I stand by my stance hklown. the game is about fun - except at big time oturnaments where I expect to see and (hopefully emply) NPE experiences. Thsu it has always been. But on meetup nights I have NO desire to play Martell - not without event cancel in spades available. I don't seek NPE(s) in my spare time. If it owns me at Regionals - my fault for not decking against it - but there's no money involved in this and I am not playing aginst that silly house until stuff is balanced if I have the choice.

The asnwer is simple - implement some drawback or control over free events. Cancel is the best method. i'm done with Martell until then.

Wouldn't it be simpler to... I don't know... errata or ban the offending cards? Printing cards to solve other BAD cards is not the solution, because it just introduces tons of other factors into the environment. If you have a card that is NPE, bad for the environment, just get rid of it!

EDIT: basically, you're advocating for leaving NPE cards in the game, if there's "some way to deal with them". I'm saying that we should get rid of cards that are obviously NPE.

Ok - but I'm confident that R&D is oging to fix the porblem withing the game. give us more cancel - more cancel actually equals more deckbuilding options: especially if tis buitl into charcter from like old QoT + Paper shield + say a location or Alleys and Whispers. The you kind fo have to decide what goes in your 50 card build and what doesn't - sure a straight Paper Shield reprint makes it a no brainer x 3 - but i'm asking for a little more depth.

It may be just my older CCG mindset (as you well know - i can be set in my ways as befitting a person of my age) but I'd rtaher avoid the ban hammer and balance the carsd by balancing the environment.

in the meantime - Martell is irritating enough (right now) that i don't want to play them otu of a sanctioned tournament with stakes on the line.

I'm sorry can you please explain exactly how leaving NPE cards in the environment is preferable to banning them because quite frankly I am confuse

hklown said:

While I could definitely get behind banning Narrow Escape (as I mentioned in the podcast), I'm not sure I consider it a NPE card. I really just consider it an highly overpowered card that should be 3x in nearly every deck. It is too versatile. If it was simply an anti-Valar card, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but it is also essentially the best save card in the game during the challenge phase. And it even can function as a stand card. I have let some hefty dudes die to claim because I had a Narrow Escape in hand and I wanted them back standing.

hklown said:

Well the status of a card as a NPE is largely dependent on the individual. "Magic Bullet" type cards let people who like the card play with it and gives others who consider it a NPE a way to meta against it.

Consider NPE to be something that's bad for the environment as a whole then.

hklown said:

I suppose I take the term NPE to mean its literal definition of "negative play experience". Which means for me, Narrow Escape doesn't fit the definition of NPE because using it and seeing it over and over in every deck doesn't equate to a negative play experience, but it does equate to deck originality boredom. But I do totally agree that it isn't good for the environment.

Yeah- I'm real bad about picking a term and sticking with it, but Stags was calling a few cards that I consider "bad for the environment" NPE, and I guess it just stuck with me.

The point is, I don't think there's a reasonable argument for letting cards that are admittedly bad for the environment stay around, but the community has this awful mindset of "ONCE A CARD HAS BEEN PRINTED IT IS SET IN STONE AND BANNING/ERRATA IS NEVER THE SOLUTION IT MUST ALWAYS BE FIXED WITH MORE CARRRDDDDSSSSssss". It's a clear case of occam's razor- the simplest solution is to get rid of the offending card, because printing a card specifically to counter another card just complicates the environment (that is to say, cards should be printed on their own merit and how they interact with the environment as a whole, not 'because it solves that one nasty card').

Rogue30 said:

Rogue30 said:

Actually, I think in some cases, you've got that backward. Imagine this:

You're playing a Stark deck with next to no intrigue and have yet to discard cards from your opponent's hand. They have 8 cards in hand and flip Valar, to which you retort with Narrow Escape. They then have to choose between letting your characters come back, or discarding 8 cards.

Or:

You're playing a discard heavy Baratheon deck with Altar of Fire and your opponent is down to 2 cards when they flip Valar as a last resort. You play Narrow Escape and they now have to decide between discarding 2 cards or letting your characters come back.

