Just announced

The following cards are restricted for LCG
tournament melee and joust play. A player
may select 1 card from the restricted list for
any given deck, and cannot then play with
any other restricted cards in the same deck. A
player may run as many copies of his chosen
restricted card in a deck as the regular game
rules (or card text) allow.
Pyromancer's Cache (ACoA F13)
Fury of the Wolf (ACoA F25)
Fury of the Lion (ACoA F26)
Fury of the Stag (ACoA F27)
Fury of the Kraken (ACoA F28)
Fury of the Dragon (ACoA F29)
Fury of the Sun (ACoA F30)
Castellan of the Rock (ACoA F93)
Venomous Blade (KLE F115)
Fear of Winter (DotN F40)
Val (DotN F117)
Narrow Escape (KotS F48)

I'm trying to decide whether I hate or love this...

I think its probably a good idea and for the betterment of the game. I found the Fury plots an interesting choice as I have never seen any include more than one Fury in their plot decks. Pyromancers cache coming back is also very interesting.

I personally love this idea. It basically makes it to where (outside of a few circumastances) a card never needs to be banned again. The only card I don't really immediately agree with is Fear of Winter, but I've never really had as much of a problem with that card as everyone else seems to.

I'm actually very much of with Fear of Winter, but I really don't think that the Fury plots were so bad as to warrant inclusion.

The same for me... I'm surprised to see the fury plots there. Well, it's kind of a restriction for the other cards if there is no listed cards in your house. Why not ? I'm curious to see the result of this system, especially during the regionals. It can change many things...

And, as an old Lannister player, I'm happy to see the Pyromancer's cache back, even if I don't know if it is really good for the game. Maybe the choice between Castellan and Cache will decrease the power of that draw engine.

While the list is good overall, and it helsp to nerf Lanny Kneel slightly (because of the choice between the Castellan and Fury of the Lion), I think the list would be greatly improved with the addition of Burning on the Sands. Burning is sitll one of the most powerful cards in the environment, and I don't think it's good for the Meta.

I love it!

I admit the Fury plots weren't broken, but they were auto-includes. I was tired of seeing them in every deck.

Good move FFG.

After thinking about it I like it in theroy but greatly dislike the current list. The fury plots I think are an unfortunate inclusion and although they are powerful I just don't see them warranting a place on this list. It feels like they were put on there just to force every house to have to make a choice instead of because of a problem or NPE with the actual cards.

If they Fury plots made this list I think Valar should have made it too.

Fury plots aside, I do think it forces some interesting choices. Definately a tough choice between Fear/Val/NE for the 4 non-lanny/mart houses.

Darksbane said:

QFT. Valar is definitely more of an "auto-include" than the Fury plots, so why not throw that on the list to spice up the plot selections?

So basically if one chooses to use the Fury plot, they can't use any of the other cards on the list.

Not sure I like that this adds more complexity to the building of decks. I can very easily see someone accidentally including more than one of the cards on the list (for example, the Fury plot and VB, just as an example). On the other hand, it forces more variety in deck construction. If you want VB, you can't run the Fury plot, and if you run the Fury plot, you can't have VB. Those slots can then be filled with something else.

This affects at least two of my decks immediately (my Lannister uses Fury and Castellan currently, and my Martell uses Fury and VB and NE). Going to have to make some tough decisions. As I think about it, all my decks are affected, since all my decks run their appropriate Fury plot and some combination of either FoW, Val, and/or NE.

I can see FFG wanting to discourage "auto-include" cards, but I don't like that the Fury plots are included on this list. I guess I'd be OK with it otherwise.

As I think more about this list, I realized it creates a new obstacle. Now if you (or your opponent) happens to run one of the cards on the list, you (or your opponent) will automatically know you don't have the other cards on the list. It's sort of like providing free intel on the composition of the deck. I don't like this aspect. Part of the suspense of a game is not knowing what your opponent may play next. While this doesn't totally remove that element, it at least chips away at it by letting the other player know what you *won't* be playing.

"Oh, I see you played your Fury plot. Guess that means I can Valar Morghulis you next turn without any concern that you may have a NE in your hand. Heh, heh, heh..."

Not liking that aspect at all.

I admire--but don't agree with--the inclusion of the Fury plots.

While they were strong init/gold + an occasional benefit, I often played them for the military battle/power struggle/intrigue gambit aspect. Yeah I know that this specifically applies to tournament play, but we stick by the FAQ in our meta and this means some of my decks will take a small hit. If the trend seen in recent house expansions continues, we'll see more of these trait-related plots released eventually so it's probably a temporary inconvenience. High initiative decks might experience similar irritation though, which will probably also be remedied in due time. Echoing what’s been said before, I don’t think these were real game-changers. Maybe really popular, but not worth adding to the list IMO.

