kpmccoy21 said:

Secondly, I think Val + TLS is on face an unbalanced combination...not because it's in Bara. (In other words, it would be bad if Targ, Stark, or any other house had this ability.) So complaints about the combo are probably valid no matter what deck it's played in.

If you're wondering where "Bara control" entered the discussion, I think it had more to do with some "Bara players" arguing that "non-Bara players" just don't understand and/or don't mind nerfing Bara into oblivion, to which some "non-Bara" players responded that "we do in fact play Bara" and "there is more than one way to play Bara, so you shouldn't look at Bara through the singular lense of Bara rush." (Of course, both sides are just trying to gain more credibility based on how much experience they have with a particular house. I personally don't find it very persuasive as I ultimately think that, even if a card effect in one house may be overpowered for another house, Val + TLS are probably *broken* (yep, I said "broken") in any house.

kpmccoy21 said:

Right?

I guess the Bara haters are pretty much conceding that Val+T:S isn't a bgi deal in a rush deck sicne they ahev come to accept that dedicating 6+ cards to a draw engine that gets handled pretty easily by, you know - everything, isn't a really good diea for a rush build. Thus teh real problem is the draw engine out fo Bara control, and since I rather doubt such a build will approach anyhting close to the consistency of Lanni kneel or Martell challenge lock, I seriously question the calls for TLS to be restricted.

Apart form the fact that he doesn't fit certain play styles that are somewhat voer represnted here. Maybe if we're lcuky though, a few of us will actually get to play with the card before it is restricted. Cause, um again - he isn't even out yet.

I hope hes not restricted. Its has to be standing to have it's effect, and theres a lot of kneel effect - one of them being attacking in challenges.

All Bara is going to have a rush component. It is impossible not to. Any control deck (at least that I build) will still be aiming at winning turn 3-4 maximum - is that control compared to the turn 2 aggro decks? Yep. But, the deck isn't centered around the quick (est) win.

rings said:

+1

...sounds exactly what I tend to build as well. Not the "throw everything that's not nailed down overboard to increase speed" -route, but rather a cocktail of rush and control elements, suitably mixed. And in that mixture at least, solid draw + immunity to intrigue is huge.

Although, I really can't see how this combo will be hard to fit in pure rush decks either... Theoretical Rush construction time!

They're probably running Val to begin with (1-2x copies would be my guess), so it's only making room for 4-5 more cards. And even without any other abilities, the deadly (M,P) on a 3 gold character is pretty huge for Bara in creating unopposed challenges and help push them through, should be a decent compensation for losing one renown character.

So... if you switch one 3 gold renown away, let's go with say 2-3x copies of Renly (one of the two best 3 gold renown characters, Knight of the Flowers being the other one. Renly is the more 'overpowered' in stats of these two, so let's use him as benchmark, even though most Rush decks run less efficient 3 gold chars as well. You lose the I icon, but it will become obsolete to begin with soon enough (Heir, if not TLS itself). Lose the +1 str (not important in Rush, usually). Switch Noble to War, which is the first actual loss, due to Power of Blood. Gain the M icon, which is good. And change the very conditional draw to a solid draw that will help you stay in the game for 1-2 more rounds (due to having more characters, saves and stand from the draw), plus get to choose whether you want to use your stands to stop from losing cards from your hand, and ~50% of the time, not have to make that choice at all. I think I'm still missing 1-2 cards... but any less efficient draw effects you were running beforehand (R'Hllors Blessing, King Robert's Debt) would make up for that. Presto, TLS+Val Rush with 3x of both.

Stag Lord said:

Actually, he is out. I have him in hand. And I never said he was good/bad only in a rush deck, maybe other people did. We were talking about Bara being good, not Bara rush (although all Bara has some rush tempo built in).

And actually, he isn't pretty easily handled by 'everything'. The list of perm control effects (for a card with a perm ability) is pretty short. Stark has a few. Lanni has kneeling if you can set it up. Targ has burn, but it has to be a combo of cards @ 3 strength. Milk. Then there is...um...