Which one is the easier decision? Granted, those scenarios don't take into account a multitude of other factors, but there is something to be said for the potential card advantage gained by an opponent canceling your Narrow Escape.

we disagree fundamentally - specifcally on the preferred solution to a perceived problem (that I'm not sure there is even community consensus on)

I think we agree that there are too many overpowered, no cost events floating around. I personally consider Martell's ridculous surfeit of potent, free events to constitute an NPE when facing them. Narrow Escape - not so much.

Your soultion is ban, and reduce the card pool. My solution is more cancel deepening the card pool. Again - probably a matter of taste. I prefer more options, you are looking for simple and final solutions. But at least we agree that there is somehting wrong in the environment at the moment, and soem sort of steps need to be taken.

hklown said:

Thanks. I would call that just making good use of Open Market, but I know people have different oppinions about what a combo is.

NPE is a very subjective term. I'm not sure I consider NE a NPE. I'm not excited when NE gets played against me and I lose, but that doesn't mean it's an NPE. I like its effect, and certainly think it has a place in the game. I agree that the effect is strong, but my main problem is with the cost. It is severely undercosted, even with the built in cancel. It has become so reliable that people can adjust their decks and play styles around it. Valar has the same effect on play styles, but the 0 claim, 2 gold, and saves in the game balance out its huge effect. PS would do the same for several of the strong, undercosted (free) events currently in the game. I definitely don't see PS as a "silver bullet" to NE, and even without NE I would still want to see its return.

As far as Martell being a NPE, people have always hated Martell. It's part of Martell's "charm".

Stag: I definitely agree that it's good that we agree . If you'll look back a bit, you'll see that I mentioned printing more in-house cancel before bringing back Paper Shield- I think it's a much better fix to have in-house solutions as opposed to costless neutral solutions. That being said, I'm not at all opposed to Paper Shield coming back- when the environment is more well-formed. As for shrinking/deepening the card pool- I'm not here to get every costless event banned- rather, there's a few cards that really taint the environment right now, even if a fix for them is printed, that doesn't make the problem cards themselves any better for the environment.

Kennon: Thanks for posting that. A lot of people look at NE, see the "internal cancel", and shout from the rooftops "LOOK IT HAS A BUILT IN CANCEL IT HAS TO BE BALANCED!", when in fact it's more of a win/win for the person playing NE- if you don't cancel it, great, they get their dudes back. But if you do- they've just won the best intrigue challenge ever!

Kennon said:

You can think whatever you like. In the past, when I played Stark, I had often zero cards in my hand. Except of course at the beginning of the game, when canceling NE is not an option. BTW Do you play Stark often?

Darksbane said:

I still don't see Paper Shield as a 'magic bullet'. It isn't overpowered (you discard a free event to stop a free event - no card advantage, no tempo advantage, no income advantage). Again, it helps give worth to events you have to pay for, and a negative to ANY (not just NE) free event.

Good discussion - I certainly see both sides of this particular coin. I have actually always LIKED Narrow, in that it gave options and makes people both:

1. Put more heavy decisions in the game - do I toss my hand or not? Do I put more draw in to recover from a NE - and in what phases?

2. It makes people balance their decks a little more between heavy draw and control. Anyone can put a ton of draw/income/weenies and Valar in their decks. At least NE gives an option against heavy mass-removal control decks considering there is a TON more character control than location control.

It is certainly powerful, but there are how many ways to control the board - character-wise? Valar and Bleeds for sure, but also Targ w/ Threat from the North tricks and some others. Now there is ONE really good way (Narrow) and a few okay ways (Power of Blood, others) to counter the mass-removal effects. Sounds decent to me!

rings said:

This

Stag Lord said:

~Thanks for the input, Stag!!!

At least I typed it right.

And I really don't like using that new Internet shorthand as I did in that case - but hanging around the new ADD generation has rubbed off on me. Somewhat.

rings said:

Probably shouldn't have used magic bullet as I agree it isn't a magic bullet in the old Star Wars CCG sense of the term. Calling it a sideboard card or a metagame card would more accurately describe my opinion on it. And I think these types of cards are good for the game as a whole, I just prefer it to not be neutral cards and for it to follow the specific houses theme in effect and cost.