It's especially interesting from a business standpoint, as the Fury Plots seemed to help bolster sales of the Clash of Arms cycle. If these cards probably won't be included in a tournament deck, why buy them? I know, someone playing competitively is most likely to buy all the cards anyway (a la Mathlete), and there are other good cards in ACoA... but I’m impressed regardless. Seeing FFG take the side of "doing what's best for the game" and not necessarily their bottom dollar is encouraging and the mark of a game I want to continue playing.

Otherwise, my first impression is positive. I am a little concerned about telegraphing (if I'm running X then I'm not running Y and Z) but I think most of us do that already after seeing an agenda or the characters shown after the first round of marshalling. The article from Nate is well-written and the second-to-last paragraph sums everything up nicely. Also, card unbanning (cache) just seems awesome to me… or maybe I’m just starved for new cards?

I had actually recently thought about this type of list as a solution for the the TLS+Val problem. But in my mind, I envisioned a list for Plots, and a list for characters, and a list for events, etc, etc. which is actually a more complex solution, which is bad for TO's. So I like this in concept, though I'm not sure on the list presented. Hopefully the restricted list will be a little more fluid and flexible than the ban list, but I'm willing to give it til after GenCon. I think that will give a decent sampling size on the type of impact the list has on the competetive play.

A few initial thoughts.

1) Can we now eliminate the errata on the Baratheon Fury Plot?

2) Can we get Jaquen on the Restricted list?

3) I'm not sure Martell will have a tough choice between the Fury plot and Venomous Blade. I would rather have seen Burning on the Sands or one of the other overpowered events on here.

4) I could really see Lannister choosing Cache over Castellan with Guildhall taking the Castellan's place.

5) The more I think about it, the only House that might choose Fury over Fear is Baratheon. There are too many other good high gold plots that make the Fury's much more expendable. And I'm not sure that was the direction the game needed. I never felt that the tandem of first turn Fear and Fury plot later created the NPE. Maybe Fear should be on a list with Blockade, Rule, or Valar.

I am *very* happy to see the Fury plots on the list. It seems that I am the first person to post with this feeling, but I am certainly not the only one. I believe the Fury plots have a very powerful distorting effect on the environment for several reasons.

First, the Fury plots have extremely good stats...unaligned with what the typical LCG plot stats are, and even powerful when compared with CCG-era plots. Because the Fury plots are so powerful, they distort the environment by making other plots less desirable...at least in that they replace the would-be 7th plot in a plot deck. Specifically, because they add extra gold, other high-gold plots like Song of Summer are less attractive. Similarly, other high-initiative plots are less attractive. When you get everything in a single card, why play something else. I am 100% in support of a restriction on this card in the hope that I actually get to see more varied, interesting plot decks.

Second, the effects on the Fury plots were completely imbalanced. Greyjoy's plot was, in particular, powerful...as was Martell's. In contrast, Targ's and Lanni's were easily the worst in the cycle. I personally consider Bara's to be as strong or stronger than the GJ/Stark/Martell plots even after errata, though many would disagree. In any case, I don't think anyone can claim that these plots were appropriately balanced. In fact, the only plausible justification one can make is that certain houses *need* some type of handicap to keep them competitive (ie Bara needs a stronger plot, while Lanni doesn't). Unfortunately, the powerful and weak plots don't conveniently coincide with the houses that need the last/greatest boosts.

Third, related to the first point, new plots that come out have to have exceedingly good stats or abilities to be considered as a replacement. The city plots were one example, and I sometimes see a 4th or 5th city plot in the place of the Fury plot. This remains uncommon though. Whereas the design team might normally like to make an interesting plot that is appropriately costed, it's hands are (metaphorically) partially tied by the fact that the bar is raised excessively high by the Fury plots.

In addition, keep in mind that people who truly *love* their Fury plot can still play it. The point is that there's now a choice that you have to make. And rather than this restriction restricting deck building, it appears that it will (paradoxically) actually open up deck building.

Finally, to address the negative that you will be giving away "intelligence" when you reveal that you play a particular card, I actually do agree with this point to some degree. It is regrettable that people would *know* to a certainty what is or isn't in your deck. ON THE OTHER HAND, it's pretty much accepted that Martell currently plays Venomous Blade, the Fury plot, and often Narrow Escape (enough that I would assume it does just to be prepared). Other houses/builds have similar "standard" cards. So either way, we pretty much know which powerful cards would be in a deck. With the new restricted list, there's now A LOT less certainly early in the game, since the opponent can't run all of the cards and you don't know which; once you see the restricted card though, there's no longer uncertainty. This could actually add to in-game strategy, since there may be advantages of holding back when you could play a restricted card, just because you want the opponent to second-guess whether or not you are playing other restricted cards. But even if that argument isn't persuasive enough, I think this list is a necessary evil to accept. It sounds like the choices were more bannings/erratas, or a restricted list, and the one claim I can make with certainty is that there's a lot of disagreement on *what* exactly should be banned/errata'd. (As an aside, this could conveniently add somewhat of a drawback to Martell's myriad "reveal" and put into hand effects.)

