I'm not sure how many people played Targ at the recent (70-player) Spanish tournament, but from what I've seen of recent tournaments, Targ hasn't been a very popular house. I think most of it comes down to draw...Targ often comes out fast but can't keep up with other houses (especially the control houses) in the medium/long-game.

I've written up my thoughts in an article here http://bit.ly/gTcvBU . The article is directed more at newer players (a la "How to build a Targ draw engine"), but also goes into why (I think) Targ struggles so much, despite the fact it has the most powerful locations/attachments, and some of the most powerful effects in the game.

If people have alternate theories after reading, I'd love to hear it!

Good article.

Although...I think the main reason is that the box is about to come out. People know they will be playing it more (and better more likely) then...? I know that is the case for me.

I think one of Targs barriers to being more popular is it has so many moving parts and when those parts get disrupted it is harder to recover from it. It also requires what I consider to be a higher level of play compared to similar builds from other houses. Taking Burn for example, although the kill is more effective generally it takes much more coordination to pull it off usually. That isn't a bad thing but when you compare it to the ease with which Stark kills I think many players will gravitate toward the easier of the two.

From what we've seen of the spoilers for QoD I think they seem to be making the cards less combo specific and instead making them work on their own and become more powerful when combo'd with other cards. This might be what Targ needs to boost it up some. Also it doesn't hurt that they are giving us some dragons that look powerful and fun to play. The Ned players I'd think will love that.

I haven't read the article yet, but I'd say it's because:

1. Lack of efficient and (more so) consistent draw
2. Narrow Escape
3. Two non-interchangeable resource curves (if Ambush was more common this could change)
4. Weakest overall character base for a House.
5. No one likes trying to figure out building and playing with 1-4.
6. Less overall card utility than in CCG. (For example, in CCG there was a lot more in-and-out play for Targ. I remember Targ having a lot of "jump in" effects. The Challenges Phase was like a second Marshalling Phase for them. Not so much anymore. Basically more cards had multiple ways of interacting with the game.)
7. Burning on the Sand burns longer than Forever Burning

It just seems like is Targ is losing the "arms race" compared to most of the other Houses. So when you look at Targ you say, "Wow, there's a lot of potent stuff in here" but other Houses themes have been built in a more efficient manner at this point. It's been like this for the majority of LCG, in my recollection. I remember Targ getting a lot of buzz when the Core Set first came out. Then it had a second uprising with Shadows (only to get squashed by Lannister). Last was the Night's Watch and Wildlings. When those guys got neutered, Targ did too.

Attachment control will eventually be more important because of the Chains (unless Maesters/Maester tech blows, which looks very unlikely). The Targ box will hopefully be a boost the House (this game would be dead without those expansions). Both may lead to an increase in play of Targ over of the next 6 months and beyond (Targ Box might boost Baratheon more than Targ). As for the moment and to simply put it, Targ sucks (or we're all really just a bunch of idiots that don't know how to play the "you need uber skillzzzzzzz to play me" House...yeah must be that...definitely not the card pool...)

Double post, woo-hoo!

Very nice article Dan! I agree that Targ definitely has some of the best attachments and locations in the game, but I think having such a weak character base has hurt them and character cards are the most important card type, in my opinion. Other than not mentioning that (which is my opinion of course), I thought your analysis was pretty spot-on.

FATMOUSE said:

FATMOUSE said:

The major reason to play Targ over other houses is the "burn." You can build a dothraki or ambush deck for flavor/fun, but at the end of the day, if you want to build aggro, you typically play other houses that offer more variety, character cost efficiency, and require less combo. (Some of the dothraki are great to splash in any Targ build though.) Burn on the other hand is mostly unique to Targ (darned those Stark direwolves!) and very powerful. Burn is also very combo-intensive...it requires multiple effects (unless the character is 2 STR or less) to remove a character. That's very inefficient compared to other houses' character removal, but it's balanced by the fact that there's very few saves that work against burn.

When Narrow Escape is played against Targ, the inefficiency of burn really takes it's toll. If I have to use 2-3 cards to kill a single character, and my opponent can easily bring the card back (effectively saving it) OR force me to discard my hand. That's a HUGE disadvantage for a control deck, or one that takes longer to win, like burn does. I'm not saying NE renders a complete house or decktype ineffective, but it does have a serious effect on a house that already struggles to keep up versus other rush and control builds.