Darksbane said:

I am interested in this - do you really think it wouldn't be used unless against some metagame? I don't think you would see a game where it wouldn't ever be used (I haven't seen many decks w/o free events).

I can't agree about the putting it in a house...then only one house could 'hose' Narrow - that seems even more rock/paper/scissors.

To me, it is the exact opposite of a metagame/sideboard card. Useful in 99% of the games you play in makes it very generic - that could certainly bother you - and it is better vs. some cards (Narrow) than others (Wrong Dwarf)...but it is always useful unlike some cards.

Stag Lord said:

Okay, I will bite - what does 'this' mean in internet shorthand? Am I that behind the time (answer: yes)?

I actually really like the idea of more in-house solutions - all around. One major problem with Narrow Escape, or any powerful neutral card, is that it's equally available to everyone. That then exacerbates the strength of the effect, so that you see it run constantly in a variety of houses, and every house feels the need to have a solution. So decks begin to feel less like rock-paper-scissors (my preference), and more like rock vs. rock with cosmetic differences. In practical terms, the end result is that the community pushes for cards like Paper Shield, rather than more cards like Seasick or He Calls It Thinking, so that decks become *even more* cookie cutter.

Maybe I'm in the minority because I dislike uber-powerful neutral effects (this very well could be the case), but this feeling leads me to want to ban/errata/rotate the most egregious neutral cards rather than attempt to "balance" them by printing generic, neutral solutions.

That said, given the realities of the environment, and because there are so many powerful neutral cards now it would be almost impossible to deal with all of them with in-house solutions, I would support something like Paper Shield returning. If someone can think of a more elegant, in-house solution though, that would be my first pick.

rings said:

I'd certanly consider it a meta choice if it existed in the environment. An easy neutral but fairly narrow cancel card which will, by it's existence, reduce the number of free events people play in their decks, making its inclusion in a deck a choice based on whether you think the meta has shifted away from the free events or not. Sure right now it would be useful across the board but eventually people will start deck building around it.

rings said:

Well I"m not implying that just 1 house get it, what I mean is that instead of a neutral card I'd rather each house get a thematic equivalent.

Well, I mean, Greyjoy does have the Raider that just kneels to cancel any effect that would move cards out of a dead or discard pile. That seems pretty huge again Narrow Escape.

Dobbler said:

I'm the only one who uses narrow escape in my deck in our meta. I use it in excatly one deck, a bara knights deck and I had it in there before the erratta in stead of power of blood x2 to open the plot deck up a bit. I have 63 cards in the deck if i was going to take 3 of them out, it would be the 3x narrow escapes. Alec built a new targ deck (~shocking!) and i was playing him with said bara deck. Then we switched as i wanted to see how i would tweak alec's deck. He used narrows escape twice in the challenge phase. once to get an arena knight and something else back. I discarded my hand of 2 cards which included a forever burning. he tried it again next turn on emmon cuy and a weenie knight....i again tossed my hand of two cards which included another forever burning. two turns later I won the game (after being down like 11 to 3 on the second narrow escape). he lost 4 power (2 on the arena knight when it died, the ability to get 2 more power in the next two turns) and the ability to win at least 4 challenges. On top of all that I was able to keep his board down and slowly rebuild my own...it was worth those 2 forever burnings and whatever the other two cards were.

Earlier in the night we were playing melee and I used narrow escape (same deck) only after someone else's characters died in the challenge phase, helped lower the odds from 3 cancels to 2. both times the other person got better characters then I did. i came in fourth that game.

I think the fear of losing the hand is what the problem is. whats i find interesting is that no one has a problem playing a card from their hand to kill a character, but a lot of problems discarding a card or two from their hand to keep it dead. Is discarding the hand right every time? nope but neither is not discarding the hand every time. Also, i'd argue that nothing is more demoralizing then relying on a NArrow escape as a save and watching your opponent discard a few mid level cards from hand to cancel it.