Deathjester26 said:

I too am excited for another neutral auto-include "silver bullet" type card

A newbie-friendly episode would be most welcome. I look forward to it.

hklown said:

I assume that is sarcastic

I sort of agree, but it certainly wouldn't be an auto-include (it wasn't when it was legal). And it is a silver bullet as much as claim is a silver bullet vs. characters. Silver bullets by definition are cards that work in a very narrow setting. Paper Shield would certainly not be working in a narrow setting - you wouldn't play it only as an anti-Narrow Escape card.

IMHO it helps balance 'free' events in general, and makes the relationship between free events and influence/gold events that much more nuanced. Sort of like 'strength 2' kill cards make it more interesting to develop those characters with 3/2 (with better abilities) or 2/3 (with sub-par abilities) stats.

Yup, I forgot my tilde! And you're correct- I'm throwing around that phrase a bit too much. However, I'd like to address a few things:

Paper shield wasn't an auto-include in CCG because 1) the card pool was much bigger and 2) there was a lot more in-house cancel. Effectively costless neutral events with very powerful effects are bad because there's such a high incentive to run them in all decks. Reprinting Paper Shield to "solve" Narrow Escape is a bad idea because it doesn't stop Narrow Escape from being a highly abusable card. All it does is tell players "if you don't like Narrow Escape, spend 3x slots on Paper Shield".

Paper Shield isn't a bad card, and I'd love to see it reprinted one day. However, that day will be when there's a wider variety of available in-house cancel, and a larger card pool in general. As it stands right now, it seems like there's very little incentive to *not* run 3x NE, and printing neutral cards that can slot into any deck without thought to counter my opponent's NE is just kind of silly. Where does it end? (Comedy option: it stops when I paper shield your paper shield )

EDIT: Point of interest- if you don't think Narrow Escape is ridiculously overpowered, I challenge you to find another CCG where there's a card anyone can run with no cost that says (effectively) "return all killed/discarded characters to play unless your opponent discards his/her hand", or where adding such a card would not be a tremendous blight on the environment.

hklown said:

Sweet, finally someone that agrees with me that this card is nuts!

I agree with Rings. Paper shield would be very useful, but I don't think it would be an auto-include like Val, Carrion Birds, or the Fury Plots. As an event-based response to an opponent's event, Paper Shield's power level is already pretty restricted. Because there are so many powerful events (without influence/gold cost) in the environment though, it would be *very* useful and I guess could act as a silver bullet in some cases (against Narrow Escape, Burning in the Sand, Lannister Pays His Debts, etc.).

I do agree though that there are too many auto-includes in the environment, and that it would be nice if we didn't receive many more. Given Paper Shield's inherent limitations though, I think it will be a strong, but not necessarily the best, option for most decks.

Edit: These forums are horrid. I tried to quote someone, but since another person had already responded, it created a double quote that took up a ton of space. I had to edit the post and remove the quote to make it easier on the eyes.

I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head there Twn2dn- almost every house has auto-include events that are *very* good- martell is just the most egregious offender. Therefore, an event like Paper Shield right now is a great addition to any deck, because it's almost never wasted. Even in decks that are generally more aggro (in fact, especially in those decks), you'd almost have to run it. You're guaranteed to run into a martell player, and a well timed BotS can ruin you.

The question isn't whether or not Paper Shield is "too powerful" or "too limited", but whether it's a solution that would be "too pervasive". Cancel is an incredibly powerful effect that can cause huge tempo swings, and just handing out a costless cancel that anyone can run, and can target a huge majority of the environment's powerful events just isn't healthy for the game as a whole at this point.

EDIT: also, to stay on topic, printing a card to fix a bad card is bad game design, etc....

DOUBLE EDIT: man oh man do I hate these forums

Since we're on the Paper Shield boat right now, I have to say that I've actually been arguing for bringing this card back since the release of the LCG. It's not that it is needed to cancel Narrow Escape, but instead to give a threat to the throwing around of events, knowing that they are safe to play. There are more cancels in the game now, but still a very limited number of them, and many of them are house specific or conditional. For the general cancels The Hand's Judgement requires gold, To Be A Kraken requires a kneeling character and a used Military Battle plot, Seasick requires no influence for your opponent and He Calls it Thinking is only Respones without an influence cost.

I believe the game is stronger when there are threats to the cards you want to play. Currently if I am not playing against Martell or Greyjoy I don't need to worry about cancel effects unless my opponent has a gold left over (well, except Fear Cuts Deeper than Swords) or I'm not paying attention to the cards that are in play (like KLE Eddard Stark, for one). Paper Shield cancels a large number of events at present, but there are still many events out there that it doesn't affect. If you have the gold, The Hand's Judgement is perhaps the best cancel ever, but there will be times when gold is not an option.

