My last post was personally attacking and inflammatory I have requested the moderators to delete this post. MEA CULPA! I WAS WAY OUT OF LINE IN HOW I EXPRESSED MYSELF! PLEASE ACCEPT MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES!

Sorry to double-post, but here it goes anyway.

First, I am calling the people I called out by name to make amends with them. Since I attacked them publicly, I need to publicly address my making amends.

Second, my other concern with Banning is that those cards go to the shelf, never to be adressed again. I would be in favor of temporary bannings until cards could be released to deal with the problem cards. But in the history of AGOT, I am only aware of 1 card being unbanned, and that occurred in the Legacy format, which is largely ignored by the competetive community. Until FFG shows a commitment to addressing the possibility of going back and fixing the environment to deal with past problem cards, I will oppose bannings as a first step solution to problem cards.

For example: Jaqen H'ghar. FFG has had plenty of time to print a solution to this character, An example solution card Harrenahal, neutral, unique, 2 gold, any phase: kneel Harrenhal to choose any character. Blank that character's text box until end of phase. Not a true silver bullet, has many uses in the environment, and would make Jaqen playable.

But my experience is that banned cards become "out of sight, out of mind". It still rankles me that Pyromancer's Cache, Jaqen, Blood of the First Men will never see play again. If I knew R&D would revisit the banned list periodically to try to make those cards playable, I would be much more open to bannings as temporary solutions, due to the long lead time of AGOT as a LCG.

I am still not sure what makes a banned card a sadder story then, say, a card that never existed. They're both in the same place- the ether- and they both have the same impact on the environment- none.

EDIT: That is to say, why exactly do you feel that cards that are banned should be periodically re-evaluated and possibly un-banned? What quality do those cards have that merit that kind of treatment? Simply because they were ideas the design team had that got sent to the printers? Or do they have some deeper value that I'm unaware of?

kpmccoy21 said:

First, Kevin, I agree that the use of first names can read a bit intense on the forums, but that's just the nature of forums. If we were having an in-person discussion, using first names would be the polite thing. So I don't take it as an insult or anything, but appreciate your concern.

Second, to some extent, I very much agree with your conclusion: Power cards are a problem in officially sanctioned competitive play largely because the top players are using/abusing them. If I step up to a game against a newb, I am not at all worried that they're running 3x Narrow Escape or managed to draw 3x Burning by round 2. Chances are, new players won't be abusing the cards. So yeah, problem cards are only a problem because of how they are used.

Separately but related, a BIG part of the fun in this game *for me* is competitive play. There are a lot of other activities that I intrinsically enjoy more than AGOT but that have no competitive element...so I choose to invest my time in this card game instead. So we really do reach the classic prisoner's dilemma...a lot of good players might agree that card X is "bad" for the game (either it severely limits deck building or game play, or else it consistently creates NPE moments), but these players still feel that they *must* use this card (or similarly powerful cards in a potentially NPE way) to compete. Since FFG-sanctioned tournaments match me against random players, and at some point I *will* play against someone attempting to abuse one or more powerful cards, there's just nothing I can do to avoid playing against that person, other than trying to level the playing field.

Put differently, I actually *do not* enjoy playing some of these powerful effects in non-competitive play. In fact, if you look at my meta league record (not sure if Letsgored had time to update it), I think I've probably lost 80% of the games in the past 3-4 months. I just don't enjoy bringing tier-1 decks to a more casual environment...those cards just aren't fun. Actually, Stag can testify to the fact that this past Wednesday I brought a tier-1.5 deck, and then apologized after I opened with a round-1 Fear of Winter against his KotHH (and I did feel like a ******, though I think we both got something out of that game).

So to recap, do I see problem cards as problematic because I (and other players) use them in near-NPE ways? Yes. Do I enjoy doing that? No. Do I wish that the situation would change? Yes. What is the best way to do that?... if bannings and erratas are off the table, I really don't know what to do. Any suggestions (short of accepting that I'm going to lose my first out-round game at the tournaments I go to)?

