hklown said:

Yeah, and then a year or two down the road when they un-ban said card you then have to go and repurchase the pack of cards that it came in(maybe even 3x of said pack) just to get your playset back. No thanks. At least FFG would get more of my money. Like they don't get enough of that as it is.

I think it is important to ban all cards that are obviously too powerful the minute they are spoiled. It's so plain to see from the text of any card which ones are good for the game and which ones aren't.

(This message brought to you by the tone of soooo many reactions to card spoilers on the discussion boards....)

@ hklown: Stop with the theoreticlas already. I am never going to be enthusiastic about bans - haven't I come far enough by accepting that strategic bans may be the best way to balance the metagame -and that problem cards may need to go afetr a few months? I am never going to enthusiatically call for fast bannings.

So no - gimmicky product swag would not make me mebrace the ban philosophy. I am a slow adaptor to change.

@ Widowmaker: despite your problematic vernacular - i do concede that the Val + TLS draw engine concerns me. I cannot imagine it will be allowed to stand for long.

I don't think I was ever calling for "fast bannings" (whatever that means)- I'm just trying to espouse banning as a solution to problem cards that would otherwise go unmolested (by printing 'soloutions' or whatever) for > 6 months due to the current printing style.

And widowmaker- if a card was ever "un-banned", I'd expect it to be thrown into the next chapter pack pro bono.

Stag Lord said:

Taking shots at my vernacular now are you? Plain English too antiquated for you? lol. I see how it is. Pick on the grammar of us poor stupid southern boys.

In all honesty I think that the thing that makes the Val + TLS combo so weak is that she is so easily killed. Most houses have something that can take care of her easily. Whether it be Stark with their plethora of kill effects, Martell and the aforementioned VB, Targ and any Burn effect and Lannister can use the City of Soldiers plot on round 2 if need be...however Greyjoy and opposing Bara players will up up the creek so to say. I still say give the combo a couple months to run rampant and if it needs fixing then by all means do so.

mason240 said:

I 100% agree.

But saying that Decipher did it wrong so it can never be done right might be the worst defense ever.

Penfold said:

In my defense, I even say how ridiculous my statement is. I just don't want 'blanket' statements like no card should ever be banned before six months of use (or any real amount of time). Hopefully people read it as a debate tool, and not me actually thinking FFG will print that type of card. ~unless Alec tells them to.

Rogue seems to LOVE taking small parts of people's statements out of context and then making use of them that way. I can understand the sentiment to let the cards 'breathe' for a few months before any bannings, but I have seen some pretty crappy cards be printed over the last five years that get used or combo'd differently than FFG obviously intended them to be. There was a 4/4/4 plot at one point, and it didn't need to 'breathe' before being erratta'd. That silly auto-win combo with the location where you name a plot or whatever (as soon as it was realized) didn't need to breathe either. So there is precedent people.

I'm not sure how you satisfy everyone without basically throwing away the whole concept of this type of game:

Here's what I mean: either there are imbalances to be exploited in the system or there are not.

If there are no imbalances, then there is a large ensemble of decks with equal power and winning comes down to a coin flip assuming equal skill in choosing card deployment. There are many card games like this. (One of them is called Bridge and you should try it if you don't like meta-games.)

If there ARE imbalances to be exploited, then by exploiting them you will tend to create a deck with advantages over those that do not. (This is called deck design, and I believe "deck design contest" would be a good description of what the meta-game is all about.)

If there a small number of imbalances, then you will naturally see players gravitate towards explioting them and coming up with a smallish number of similar solutions. IMO this appears to be more or less what we have today.

If you have MANY imbalances, then you actually again have a situation where it almost doesn't matter what deck you have.

So it seems to me that you fundamentally have to choose between the meta-game or not. Perfect balance destroys the meta-game: finding and exploiting the imbalances is the whole point.