I agree that burn is the primary reason for playing Targ. Attachment control is probably another big (but perhaps secondary) reason. Really though, I think both of those things fit into a bigger overarching theme - board manipulation.

So burn controls your opponent's characters, but there's little to be said in LCG about influencing your side of the board outside of Marshalling for Targ. Don't get me wrong, it exists and it has grown a bit over the past few cycles, but it's no where near to the extent of CCG. A good example of what I'm talking about is To Be a Dragon or Khal Drogo . There are less effects that boost your side of the board than there should be. All you have to do is look at the 5KE Dragons to see that Targ wasn't just about controlling your opponents. You're hand was much more of an extension of your board presence and you effectively had a second Marshaling phase. Gold let you play cards in Marshalling, and influence let you play cards in Challenges (or outside Marshalling). And often those cards could be recursed or bounced back to your hand. Shadows kind of ruined this unique perspective for Targ, but I think it's something that can still be developed upon.

It's easy to say Targ is about burn. it is, but burn is simply a component of board manipulation outside of the Marshalling phase. I think it's more interesting to look at Targ as the board manipulation House than the burn House. It hasn't quite been designed that way for LCG, but perhaps that's part of its problem.

FATMOUSE said:

Agree with all this. "Burn" isn't as useful a way to look at Targ as "manipulation, particularly STR."

I would disagree that it hasn't quite been designed that way for the LCG. There are many more "burn" effects in the LCG that either do not have the "kill/discard at 0" effect or burn in small (-1) increments than there were in the CCG. It is that incremental burn and finding supplying the terminal effect that has people thinking the House and its burn is about comboing enough effects to kill the character. But I don't really have to burn your character for the full -4 STR if I only need 1 extra STR to win the military challenge.

It's actually a common blind spot for AGoT players, old and new alike. We tend to think of our tactics in terms of killing characters, but unless you have a strategy for gaining power, that's not really the straightest line to the win.

Well said ktom. I think a lot of things like this happen pretty regularly. We miss the forest for the trees. We conceive of the game, a House, a build, a card in a certain way, and miss that it has other uses/ways of interacting or influencing the game. Sometimes what we see as secondary effects are in fact the more effective one at asserting our dominance on the game/board but we miss it because it doesn't fit into the box we placed it all in at the very beginning.

I think I need to rip apart my decks and go through my collection with a fresh and open mind. Maybe I'll find something new.

In Europe Targaryen is quite popular. A good number of them at Stahleck and not so bad also in spanish tourney. In italy we have always in tourney of 20 person at least 4 targaryen in average number. I fear most of all the shadow deck based on dragonpit that works well against my decks. Anyway also some dotrhaki and "classic burn" sees play... anyway with the core set the situation will change for sure and we will see more of them.

Personaly I tried playing them... but too much to think is not my game :-)

@Gualdo: I'm glad Targ is still somewhat represented in Spain...how do they tend to fare? To be clear, I'm not saying Targ is unplayable or anything...they're just *very hard* to work with the current draw.

As for burn...

ktom said:

I agree with this to an extent. I think you're right that this is how burn can function, but when I build burn into my deck as a "trick" to win challenges, rather than outright removal, I more often than not come away disappointed. The main problem is that Targ aggro builds aren't particularly competitive at the moment (and really haven't been for a long time, if ever, in LCG...other than maybe with Wildlings). Moreover, burn isn't particularly efficient as a non-removal trick. Unlike Greyjoy's warships with powerful, repeatable effects, burn often requires the use of an expensive one-time effect. Compared with Stark's Frozen Outpost or Martell's Lost Oasis, a 2-gold Flame Kissed would be pretty crappy without the lethal effect.

So while I agree that burn *can* (and perhaps even *should*) be viewed as a trick that helps to "win challenges," when I look at it in this light, I'm very unimpressed. To the extent that Targ's characters are often inefficient in terms of cost/strength ratios and/or effects given Targ's resource constraints (and I agree with Fatmouse that many characters are), a bit of strength modification here and there isn't going to compensate.

And if all of the theory above hasn't convinced you let me just say that all of the Targ decks I've seen perform well competitively over the past two years have involved A LOT of burn...much more than mere strength modification to win challenges. Maybe that's not sufficient evidence to prove my point, but it does suggest that the most competitive players value burn more for its ability to remove a character from play than to win a challenge. In fact, the only burn I really see used in the way you describe is Forever Burning, and I think that's primarily because it can be recurred, so there's little downside in "wasting" it as a challenge trick.