I think the game could use a return of Paper Shield, it would control not just Narrow Escape but other powerful cards (Burning on the Sands, anyone) and shake up the game in a postiive way. I'd much rather see the return of a card that has proven how it works within the confines of the game rather than creating a enw card which could have ramifications that weren't original seen during design.

hklown said:

In decks that draw very few cards, drawing a card that is unuseable for several rounds (like a cancel) can hurt a lot, even if it ultimately cancels a very powerful effect. So the only way to guarantee a card will be useful is to ensure it is proactive rather than reactive. (For example, I would almost always rather draw a Forever Burning, knowing that I will be able to use either immediately, than any cancel.)

On Narrow Escape, I agree that this card is nuts. I was ambivalent about it returning, and after seeing *how* it's played, it's pretty obvious that the card is environment defining. If cancels ever become auto includes, this card will likely be one of the reasons why.

To be honest, that's probably the best argument against non-proactive tech like PS there is. I'm really not opposed to PS either, but like I said, it'd be nice if there were some more in-house options before it got reprinted. That being said, I think most of my offense on the issue really boils down to the idea of printing PS as a "solution" for extremely powerful events like Narrow Escape. Instead of letting those cards fester in the environment while throwing things at them "to make it better", the problem cards really just need to be straight up banned or heavily eratta'd.

Then again, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if (cards like) Narrow Escape were ever properly tested. It seems like there's currently a design paradigm of "oh, this is cool" or "oh, we'll just make an x to fix y" -> straight to the printers.

Twn2dn said:

Personally I would ban it. It's bad for the game. It's like another Burning on the sand.

Rogue30 said:

WHOA WHOA WHOA

Burning on the sand isn't broken its only a one shot

so sayeth rings, so it must beith.

@Lars: Rings can jump in here himself, but unless I misremember, I thought his statement about Burning was in comparison with The Laughing Storm. (All: I don't mean to hijack this thread, as we have enough TLS conversation elsewhere...just clearing this up.) The basic argument, I think, was something like "canceling challenges is a bad direction to move in. I know we do it already - ie Burning - but that's different because it's only one time...yahda yahda." To be clear: A one-time effect *CAN* be overpowered, but in Ring's (alleged) opinion, a one time effect that cancels a challenge is not necessarily overpowered. You're conflating two completely different ideas.

More importantly, I'm not sure why you're bringing up Ring's comments on Burning, as if that would somehow undermine several peoples' (or even Rings') opinion that Narrow Escape is (1) environment defining (which is more fact than opinion in my experience), and (2) that NE is overpowered and/or bad for the environment. That comparison just doesn't seem relevant...or maybe I'm just missing something. (Just got home from work, haven't eaten yet, so that's two strikes against me there.)

And just to make sure I haven't gone completely off subject, I'll add that I would actually support a ban of Narrow Escape. Like Condemned by the Rock, I don't think it's 100% necessary. But I think it would generally lead to better gaming experiences, as I view it as the ultimate crutch (even more so than Valar), though it would be less so if there was more cancel in the environment.

just let me know what cards you guys do want to play with....i have a lot of knights of the rainwoods i can loan out.....

power cards are supposed to be in the game. cancel is supposed to be in the game. toolboxing and hole filling is supposed to be in the game. i like to play out the game with power cards knowing that there are things i can do to negate the opponent with my own power cards or one of the other two options. if you enjoy losing a game in the deck building level (he is running rock, i ran siccors....crap!) then fine...but untill we stop playing games out let the power cards alone unless they so over balance the meta that you can only play with a small set of cards (see wildlings). its one of the reasons i was against a 'fix' to castellan, its one of the reasons why i don;t get that they banned compelled by the rock, but then made frozen solid house stark only.

narrow escape is a pretty strong tool....if you are focusing on kill....but hey its still stopable (heck it even says it right on the card....if you don't like discarding your hand...well then you are running into does my deck want those things dead or cards in my hand...its not narrow escapes fault...stark has been dealing with that forever in lcg) especially now that it can't be abused to both make a player discard cards and get characters back. I also find it funny that people forget it gets ALL which includes opponents characters back too.

What it comes down to is strong verse abuse. look at all the bans/erratas (for non rules issues). jaquen, chache, compelled (an abuse more for its limit to one house), blood. erratas to narrow escape, guild hall, fury of the stag. those were abuses, not just powerful cards. i get that some people are bothered by effects like narrow escape and tls, i'm bothered by effects like aegon's legacy, lost oasis, and forever burning (more for its self recursion) but i've never asked them to be banned or errated.

Narrow Escape is still perfectly abuseable without your opponent killing a single one of your characters, but the fact that it has that added awesomeness makes it even worse. That being said, if you're seriously going to equate the environment deforming issues people have with cards like NE with... whatever issues you have with cards like Forever Burning, welp,

Lars said:

I find it funny that people forget that Stark and Greyjoy are supposed to focus on military and are weak on intrigue. So abusing NE is much harder for them. NE against them is different story. "I've just killed your 2 characters", "Oh really? NE. Wanna cancel? No? Good, I have Burning on the Sand for the next turn, so you can give up already".