I think the LCG is the way you keep it interesting--there are always, by definition, small imbalances to be exploited and players will gravitate to them as they are discovered. Constant release of cards, however, shifts where the exploits are. Make no mistake, however, exploiting the rules IS the game, if you aren't doing it, you're not really playing.

widowmaker93 said:

So weak? ~Dang, I only got 3 cards and they had to use a card to get rid of her for 2 gold. Maybe she even got a challenge off. Whatever will I do?!? And if they had the card in hand (or plot ready) and I didn't stop it somehow

I do see you point there though - and might even be partially on board if not for the plot that was spoiled as well (the straw on the perverbial camel's back maybe?). Val isn't the close to only 2-card combo avaiable with TLS. I take Kevin's point that nothing else has been spoiled...but that is what message boards do - use the info we have on hand.

rings said:

OK so maybe weak is not the word I was looking for. Let's change that and go with...vulnerable maybe? But yeah with 3x of each of those in a deck and a summoning season to go get one that you happen not to draw before plot phase you can easily have this combo going first turn. So while being vulnerable to targeted removal effects, it is still overly powerful. I thnk TLS should be limited to not having cards discarded from your hand as the result of intrigue challenge claim. Then he would still obviously be really good still but not uber-broken like we can all see(and sorry to disagree with your "post" ktom but we can all see the writing on the wall with this one). But in the interest of fairness let it "breathe" for a little while and see if it breaks Bara. If it does, fix it.

widowmaker93 said:

The post was not directed at TLS or the potential problems it seems to suggest. I do not see this thread as another discussion on "what should be done about TLS?" The post was directed at the fact that as a group, we are very reactionary. We devote a lot of time and energy discussing how "obvious" things are - that end up being very different in practice. In general, we are very quick to "fix" things - through bans or otherwise - that don't really need fixing. Sometimes, the "writing on the wall" is just words.

rings said:

As long as silver bullets stop strategies/concepts...and not cards.

It's the difference between Narrow Escape saying what is says or

"If Valar was just revealed, cancel the text"

Decipher create card after card of the second variety...and it was bad.

UFS was one of those CCGs that saw regular bannings and unbannings. A card may currently exist that is too powerful, but 6-12-18 months down the road the situation may become completely different, and the cards reconsidered. I'm pretty sure Magic has done the same.

At one point, in the very recent past, I used to be very anti-ban. Ban as a last resort. Banning is bad. Except, lately, I'm coming around to the idea that spot banning may be a good thing for this game. If certain cards are suddenly discovered to create a powerful effect or combo, it seems that an errata or ban may be necessary. I would much rather see cards from earlier CPs banned than have a whole cycle "rotated" (and, as an aside, how is a card being banned and a block being rotated out not the same thing when it comes to "I paid for these cards, I better be able to play with them."). I have maintained for a long time that is Jaqen H'gar's text box didn't contain the "...gets +1 STR for each power on him." text, he wouldn't have needed a ban, and that the original errata (return him to hand at the end of any phase in which he has power on him) actually made him stronger in certain deck types.

I do think that before any cards gets banned, it should see some play first. And not the "prequel play" that some groups go through, since we're playing with cards outside their full environment. TLS + Val will make for an impressive draw combo for Baratheon, but we already know that Lannister and Martell have their own mega-draw engines. Will this combo really, really put Bara so far over the top? Let's wait and see. And let's see how many of these cards and combos play out in Regionals season.

widowmaker93 said:

I usually read carefully, but lastly I have little time. Sorry again.

I'm going to (try and) assure everyone that I'm not trying to make the game fit my personal "play style," or that I'm being ignorant to other players' values -- what they enjoy about the game. If anything, it's because I'm being mindful of other players that I have position I hold.

Bannings only affect FFG tournament play. It says so in the FAQ. For better or worse, FFG's tournament format (and those of most games) suits Jaime's "style of play." You only get points to make the cut by winning (and possibly drawing) games, and you only avoid elimination after the cut by winning games. The players that advance the farthest get the most and best prizes. This format is Jamie's dream come true as he is awarded for doing what he loves -- winning. This format, for better or worse, is not designed to reward Shagga and Ned. There are no prizes or rewards given for pulling off an epic combo or recreating scenes from the books during game play. Shagga and Ned are more than welcome to play in tournaments, but they are going to find they are in an environment where Jaime reigns supreme because that is the only style that is rewarded in tournament play.

Personally, I don't like how Shagga and Ned are at a disadvantage at tournaments simply because tournaments don't reward what they enjoy about playing AGoT. The only way to ensure Ned and Shagga have a chance against Jaime is if the card pool/environment is balanced and no overpowered, under-costed, and/or broken cards exist; otherwise, Jaime will abuse these cards and Ned and Shagga are very likely to lose and be turned off by competitive play, which creates smaller tournament turn outs. I know people (some that are very good players) that no longer play competitively or refuse to join the competitive scene because of how easy it is to abuse certain cards. They just aren't interested in being like Jaime in order to do well at a tournament.

