putting it in hand or drawing a card? I think basing the Guards' and Blackfish's ability off of the MIL challenge was thematic enough. Search is very strong and is being developed on other cards (i.e. Maester Luwin, Widow's Watch). Making them give draw is fine, in my opinion. Draw is fundamental to the game. Some Houses may have more access to it than others, but it's not a unique mechanic.

kpmccoy21 said:

I pay attention to everything. I'm well aware The Blackfish has a non-kneeling ability, but it's conditional as you said. I also don't really see how it differs from CS Melisandre . Mel's ability may not be as potent, but it's also less conditional than The Blackfish's. In fact, both CS Mel and The Blackfish have very similar design archetypes. Is she a problem a too?

kpmccoy21 said:

I agree that there are very few reasons to not run The Blackfish. I've excluded him from a couple of Stark decks in the past as i was trying to maintain a low gold curve, but he makes the cuts for the great majority of Stark decks. However, the same can be said of The Red Viper, Melisandre, Khal Drogo, Asha Greyjoy, Arys, Robb Stark, etc. The Blackfish is just an example of a good card. It's why you like it, it's why everyone I know likes it. It's a bit baffling that anyone would really try to criticize it. I'll say again - if other cards look weaker than him in comparison, that's a criticism of the weaker card, not the Blackfish. He's fine as a 4-cost unique character, and I wish more characters were designed to such solid standards.

I actually wish every card was good in this game. If that were the case, then players might have less of a reason to run The Blackfish because there would be so many other good cards to run in his place. However, that's not the case and maybe that's why The Blackfish creates the illusion of being overly good, when he isn't.

FATMOUSE said:

For sure I am uncertain about the card. I have played (as have many players on these boards, including you I assume) in very few high-level games/tourneys since it was printed. I was fine in the old environment it was in. It is pretty **** good in the present environment.

I don't know. I think things can be improved. I wouldn't shed a tear if it was banned again. I would be fine if it is left as is in the environment. I would rather see it balanced a little better, or (as I have said as well) a little more in the way of control cards to be introduced to the game. Or bringing back Paper Shield, which I am a fan of for reasons I have stated quite a few times so everyone is tired of them I am sure

I don't think I ever said banning it isn't 'decent'. I also don't remember ever saying it is TOO good, just very good. I just liked the other option(s) better. I am not on board with Stag and others that say something can't be changed more than once (or whatever the # is)...where is that written? I understand the reasoning, but disagree I guess *shrug* I think having the NE sort of effect is good for the game, just that in the present environment the total effect is **** good/efficient.

rings said:

You didn't say it was "too good" and I shouldn't have implied that you did. I simply recall you saying how there's so much anti-death tech in the environment and that NE was no longer on your all-time favorites list. Such statements led me to say "you regretted wanting it back and thought it was too good." In the future I'll try to avoid making misleading anecdotes. But I did get the sense that you're thoughts on the card are incomplete and that was the main purpose of the post.

I think NE-like effects can be good for the game too (i.e. Outfox, dead pile recursion for Bara/Targ), but NE has shown itself to have too much utility and lack flavor as a neutral, zero-cost event; at least that's my opinion.

i definitely agree Paper Shield is good (although some events can have considerable costs that don't use gold or influence), I just don't like idea of everyone running to it all at the same time. I'd rather in-House (GJ, maybe Bara) cancel be given first and then Paper Shield eased in so the environment is used to having more cancel. That may very well happen, but it would take months (even past GenCon), which is a bit disappointing.

Time will tell - c'est la vie

FATMOUSE said:

Time is funny. I'm lucky to play Thrones twice in a month. From the perspective of a casual gamer, I have faith they'll fix it in a few months. If not, I'll use my Wildling solution - take all three agendas, and put them in the "not fun, don't use" box with the Wintertime Marauders... ;-)

Rings: if a card isn't fixed by errata number three; come on already. just ban it. Zero sum FTW, baby. That's how Stannis would roll.

Stag Lord said:

~Who can argue with that logic...I'm convinced

I'm not sure how I actually feel about this. I mean, if we can't get the errata right after three tries, then maybe it's just not going to work. On the other hand, anyone playing with the errata at all will be knowledgable of the FAQ, so it's not like players will have to check multiple versions of different documents to determine what's changed. Casual players or people who would potentially be most confused by multiple erratas/bans probably won't even know the first errata happened anyway.

Stag Lord said:

I see that side, like I said. I just hate 'blanket rules'. If a card's basic premise was so strong it needed to be banned after repeated changes to it - fine, throw in the towel. But I think the basic premise behind the card is still strong, it is just implementation and the present card pool...so I am a little more loath to ban a card that has shown to be valuable in a different meta time in this game *shrug*

It isn't zero sum to ban a card like NE, it makes other cards much more strong (i.e. Valar and weenies and others).

~That's how Renly would roll, peach in hand...

I have been away for a while, so forgive me for that. I was unaware Narrow Escape even got another errata.

I agree with FATMOUSE, especially about The Blackfish and The Red Viper.

Narrow Escape in Clansman makes them nigh unkillable, if anyone noticed. With Timmett out you have a hard enough time killing them already, and now the discard effects are not working. But hey, its just another threat that will be solved eventually.