I have to say that I totally agree with kpmccopy21and Twn2dn on this issue. The main reason that these cards are creating an NPE play experience is because every player is putting these cards in their decks and abusing them and there is just no variety anymore. Just like the BotNM agenda and the Wildlings from last year. I don't enjoy playing these NPE cards against people but I feel that to really compete against good players that if you aren't playing these cards you are at a disadvantage from the start. This of course leads to a bad play experience for me personally because every time I draw one of these cards I just have to cringe and bear it. Instead of playing these really powerful auto include cards I would rather be playing with more flavorful in-House cards.

In my opinion if you have to bring back a card like Narrow Escape just as a counter to Valar you really have to ask yourself one thing...is Narrow Escape really the problem or is it Valar? I have hated Valar from the first time I started playing in LCG and I would really rather have that card banned. But that's my own personal opinion. I think the game would be better with resets like Wildfire, Valar Doheris, and if they were to bring back cards like Winter Storm or First Snow of Winter then maybe Narrow Escape would not be as abused as it is now. Sure you would still have nice combos with certain cards like Arys Oakheart, Viper's Bannermen among others, but maybe Narrow Escape wouldn't be abused as much as it is now and we could all stop complaining so much. Then again it probably would still be abused and we would be in the same situation as we are now. So maybe just ban them both and shake up the game a little bit.

hklown said:

Because I spent my money on them and I have to turn past them regularly in my binder as I build or tweak my decks. And because I can read them and have deck ideas and combos happen in my head as I read the text.

Banning seems like the cowards way out. Obviously there was failure somewhere either in the design or testing of the cards or the reading of the environment or the community reaction to the card. But rather than make that failure right by fixing the problem, we bann the card and stick you with these cards you can never play with again in competetive play. Seems lame.

kpmccoy21 said:

~WELL, HERE'S THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE THE PLAYER READING THESE CARDS. You as a player are responsible for the cards you read and the combinations you think. FFG is not responsible for how you choose to store your cards.

When a card is banned I'm not thinking somebody stole me something. If a ban balance the game, welcome the ban.

hklown said:

Wow - sophistry! I SO miss being a college student.

The reason (my dear lad) is that I have bought and paid for the cards in a pack. if we were jsut making things up as we go along and scribbling down concepts on crayon on paper plates - then yeah: its all the same and it doesn't matter what the "developer" tells me what I can and cannot play. But when I have PAID the developer money for physical property (that I now own) - i am much less likely to accept that I cannot play with something.

which is why banning should always be the last resort and the ban list should periodically be re-visited (a great idea from whoever brought it up).

False equivalency ahving been dealt wiht - I really like what widowmaker and lonewanderer ahve said - though i don't think NE is a problem and it surely hasn't been around long enough to warrant aban - but thier thinking as a whoel is pretty mcuh where I find myself nwo on the ban issue. If NE ends up getting banned before pre-regionals: I'll howl in protest; but I'll sort fo understand at the same time: we're in a brave new world now.

Stag Lord said:

Um, where do you see false arguments used to prove false statement?

Yes, you paid for that cards and you can do with them what you want. True. But what happened with usual argument: "you can play with them casually, it's only for tournament rules?" If you paid for cards, is that mean that every tournament in the world must obey to what you want? You did not paid for some tournament license, rules license or something, you paid only for cardboard. BTW that's how the card games work.

Stag Lord said:

~What about that part when he is against banning and at the same time he wants Valar banned? Sophistry, absurd, hypocrisy? How would you call it?

Stag Lord said:

I have a feeling more people will be playing Bara only due to TLS than people played Martell just for Loyalist *shrug* Loyalist is a better card, but the current card pool isn't 75% of what the card pool was at that point. I am a fairly competative player, and TLS + Val + that new plot (and maybe the event) are something you can build a deck around. If it was in ANY house, I probably will play that house...it is that strong. But, never mind I shouldn't even bring this up again, I know

That is why I was suggesting an anti-draw card, and something that isn't a silver bullet. A 1-cost location that brings the draw cap to 1 for both players. A guy who, when standing (~since no character can be broken if they turn off when knelt I guess) your opponent can only draw during the draw phase (but is still costed 'normally'). Those are not one-card silver bullets, it is a good card that can be used in a great way vs. decks that have an over-reliance on one important phase (draw, kneel, income - whatever). But, I do see Stag and other's issue that these cards can take a long time to be printed (which is why the banned list should be reviewed).