If I call for an errata (or in rare instances - a ban) it's because I think the card as-is is unbalanced and makes the game is less enjoyable to non-competitive players (i.e. Shagga and Ned) on the competitive level. Competitive players (i.e. Jaime) could find it less enjoyable as well, but because they want to win they are either going to have to: a) abuse those cards and create powerful decks with them b) create a deck to "meta" against those cards and the strong builds they make. Neither is particularly appealing to Shagga and Ned, and I think even most Jamie players would prefer being able to play a deck from the House and/or archetype (i.e. control, aggro, combo, etc.) they most enjoy (their "inner" Shagga and Ned) playing and have a shot at winning the tournament; rather than having to meta something that is over powered, under -costed, un balanced, over -accessible, etc. to have any real chance of winning.

I have no problem with the philosophy behind cards that hate on weenies (i.e. Venomous Blade), cards that are anti-reset (i.e. Narrow Escape), or many of the other "pressures" cards put on the game. I actually believe their existence is important for the game and creates a healthy, diverse environment, but certainly there are good and bad, better and worse ways to implement these "checks" on the game and metagame. Balanced cards (i.e. First Snow of Winter) can have the effectively the same impact on the environment as unbalanced cards (i.e. Venomous Blade). It's possible for a balanced card to have even more of an impact than an unbalanced one (which may very well be the case with First Snow vs. Venomous). The difference is one is much more easily exploitable than the other. It's this exploitation that creates an unfair advantage for a particular card/build, which in turn leads to Jaime exploiting this card/build more than he would otherwise. It's one thing to play a card/build because it offers specific advantages, it's another to play a card/build because the advantages it offers are too good to ignore. As Twn2dn said, "...a lot of the time the question is not 'why do you run X,' the question is 'why don't you?'"

If cards are not going to be appropriately costed, balanced, etc. and be only evaluated by the influence(s) they create on the environment then there's no reason to require resources to play cards. Anyone that believes a card like Venomous Blade is fine at s0 (or BotS at no cost) cannot avoid being hypocritical if he or she believes a card like TLS** should be a 4 or 5 cost. After all, the purpose of Venomous Blade is to make printed 2 STR characters more vulnerable. The purpose of TLS is to make Baratheon's hand less vulnerable (and thus create card advantage). If TLS achieves this at 2, 3, or 4 gold, why bother of assigning a gold cost in the first place? If TRV is meant to give Martell a rush character what's the difference between him costing 3 gold and 5 gold? He doesn't rush any faster or slower once he's in play. If Hatchling's Feast is meant to burn characters why does it cost 3 INF to use? Wouldn't it be better at 1 INF if the purpose is to make characters STR vulnerable? So on and so forth.

The effect/purpose of a card isn't enough to justify it's unbalanced existence. If it is, then the act of balancing cards in the first place is a futile endeavor. Either you have a game where every card is balanced or you have a game where no cards are balanced (and consequently the game is arguably balanced, but we'll ignore this). Anything in between allows for exploitation and creates an environment where certain cards must be used or meta'd against in order to win. The player now has to play certain cards, rather than having the freedom in choosing the cards he or she wants to play. This is why banning/errata unbalanced cards actually expands the environment, rather than limiting it.

If i call for a change or express a suggestion or idea for the game, it's because I think it would improve the overall state of the game for everyone. If people honestly believe this game is the best it has ever been, let me say that I believe it could be 10x better and without much effort on the part of FFG. I post on these forums hoping to engage in meaningful, productive conversation, so that we may find a way to improve the game we all enjoy. I know sometimes conversation can get heated, but my intentions are not to make people upset. I'm simply looking to discuss creating a better game for everyone.

**It should be noted that I've never said TLS should be errata or banned. However, akin to Venomous Blade in Martell, there is no particular House strength that is consistent with TLS' ability. (Sorry, the "annoying" House isn't a House strength. Stuff like have revenge effects when you lose as a defeder is a House strength.) It's why I personally find TLS under-costed given the rest of its stats. I don't believe it will be game breaking, nor do I believe it will be Baratheon's most powerful card; however, if it truly is under-costed, it will be exploitable and players may have to meta against it. I'll wait to pass full judgement on the card until it has seen some real play.