In Spain Targaryen arrived in top 16. At Stahleck Kabe played a non north Agenda Targaryen and arrived 4th (didn't attended 3/4 final). He was a hero playing a Targaryen deck in stahleck and arriving so far.

I suspect shortly will arrive "The Time of Dragons"... they deserve it :-)

Twn2dn said:

What I was really getting at is that I have seen many people playing Targ hold back their burn when it can't kill a character, but would let them win a challenge - because they are focused on killing. You build for the outright removal, but not let yourself think of those effects as good for only the one thing. I think people do not see and/or use the versatility of the mechanic.

@Ktom: Ah, good point. Yeah, this is one aspect where burn is especially versatile and fun. It's pretty rare in this game that a player has access to one effect that can be used both preemptively as removal OR as a challenge trick. Usually it's one or the other.

Draw? Really?

They are the only house I know that can keep it summer. Their attachment fetching and recursion just make it so.

Targ's thing is recursion. Being able to bring back Forever Burning and Flame-Kissed every turn is -3 possible kill every turn. It's more that Targ is resource hungry and you have to be able to manage both influence and gold. It's that unlike other houses there isn't an easy straight build posted. They also can't function as a ned deck really. Because so many characters would not actually work with each other, and the sheer amount of non-unique utility characters would turn off many neds. (Compare to Stark and Bara which can be very nedly). But they really are a shagga player's dream... all those various effects that if done cleverly, the opponent will not realize what is happening until it's too late

The thing is unlike Martell they don't have a red viper that can just come out kick-ass, etc. (Which is why I see a lot of bad Martell decks out there... the Red Viper + card draw is good enough to do decently). I'm actually afraid the Targ box might make them too easy... think about it, there is only one card that can save a character from burn. And most attachment effects cannot be cancelled. And location-hate is not very strong/popular right now... so that box might make them too powerful.

Also, Greyjoy needs another box. They seriously need another box.

ktom said:

It would be nice to have some more kill/discard at 0 STR cards; for me this is one of the reasons that I "save" burn cards instead of just using them to win challenges. The cards that do kill/discard at STR 0 are frequently not cost efficient (Drogon, KL Assassin) or not worth using at all (Dragon Attack). Flame-Kissed is great, I like Dragon Skull well enough, Flaming-Pitch Tower and Aegon's Legacy are both... well, even if they start in a deck I'm building they almost always get squeezed out by other cards. Aside from Forever Burning, the other burn cards "better do some damage" when played, since its not like my Targ characters are going to be getting power from Renown if I use them just to win a challenge. One of the best burn cards in the game is a plot card, and I definitely want a Hatchlings' Feast or 2-3 Forever Burning in my hand when I flip TftN if I want to maximize its value. More kill/discard at 0 STR would be much appreciated, I'm really interested in seeing what burn cards show up in the Targ box. Of course, what would be REALLY nice is if The Long Winter and The Long Summer had reversed text boxes...

I agree with bloodycelt. Thx to chambers, summer keeping, forever burning, to be a dragon, they can "recycle event, character, attachment" quite easly. And with hills targaryen can control opponent hand (and kill) and slea opponent dead characters.

The problem I think is not in the "draw engine". BUT that too many rush decks have good play (baratheon and stark). Anyway I agree also in greyjoy... they need more... more... more :-(

I think Targaryen will be very popular after Queen of Dragons and the new Maester cycle of expansions. I'm liking the preview cards so far.

What about the combo of The Maester's Path agenda with Apprentice Collar turning Viserys (reducing power you need to win for each attachment on him) into a Maester and allowing you to place a chain on him after every challenge you win? It seems intriguing even if it doesn't end up being terribly powerful by itself - it can still be used as a supplement to a normal deck.

bloodycelt said:

Recursion is nice, but you have to get the pieces to get it going.

I've been playing a shadows burn deck with Dragon Pit, using King's Landing as my main source of draw, and I still find the deck is slow because you have to find all the pieces. That, and KL is easily turned off.

I've been considering adding Summer to my deck, but in practice I think it's just going to further dilute it down. It's either a shadows or summer build for me, but never both. Right now shadows is winning due to Dragon Pit. Most of the burn effects with a kill if STR = 0 attached are only -2 str. Dragon Pit allows you to hit all the 3 str characters, and I'm not really willing to give that up for the summer deck yet.