BTW, telling the players to police the competative environment just doesn't work. It sounds good, but isn't realistic. Like Communism. ~So don't be a commie...

Your suggestion sounds like a good one rings - but yeah: how long are we willing to wiat for the solution to see the light, given the release structure?

(Note I'm studiously ignoring your TLS assesment - its SO hard not to argue with you when you're so wrong - LOL)

But yeah - why not revisit the banned list when a solution presents itself? Before we get there though - we need a more proactive and aggressive ban policy regarding crads that have been a problem for several months.

Rogue30 said:

Hey when did I ever say that I was against banning a card? If you look back at my first post(first page) I did say that if a problematic card presents itself and errata does not take care of the problem(i.e. BotNM agenda, NE may be heading that way, not sure) then sure I am all for banning the card to get the game back to a good place. That is the problem with printing super powerful neutral cards, they go in every deck. Instead of printing these cards, bring back some nice older in-house cards and house x only events to make decks more flavorful. Come on, who doesn't want back Locked in the Tower or even Devious Machinations?? No wait that would suck...

I'm sorry, but going to a tournament just to wonder which house you are going to be seeing the next Wildling/Night's Watch deck ran out of was just not fun. There was no variety - 15-20 Wildlings, 5-8 Night's Watch characters, maybe 5-10 in-house characters and some in house events is simply not fun to play against. It got to the point where you basically had to play Wildlings to be competitive. When it gets to that point then sure something needs to be done. But in the end, is it really the agenda's fault that it got banned or is was it the fact that EVERYONE was playing it? The agenda didn't create the problem, we players did by abusing it(myself included).

And I'm not calling for a ban of Valar. I was just joking, hence the smiley face.

Stag Lord said:

Easy Stag Lord...we all know you have a hard-on for Bara....don't let that cloud your judgement on TLS. That character is broken with Val and you know it.

Stag Lord said:

I agree with you that we need a more proactive ban policy. I mean 4 total banned cards just does not seem like it should be right. It seems like there are so many more cards that I hate to see. I think that if NE is still a problem after regionals and up to Gencon then something should be done. Otherwise who wants to play in a stale environment where you see the same decks and the same powerful neutral cards in every deck?

rings said:

I came from play the Star Wars CCG in the lat 90's and have seen how horribly wrong the design strategy of counting on using anti-cards to balance overpowered cards can go. Power creep in SW:CCG was so severe that about a dozen cards in every exapansion were devoted to countering broken cards from the previous set. I actually got to the point near the end of the game where so much of a players deck (which was fixed at 60 cards) was devoted anti-cards that they had to introduce a whole new game mechanic called "defensive sheilds," which gave players a separate deck to counter cards in that could be played at anytime.

I would hate to this fine game go down that road.

Rogue30 said:

Those two do not equal each other. He isn't saying that a card that doesn't fit your playstyle can't also be bad for the game, he is cautioning not to confuse the two.

For the record I agree with that statement 100% as well as with Staglord's general premise that a card should be in play for 3-6 months before it is banned. Before anyone gets on their hyperbole horse (rings) no card has been nor, I go out on a limb here, will veer be printed that is 1 cost and says you win the game. There are cards that players as a whole disagree on how much of an effect it will have. Let them actually get into play, let people try to abuse them and then if they do turn out to have a warping effect errata or ban as is needed.

rings said:

For me, in-game solutions like this often have unintended, distorting effects. For example, since you're looking for in-game solutions to cards like Val, let's go with this anti-draw mechanic? So which house(s) would receive this card? If it's neutral and/or available to all houses, wouldn't it be *much* better run out of certain houses than others? (If it's good enough to be an auto-include, that creates problems on its own...including less variety in deck building.) I can think of a couple houses that gain card superiority without *drawing* cards (Martell with revealed, Greyjoy with saves, etc). Moreover, even if you solve the TLS + Val problem, anti-X cards like the one you propose affect some houses more than others. So then we're (arbitrarily) punishing certain houses for having a particular strength - whether it be draw, reveal, burn, etc. - simply because there are a couple abusive effects in the game?