EDIT: Sorry for the long wall of text. TL;DR I just want to help make the game better, lol.

FATMOUSE said:

I don't remember where in the books it described a horde of Martell, Baratheon, or Stark refugees taking advantage of winter-phobia and attacking everything in sight, paralyzing the enemies from taking more than one step to defend. A masse horde of refugees, carrion-eating birds, and ragtag allies certainly doesn't seem like the way I would go about capturing The Iron Throne (even Dany had dragons and some powerful allies). But that's more or less what the environment has devolved into...rewarding speed and non-uniques over armies and epic figures. Now I'm not saying we need to ban refugees or 1-STR characters, but perhaps we should consider banning/rewording the *neutral* cards that reward players for playing so many low-cost non-uniques. (Obviously, cards like Fear of Winter and Val are the worst perpetrators.)

On your thoughts about TLS...you lost me. I acknowledge some of the same parallels you see, but I don't think things are quite as black and white. I personally feel TLS, like Burning in the Sand, etc. is bad for the game because it essentially encourages/rewards players for non-interaction with few costs (unlike combo, which may have the same result but is typically MUCH harder to pull off). That said, this has a lot to do with personal preference (I also hate MTG's version of "blue control" decks for the same reason), so I understand that many players feel the exact opposite as me.

Twn2dn said:

I was discussing TLS from a balance perspective. We can debate whether or not Robb Stark is good for the game (I think it is), but there's a difference between Robb costing 2 gold and 4 gold. One is balanced (good for game) and one is unbalanced (bad for the game). So whether or not TLS is "good for the game" is a different (but perhaps related) story from whether or not he's balanced.

If you look at BotS, there's no doubt the card is unbalanced. It's arguably the most powerful challenge control event Martell has ever had, and it costs nothing. Could it be balanced? I think so. Maybe you have to kneel a character or two and then stand all participating characters or something like that. Now is BotS good for the game? Personally, I don't think it is. I'm not sure when and how Martell went from "I get stuff when I lose as a defender," to "Nope, no one wins, aka you can't win, because I'm the 'annoying' House," but it did, and I think the concept of "I get access to everything because I'm that kind of House" needs to stop. Getting rid of BotS would be a good start.

As for TLS, I personally don't care for it's design, and I don't see what makes it a Baratheon card (other than it's title). I agree it feels very similar to BotS, and there's a fair argument to have it changed on those grounds alone, but that doesn't make it the most powerful card ever. I think there are designs that would have been much more beneficial and powerful for Baratheon. Does that mean it won't be exploited? No, it probably will be, and I agree that isn't good for the game. I'm just saying that it's not the most powerful card ever, regardless of whether or not it's design is good or bad for the game. I don't think Venomous Blade is the most powerful card ever either, but that doesn't mean it and other cards aren't exploited because they are under-costed.

I also think it's only courteous to let TLS come out and see some action before forming complete conclusions and applying any potential changes to it.

FATMOUSE, this might be the best articulation of your vision of competetive play that I've read. Thank you for such a clear, well-written post. Just a couple thoughts that occurred while reading it.

FATMOUSE said:

I like this concept. Unfortunately, this has never been the attitude of the powers that be at FFG or the community as a whole. Long ago, the community and FFG decided that tournament scene would be the realm of Jaime. The only cards banned or errataed were cards that explicitly broke the game, not cards that were prevalent in every competetive deck or cards that limited the variety of competetive decks. So your vision "challenges" the "traditions" of AGOT competetive play. That's not necessarily good or bad. But it isn't how the game has operated its organized play historically.

FATMOUSE said:

If I remember correctly, Eric Lang's vision of card design/game balance was that if everyone had access to overpowered effects, it could likewise create a balance of sort. Maybe I'm remembering that wrong and some of the other old-timers can correst me or clarify that point. But AGOT has always been about "overpowered" cards and using them to your best ability. That doesn't mean that overpowered effects can't break the environment. But AGOT has always been a game that walked that knife's edge in the competetive environment. Have they got it wrong sometimes? Sure. But normally it gets fixed in a decent amount of time and the game goes on.Obviously the change to LCG makes it longer to fix the unbalances. So maybe the solutions need to change.

