Here we go, guys, it's time for the latest installment of 2 Champs and a Chump! I had some difficulties getting it to upload this morning, so blame the interwebs for the later than usual posting. Also, iTunes should update shortly. *fingers crossed*
2 Champs and a Chump- Episode 15: News! Franch! Contest!
Wait. Where did the set rotation thingy come from? This isn't a bad April fools' day joke, right? (I haven't finished listening to the episode yet)
Tomdidiot said:
Wait. Where did the set rotation thingy come from? This isn't a bad April fools' day joke, right? (I haven't finished listening to the episode yet)
Interesting discussion on the "unerrata" of The North Agendas. It would help both NW (mainly NW) and Wildling, but I personally like the separation of the two.
In general, I think power modification of a player's victory condition has turned out to be a very poor way of balancing agendas. The Treaty Agendas (from CCG & LCG) and The North Agendas are pretty good evidence of that, in my opinion. I really don't buy into, "Oh, but I need 6 more power to win the game, so i better get really good stuff." The same argument was use when we have 6x Agendas and look what happened. I don't think FFG will ever be +/- power as a means of balancing and justifying the existence of certain cards, especially agendas, ever again.
FATMOUSE said:
In general, I think power modification of a player's victory condition has turned out to be a very poor way of balancing agendas. The Treaty Agendas (from CCG & LCG) and The North Agendas are pretty good evidence of that, in my opinion. I really don't buy into, "Oh, but I need 6 more power to win the game, so i better get really good stuff." The same argument was use when we have 6x Agendas and look what happened. I don't think FFG will ever be +/- power as a means of balancing and justifying the existence of certain cards, especially agendas, ever again.
QFT. I always hated that the designers thought that needing more power is an adaquate penalty for a powerful card. Or, maybe I am just irritated because it seems to be the penalty on 90% of the agendas (and alliances of old).
FATMOUSE said:
The same argument was use when we have 6x Agendas and look what happened. I don't think FFG will ever be +/- power as a means of balancing and justifying the existence of certain cards, especially agendas, ever again.
Man, I sound like bizarro version of Stag that doesn't know how to use proper grammar
Not sure what I was thinking when I typed that, but I'm glad somebody understood what I was trying to say.
And yes, now that the weekend is over, that first segment was our April Fool's Day joke.
The episode felt a little light because so much time was spent discussing something that did not happen.
As for the North agendas, I prefer to keep the errata, mostly for Ned reasons, and also because running 5 or 6 agendas just seems silly to me.
Wicked Seductress is great, but as you said in your show, probably not discussed all that much because 'kneel' is much more of a "thing" for Lannister and Bara control has not yet been fully established as a build in the collective meta mind, I guess?
On a general note, I could do without the ear-piercing "danger zone" at the end of each show. At least tone it down a little
Saturnine said:
On a general note, I could do without the ear-piercing "danger zone" at the end of each show. At least tone it down a little
I strongly agree! And please guys I listen to you over headphones so stop shouting and screaming or if you do just tune it down in the post production.
Besides that I am still happy this podcast exists and I am a regular listener
Saturnine said:
The episode felt a little light because so much time was spent discussing something that did not happen.
As for the North agendas, I prefer to keep the errata, mostly for Ned reasons, and also because running 5 or 6 agendas just seems silly to me.
Wicked Seductress is great, but as you said in your show, probably not discussed all that much because 'kneel' is much more of a "thing" for Lannister and Bara control has not yet been fully established as a build in the collective meta mind, I guess?
On a general note, I could do without the ear-piercing "danger zone" at the end of each show. At least tone it down a little
Also, fantastic breakdown of Wicked Seductress. I never thought about comparing her to Castellan, though I agree she is very powerful. I think, as others mentioned, the 2 STR and house affiliation make up 90% of the real difference though. In fact, I think this is an *excellent* example of what a powerful 3-gold ally should look like...something very useful but not the linchpin of a deck type OR overly resilient.
Ditto on the "danger zone"...maybe in a slightly lower octave or lower volume would be OK?
Saturnine said:
On a general note, I could do without the ear-piercing "danger zone" at the end of each show. At least tone it down a little
Zeiler is now weeping in his bed. You have broken his heart.
Dobbler said:
Zeiler is now weeping in his bed. You have broken his heart.
~Sounds like a Multiplayer champ...
worst joke ever. I heard that and I was like "What ?! Set rotation ? I had to pause the playback, calm down, and then rewind and listen again" Thanks guys for the heart attack. I am now officially awake today.
And its not even April 1st anymore so I wasn't even thinking of that lol. Well done, you got me and I am sure many others.
Aww I believed for a moment and started right away to figure out new decks that I would build, but then checked that FFg hasn't posted anything like that.
Would like to also add my own opinion on the north agendas. I really think they should be as they are since I really don't want to play a game anymore where I'm just waiting or slowing down an overhelming opponent from gaining 25 power which could easily take many turns.
Twn2dn said:
Ditto on the "danger zone"...maybe in a slightly lower octave or lower volume would be OK?
That would unfortunately require Zeiler to go through puberty. Something we're all pretty sure is still a few years off.
Enjoyed the podcast, guys. I thought the discussion of revisiting the North Agendas to be especially good. I've thought about that as well, and while I'd love to see Coldhands playable again, I'm inclined to think a 5-agenda deck would be almost as much of a problem even without the BotFM. That's still 2-cost 9-STR Wildling armies. Without those, I wouldn't be as worried about it.