Chances are, if we make the type of card you suggest, it's going to be an auto-include in certain deck types that currently don't draw much. For example, if costed "normally," I would likely run it in Greyjoy Winter to further squeeze my opponent's handsize. I would also run it in Bara rush...since I'll be winning by round 2-3 (once Heir is out), this will slow my opponent WAY down if the game happens to go to round 4-5.

Let me just say that I don't think there's anything intrinsically better about an outright ban over trying to introduce in-game solutions. In fact, I think the latter is inherently preferable. But given the complexity of creating a powerful "anti-X" card AND the lag time, I'm much more in favor of fast, decisive bans. Then, if we want to reevaluate those bans after the fact, why not do so. I don't think many people would be extremely upset to see, for example, Pyromancer's Cache legal again (though that's a separate issue that I don't mean to conflate).

EDIT: I don't mean to imply that I would be opposed to an anti-X card in house Greyjoy or Bara. In fact, we already sort of have them. But such cards are designed to add further strategy/flavor to those particular houses, not to balance the environment. For the former goal, card design is a great vehicle; for the latter, bannings work MUCH better.

Why do people keep saying that Narrow Escape was brought back as a foil to Valar as if that was a bad thing? They were both released during the same block back in the CCG days, having one and not the other seems... odd. And to be honest I'm not sure that it was. Considering it came out in the Kings of the Storm box I see it as being much more likely that it was brought back as a way to help Baratheon protect renown characters from an Aggro military deck.

Penfold said:

Well, nobody except the designers know for certain why Narrow Escape was brought back, but I think there's a general understanding among the community that it was in (larger?) part because Valar exists.

As for how the two cards interacted during the CCG days, I honestly think there are some key differences. First, the card pool was much different. That means there were more cancels (to plots AND events), and there were more ways to play around both cards. At the same time, I think it was generally more difficult to (allegedly) "abuse" Narrow Escape, since there were fewer characters (at least relative to the size of the total pool of competitively playable cards) that had some impactful "come into play" or "leave play" effects. There were also more characters that didn't die and/or came back from dead/discard. In other words, Narrow Escape just wasn't as good then as it is now, at least in most control decks (in my opinion).

Second, the change to Narrow Escape that requires the person to discard at least one card in hand is a big one. The original version didn't have this requirement, so that if you could play all of the cards in your hand, the opponent's Narrow Escape became a wasted card in hand. Now it's the opposite, Narrow Escape sort of forces you to hold cards in hand. And when you hold one card in hand, you often need to hold more than one to protect that particular card from intrigue challenges, etc. (So Narrow Escape actually really changes *how* you play the game, in addition to having a particularly powerful effect. This may have been true somewhat during the CCG days, but I don't think it was as true as it is now.)

EDIT: I wonder how much Narrow Escape actually helps Baratheon. Since you lose all your power and attachments anyway, I think the effect does little to help the rush build win faster...it just adds a bit of resilience that's useful if the game goes long. In any case, I don't think Narrow Escape was necessarily intended to be a Bara card. If that were the case, it would be "House Baratheon Only." If you're looking at precedent, check out cards like Court Advisor in the Martell box. I don't think anyone would say that this neutral attachment was there so that Martell could fill in missing intrigue icons. In fact, I suspect it's quite the opposite: Neutral cards are added to an expansion to make the product more attractive to people who don't play that house...to give a little something to everyone.

Penfold said:

I have actually used Narrow Escape against Bara to remove the renown from their characters after I flip Valar, sets them almost back to square 1(if they have no saves) and I get my characters back. And in Martell that means that you possible could be revealing and drawing 4 or more cards off of this effect with your bannermen. Talk about card advantage. So it really could go either way. With NE in bara that just means that you lost all your renown, sure your characters come back but if you haven't won by turn 3-4 usually you aren't going to win so if you are having to use NE then things just don't look good for you in general

Looks like I'm really in the minority here, but I'm going to go against the grain and make the assertion that the metagame is more balanced than it's been in a long time. Sure, there is a house hierarchy because of certain cards. But no one House or deck is dominating the meta at the moment. Isn't that the most important thing? It is to me, anyway.