ASoIaFfan said:

Yes. That would seem to be the point.

All the cards on this list are "high reward, low risk," so it is probably more about balancing risk and reward in a deck, not balancing or checking the power of any one card. In that regard, putting the Fury plots on makes perfect sense, regardless of what you think their power level is. Eight times out of 10, their power level is their stats, not their effects, you know.

Very interesting solution by FFG. Looking forward to the reports from the regionals on how effective this new rule is. And I agree with whoever suggested to put Valar Morghulis on the list.

I expect we will see The Laughing Storm included very soon.

As I love deck building maybe more than lpaying even I say that I like this list. It opens up more design space for deckbuilding and gives you lot less auto-include options.

Talk about the furys, I'm with Twn2dn on this one. Nice to see furys there as they will make you think "do I want to run this very stable plot or do I want to run some other powerful card?". These changes also increase the power of some of the cards since now you will see less fear of winter, NE, Val and pretty much everything on this. Probably the furys will get more powerful aswell since you aren't seeing it so often so if you play it there might not be the all too familiar "coin toss to see whose fury matters and who takes the better board position".

I really like these new changes and now its time to alter my decks to fit these rules

I like it, including the fury plots on the list. In Lanni Kneel I ran Fury of the Lion, Fear of Winter, Castellan of the Rock, and one copy of Val, and one copy of Narrow Escape. Its going to make me redesign some things, and it makes some variability occur.

Where this really really hurts me is my Stark weenie heavy deck. It used Val, NE, FoW, Fury, without a second thought. This changes everything. I like it.

It is really nice to know that if I see a VB I don't have to worry about Narrow Escape or Val, of if I see a Castellan I don't need to worry about FoW. It will be fun at regionals to see how long someone goes without revealing a restricted card, because it tells us something about what in, or not in, their decklist.

Overall, it makes the game better. I don't think LK will change too much, just the plot deck really, Castellan is too important to keep out . Most Martell decks will be keeping VB over Val or NE or their Fury plot, especially with the weenie control with Bara storming the board. Bara Rush will keep their Fury plot because with the possibility of three power challenges it fits nicely, but we don't need to worry about that combining with TLS and Val. And it lets us have some reset potential with Valar again.

I like it all a lot, good job FFG. It makes other deck types possible without falling drastically behind because of not running some predictable cards.

i think i also like the whole idea of a restricted card list. the chance of unbanning cards is good!

of course we can discuss about the cards that are in. i just wonder, why Valar Morghulis is not part of it. would have been my number 1.

while i like to play the Fury plots because of its great stats, often i do it mostly because i need the plot keyword (military, ...). so doing without will cause a new challenge. which is good ;-)

If Narrow Escape makes this list i don't see how Valar doesn't?

i am interested to see who picks Val over Fow, NE and a fury plot

I have lost many games by playing my Valar at the wrong time or being forced to play it when I don't want to. While I do play with Valar in 75% of my decks, that number has been dropping over the past year (it was 90% a year ago). I lost two games at Days of Ice and Fire due to misplaying Valar. It has horrible stats and has an ability which can be extremely helpful but also extremely harmful. There is no way it belongs on the restricted list.

The first year I won the joust Championship at Gencon (2004) I did NOT have Valar in my plot deck (or WIldfire for that matter) even though 90% of the field did have it.

The Fury plots on the other hand have ZERO negatives. They have the best stats (5/7/1), an ability that can NEVER hurt you, and they are traited. I would say 99% of my decks had one of the Fury plots in it.

This is good for the game. Now people actually get to think about which 7 plots they are choosing as opposed to thinking about which 6 plots they choosing.

Dobbler said:

qft

You haven't realized this but for most people the choice is Val or Narrow Escape.

FFG effectively just put all the other cards on the banned list.

Wow, this is very interesting for deck building. This does a lot to help some of the "auto-include" cards in many decks. It really brings the concept of opportunity cost into deckbuilding which could be a great thing.

PS Please do not put Jaqen H'Ghar on the Restricted List. Keeping him banned is probably the best idea

Dobbler said:

Just browsing through the most recent large tournaments decklists:

Valar was played in 7 out of the top 8 gencon joust decks last year (8 running fury, 4 Fear of Winter).

First and 2nd place at Black Friday were running Valar (2 running fury, 0 Fear of Winter).

6 out of the 8 decks in Days of Ice and Fire Joust were running it (6 running fury, 2 Fear of Winter).

Could only find 1 decklist from Stahleck no valar (1fury, 1 Fear of Winter).

I think if one of the cases for the restricted list is opening up deckbuilding possibilities then Valar deserves to be on this list as much as almost any other card.