You know what? Forget it. I'm Martell player from now on.

Lars said:

Right...it isn't broken. Anything that stops something once for the price of a card is powerful, but not broken (unless you have some sort of easy combo going). You even said below that power cards are part of the environment.

So...what are you trying to say? Or was it just a personal dig? ~Or would you rather have Narrow Escape printed on a character 'when this World Champ card is standing all of your characters that die or are discarded come back into play unless you opponent has no hand'?

Lars said:

Again, Lars, your logic usually confuses me. So, any card in the game is okay since power cards are part of the game? You take a concern (that I don't share) that a card is overpowered, and put generic comments out that people hate power cards. Which usually makes me say something silly like 'then we should print crazy cards that win the game instantly because, hey...power cards are part of the game'.

The issue is NEVER that there should be no power cards, it is always that people think certain cards are overpowered and not good for people's play experience and therefore bad for the game.

You make plenty of valid points after that on WHY you think it is fine - which is good. Discussion is good. I just never see the benefit of putting generic statements out there like 'power cards are supposed to be in the game' or 'you can't have an overpowered character since they can be controlled' (not a direct quote of course).

But, I agree with you - I think it is fine in an environment with Valar. It has a downside (they can cancel it, albiet with some issues), and it is two-sided (although how many times do you see it played where it remotely helps your opponent's board).

Again, I just wish we had Paper Shield to give a properly powered (one free card for one free card) counter to not only this, but all free events. Then development can use gold/influence as a further development tool to property balance powerful events, or they have a built-in 'disadvantage' of being 'easily' cancelled. *shrug* Sorry I hijacked this thread a little!

The thread has gone in an interesting direction actually. And isn't that the point of the broadcast?

I think a lot of the differences of opinions here come down to personal taste - i don't mid NE per se, i don't think its overpowered (though there is an easy combination there rings with Open Market) but there are way too many super powerful free events out there. There is a crying need for cancel in teh environment. Hand;'s Judgement makes almost every single deck i make now - which sort of sucks becuase you need to keep your event threshold a little lower since Fear of Winter on Turn 1 STILL sees a lot of play. We definitely need cancel and Paper Shield is a fine choice.

on another note, i am pretty much goign to refuse to play against Matyell in non tournament settings for the next few months. Burning, Red Vengeance, Narrow Escape and God knows what else i can't think of at the moment are creating a very NPE and frustarting effect - mostly because there is no reason for the Martell players NOT to run these free and potetntially repeatable events.

I'd just like to throw this out there- a powerful effect doesn't have to be repeatable to be bad for the game. Cards like what Stag Lord mentioned can cause effects that set the tone for the entire rest of the game. I don't think I have to explain how discarding your entire hand for NE puts you at a huge disadvantage, especially if the other player has reliable draw.

And yes, Martell definitely has enough draw to build a deck around Open Market so they always have a copy of whatever hideous event they need on hand. I think you know what I'm talking about, Stag Lord

EDIT: You know what, screw it. Stags, "not playing against martell in a non-tournament setting" is a terrible answer to the current problem. You're basically saying "I'm going to ignore these egregiously NPE combos until a tournament, where someone will run them and grind me into dust because I've been ignoring them". There's so much sentiment in this thread where people are like "well, there is some potential for ridiculous abuse, but overall it's alright...". Do people expect that these cards won't be abused to their fullest in a tournament? People are going to play and abuse cards like "Burning, Red Vengeance, Narrow Escape" in competitive matches, ignoring how bad they are for the game until tournaments is just a surefire way to stop enjoying tournaments.

Stag Lord said:

Stag Lord said:

Thanks for bringing that to my attention! Do you see it a lot?

2 cards (3 for the first one) seems like a decent cost for it I guess...but that IS an easy combination.

I certainly can't argue that Martell has taken the reins as the most annoying house to play against!

Narrow Escaping cards like Dornish Paramour and TVB pretty much pays for open market and then some.

Stag Lord said:

Actually, I sort of feel this way too. In most cases, I'd rather play against a Lanni kneel deck these days than a Martell deck...at least the game doesn't take 1.5 hours to finish. The one nice thing about the tournament setting is that all the people who play Martell will have to play quickly to avoid a tie or modified win, especially in mirror match ups.

rings said:

I'm really hoping you guys are forgetting the errata to NE where it only work on cards killed or discarded from play.

Otherwise, I'm not seeing this combo, and I'm afraid parenthood has pushed me in to new levels of dumbness.

Deathjester26 said:

The combo isn't that you ditch characters to retrieve NE and then get them into play that way, the combo is that you combine tons of draw with open market so you can always have NE on hand.