I've never understood the outcry about power cards. If you can convince me that Venomous Blade and Burning makes Martell the overwhelming favorite in any matchup right now, then sure, we have a problem. But that's really not the case. Looking at the recent results in Spain, if they had been playing under Worlds tournament rules, Stark, traditionally a bad matchup against Martell, would have won the thing, and that's in a huge tournament of 70+ players. Only because they played best of 3 did the Martell player come back. To me, that's pretty telling that Martell is not OP right now. And couple that with the bad matchups they have in Bara (which is about to get much, much worse) and Lannister? Taking away Venomous Blade or Burning, however much you disagree with the design of those cards, is only going to change the house hierarchy, which is not what banning should be about. Martell has always had annoying cards, along with annoying neutral cards. But if it doesn't break the environment, it shouldn't be banned.

Lannister had errata and bannings because they were dominating the environment. Blood of the First men was banned because Wildlings were dominating the tournament scene, to the exclusion of other decks. How many Martell decks won major tournaments during that time or since? The best Wildling builds were not out of Martell, ~even with all their OP cards. I don't see anything like that out of any house right now, and until we do, I don't want to see anything changed. We'll see if that changes when TLS and Heir to the Iron Throne shoot Bara up to the top, though.

Where is that damned *like* button.

longclaw said:

~Ugh, I hope I'm not becoming a troll...I'm responding to everything these days.

Longclaw, I agree mostly with your assessment about Martell and the state of the environment. I wouldn't cry if BotS were banned/errata'd, but that's more because I personally dislike the card conceptually. Still, I acknowledge this as preference and would not press for a ban simply because I personally dislike it. (If another card comes out that allows this one to be easily abused, however, I may change my opinion.)

The cards that I currently have the biggest problems with are neutral. In particular, I dislike Fear of Winter and Narrow Escape. (I also tend to agree that Val remains bad for the environment, but actually to a lesser extent.) I'm not saying that these cards are in some way helping one house over the other. So in that sense, yeah, there is pretty good "balance" among houses. The problem is that these cards are seen in so many decks...a lot of the time the question is not "why do you run X," the question is "why don't you?" In fact, the existence of so many powerful neutral cards probably has something to do with how balanced the environment is at the moment. The greater number of powerful neutral effects that exist, the more deck lists (especially plots and events) look similar, to the extent that there may be "balance" simply because everyone's running the same responses, tricks, etc. Now I'm exaggerating a bit here...we're still not at that point yet. But I do think powerful neutral cards have significantly diluted house flavor and resulted in less flexibility during deck building, especially when it comes to plots, events, and to some extent characters (Val, Carrion Birds, etc.).

longclaw said:

Well I don't really think that anyone is saying that Martell is OP and Uber-powerful or VB and Burning need to be banned. Those 2 cards are however what makes Martell really good right now(among other really "annoying" characters and events) and taking those away would not do anything to make the meta any more balanced. So as people hate those cards...I haven't seen anyone say they should be banned. But a watchful eye should be kept on those cards.

Yes there is a fair amount of parity in the current environment with the exception of maybe Greyjoy and Targ(although they aren't far behind). Yes Lannister was dominating the environment and something had to be done. The real problem with gauging how powerful a certain deck is, is that there are not that many tournaments year round for Thrones and the player base just isn't large enough to get a good look at the overall house hierarchy. The competitive scene for this game is small in comparison to games like Magic or Yu-gi-oh with the tons of tourneys they have and the hundreds of people that turn out for a PTQ or other event. If we had more tournaments or bigger turnouts(like madrid earlier this year. way to go!) year round it would be easier to judge the parity between the houses. But as it stands that is hard to do.

As for Bara getting to the top...in recent weeks when my Targ decks have rocked that Bara Heir to the Iron Throne deck of yours Jonathan, haven't you learned anything?

Stag Lord said:

Okay- that's a fair argument (~gramps). In this case, I'd consider a ban to be like a recall. The developers have released a product that they are acknowledging as defective, and are recalling it to prevent it from harming their userbase. The only real difference is that what you get instead of a return is a lot more intangible- you are "refunded" by getting an overall improvement to the game environment.

Would you find bans more palatable if you could return the banned product you paid for for some physical compensation? IIRC back in the days of LCG, you could turn in banned cards for golden dragons and get cool prizes.