FATMOUSE said:

I don't doubt that what you envision is your idea of the "best possible" AGOT tournament environment. And like I said earlier, part of me likes the ideas you articulate to form that environment. The only problem is that that vision runs counter to the philosophy that has formed the tournament scene of this game from the beginning of competetive play.

@Fatmouse

Do you think a metagame in general is bad for the game from a Ned or Shagga point of view?

@ Kpmccoy: you are absolutely correct in your memory. eric Lang wrote early in one of teh first CoTWs that hsi design was to create cards of jaw dropping power, cards that would shock Magic players -a dn give everyone access to tehm wiht ready resources and two cards drawn per turn. Its an argument I have been ahving with FM for several months now - this game is and always will be about "overpowered" cards. I personally don't want that to change.

Its when they take that next step to limiting your ability to build a deck e.g. Fear of Winter of the Wildling Agenda that I want R&D to stpe in.

But yeah - that was a pretty good post from the noob.

I don't think tournaments are the realm of Jaime because long ago it was decided by any one group of people. Tournaments are about winning. Jaimes are about winning. It's just the nature of the beast.

IMHO, bans aren't about helping the Neds and Shaggas find joy in the tourney scene. While we all find joy in winning games, Neds and Shaggas (by definition) prefer to find joy in deck building and combos. If winning is more important to them, then perhaps they should reconsider what they want from a tournament, and approach the game accordingly.

Now, that isn't to say "screw all the Neds and Shaggas". Personally, I prefer playing Nedly decks, but I am willing to put some of that aside at tourneys because I'd rather compete to win. However, I do agree that Neds and Shaggas shouldn't have to entirely sacrifice thier Jaime sides (just as Jaimes shouldn't have to sacrifice all of the Ned or Shagga in them) in order to enjoy thier #1 play style.

I personally think it is part of FFGs job to narrow the gap between the different styles with good card design, and not with Bans. I just think spot bans are too ineffective at accomplishing this task. This has to be something built into every card, and even then, Jaimes will always find an advantage when winning matters because they don't have a seperate "set of rules" to guide their deck construction. BTW, I am finding this whole topic now very Neddly....

If prizes are what Neds and Shaggas are after, a TO could set up a system where players can vote on "Nedliest Deck", or "Biggest Combo". However, making such a decision is obviously very subjective.

For me, bans are about keeping decks in check so that no deck build is consistently preventing the majority of other decks from putting up a fight. I mostly worry about easy combos that can win a game before an opponent has a chance to try and stop it, keeping rush builds and mill decks from becoming too consistent, and preventing control decks from getting a lock too soon in a game. Most of the time, this isn't about one card being too strong. It's more about taking a key piece of that deck out.

I sit down at a table to interact with my opponent, and enjoy games with a push and pull to them. When that is consistently lost between one deck build and a variety of other decks, I feel bans are called for. But even that is a very grey area for me.

FATMOUSE said:

I fundamentally disagree. Martell gets an event that neutralizes a challenge while all the other houses get an event that allows them to win some very specific thing that is important to them,. Kneeling characters for it? Then it becomes the weakest possible ugly step-sister of Lethal Counterattack.

This really sounds like a case where the card bothers you, not something that is demonstrably bad for the game or unbalanced. Facing Burning on the Sand versus True Power or Misinformation, I'd take Burning on the Sand every day, all day. Martell can't use their tricks against me for losing the challenge, nor do I have to face any claim.

I dunno Penfold - have to lean towards Fatmouses's argument here. No cost challenge cancel seems a bit much - (And before rinsg jumps all over me: its not analogous with Laughing Storm. Here you lose renown, vigilant, and the opprotunity to use any challenge based win effects. TLS protects a card or two) I don't think having a cost like: kneeling characters is a bad idea at all. In fact - given Venegful, it adds to the compelxity of Martell;'s decision tree. Seems like a sound fix for an overpowered card.

Stag Lord said:

What is your view on no-cost challenge win? Such as the "True Power" and "Misinformation" events mentioned by Penfold?

ASoIaFfan said:

~They're not in Martell, therefore people hate them less. Although, Misinformation is Lanni.....