My point was Targ is (or at least should be) about board manipulation, not specifically burn. I think everyone got that, but I was also implying that burn isn't strong enough to be a stand-alone manipulator.

Don't get me wrong, burn can be very potent, but I don't think it's potent or consistent enough to serve as Targ's main and only toolbox. (It could but I don't think it will ever reach, aka be designed to, the low/non-conditional level it would need to be - little to no cost, non-restrictive, repetitive, etc.)

Right now, burn (and attachment control - not exactly a game winner) is the best thing Targ has, but without additional control elements it needs a stronger aggro base to capitalize on the burn it currently has. It's why Targ literally went from hero to zero after the first round of The North Agendas errata. It lost access to an efficient character base that really drove home all those burn effects. It's because that character base doesn't exist, that I really don't care for playing Targ. Until Targ get's access to better burn (unlikely?), other control effects (maester/chains?), more aggro (targ box?), and/or a better character base (targ box - dragons? dothraki?), I don't see myself ever playing them; at least not while I have access to the options other Houses currently offer.

But that's why I was saying Targ could use more board manipulation on "its side" of the playing field (i.e. Ambush, character recursion, etc.). Instead of just swinging with one-big left hook (i.e. burn), one-two right and left jabs (i.e. burn and ambush) would allow for more versatility and consistency. It seems more flavorful than just adding more burn or leeching off neutral-tech (maesters, control?; wildlings/nw aggro). It worked in CCG, I don't see why it wouldn't in LCG.

Ya know what I think the dothraki thing Targ has is a decent starting point so here: javascript:void(0);/*1300508017704*/

Its not tested, but it has: Dothraki with Jhogo and Vaes Dothrak as a draw engine.

Recursion with Dany's chambers, Street Waif, and To Be A Dragon.

Extra Draw from: Tears of Lys and Xaro's Home. (In which heavily benefit from the recursion).

And some search with the Heralds.

So try it out and tell me if

a.) It's fun (because it does look fun).

b.) How functional it is.

There's also Aegon's Hill.... very very nasty card.

Aegon's hill is my "top targa card". I hate facing it in most of my decks. Very Strange that when north agendas was in huge I saw soo few of them be played. Alone, this card could detroy wildlings deck (adding of course reset plot and maybe some bleeds). My top card in stark is catelyn and this one destroy her. And playing against martell and knowing always events in opponent hand is so great. Anyway, as wrote in the board I love your deck, it seems very funny and I will try for sure. Only "strange for me" card missing is white hatchling. One costed stealth guys are always in my deck but I think you prefer green one for reasons obscure for me ;-)

Gualdo said:

On a more general note (not aimed at anyone), it seems like a lot of people play against Targ and then theorize how X strategy or card is so powerful, Targ players shouldn't have a problem winning. I think that's the problem...if those who don't normally play Targ try building and playing Targ decks at the competitive level (ie not just fun/casual play), I think they'll begin to appreciate the challenges a bit more. Card for card, Targ is definitely strong - if not superior to every other house. The problem is that Targ's effects just tend not to blend well...not because the effects somehow contradict each other, but because they have so many moving parts that they are slow to get going and fragile to maintain.

Rather than somehow trying to change or do away with Targ's moving parts (pretty much impossible without a complete overhaul, and those moving parts are fun anyway), more draw or something like it that allows you to dig through your deck is needed to significantly lubricate the gears.

So although I (mostly) agree with Fatmouse that Targ characters are less cost efficient (many ambush and dothraki characters are actually quite efficient these days though), and I also agree with others that say "Targ is complicated to play, making it a less attractive house," printing newer, simpler cards will not make most of the current/older cards more playable. I think more draw is the only way to add cohesion to the various moving parts in a Targ deck.

Going back to the article I posted on CardGameDB, it was really meant to highlight this draw problem AND suggest ways that players can mitigate draw issues until more draw is printed (hopefully in Targ box?).

I agree that targa has "great single cards" but it is difficult ot merge them together and so in many cases aegon's hill is one of the first dropped. Anyway as pointed in a previous post at Stahleck a "simple" Traga deck arrived in top 4 when abusing North agendas was common. So "he can do it". Certainly building a competitive targa deck (and I'm not able to do, I have to admit) needs lots of skills nowadays... I hope targa boxe will cover the "need" of existing archetypes so Targa player will be able to focus on a strategy (dragon, dotrhaky, burn,...) with "all cards he needs". This should be the meaning of a targa set... let's hope!!! :-)