All of those effects have counters to them that are just as efficient as the control functions.

Again, people love to say characters die so easily, but that hasn't been my experience since the LCG started. *shrug*

rings said:

Rings, I don't want you to feel like I'm specifically hating on you by only replying to your posts and shooting them down, but it always happens that you're the most recent post when I decide to chime in.

"Lanni has kneeling if you can set it up." You mean by drawing 7 cards before the game starts? By playing one (of a multitude) of their kneel effects? I must have missed when kneeling things out of Lanni became a struggle. Maybe when Bara took over as the biggest draw house?

As for these efficient counters, which of them are out of Bara, again? Cannot be Bribed, Cannot be Bought? TLS has brought more useless cards to the forefront than any card I've seen. I had to blow the dust off of Ser Preston Greenfield to actually read his text.

As for kill effects, every house still has access to the Military challenge, right?

If I'm kneeling (milking, killing, whatever) TLS, I'm not doing that to Double Renown Bobby or any of the other threats on the table that were the previous targets of such cards.

Yes, there are ways to control TLS, but that usually means something else is not being controlled. I'm fine that this creates an interesting and important game decision, but let's not pass it off by saying "just kneel him". It's never as simple as that with multiple threats on the table. Saying you can kill him via military is also over simplifying things a lot.

I may have been the one freaking out about TLS in Bara rush. Strictly speaking I think he will slow down really tight, turn 2 rush builds. However, the pay back is potentially huge with regards to covering up weaknesses in that build, and a deck that still pushes for power, but gets there over 3 or 4 turns, looks very strong to me.

And this has nothing to do with Bara specifically, other than the fact that TLS is house Bara only, and fills some pretty big holes for them. By itself, I think TLS does more out of Bara than it would out of any other house. However, TLS could be Martell, and I would still have concerns with the combos out there, specifically the ones envolving draw.

This is also not a personal attack on Alec, or Stag Lord, or anyone. Alec is a great player, and his opinions are worth reading. Stag Lord's comments are valuable, although he is a Rangers fan, but everyone makes mistakes. These are just my concerns over TLS that may, or may not, be confirmed in the coming months.

Deathjester26 said:

But, by the same logic, if the Bara player is spending 3 gold to pay The Laughing Storm, then they don't have that gold to play the aforementioned Robert Baratheon.

If the argument that " using your Milk of the Poppy/Nightmares to zap TLS means you can't then use it to zap other threats " turns you on, then why aren't you equally excited by the fact that TLS will be hogging up deck-slots that would otherwise have been filled by 'rushier' characters and/or that he'll be using up the rushing player's precious gold and stopping them playing power-grabbers like Eldon, Robert and Stannis as fast as usual?

# Rings: "Lanni has kneel, if tehy can set it up" just may be the funiiest thing I have read on the boards all year. Daer god - thank you for that laugh

@ DJ: Yes - the control elements you have built inot your deck (like every competitive deck) will now have to be allocated to multiple atrgets. Do you handle the draw engine of TLS or do you handle teh rsuh threat. It is part of the difficult decision tree that is at the ehart of the agme and pardon me for nto feeling bad for control palyers having to think about what to shut down during the game. and though i do appreciate your sentiments - this call for restriction is, by nature, baratehon hate - since the is House Baratheon only and may well be needed to elevate tehm to top tier.

As you say though - lets see if the cries of alarm are borne out this Regional season. i remain frankly convinced that what we are seeing is a vocal minoriy opinion about a card that doesn't fit a particualr play style. Again - the card isn't even out yet (oh - sorry its been out two days - it hasn't been played with competitvely yet).

i'm done with this conversation. Talk to me again in june. This thread is going on my mental 'ignore' list.

LoneWanderer said:

Why does the 3 gold spent on TLS have to take the place of Robert? There are plenty of cards (i.e. AToR Renly) that I usually don't worry about locking down. Let's spend the 3 gold we would have spent on Renly on TLS.

I made a point to mention that yes, TLS does indeed slow down a turn 2 rush build. When I play control vs. rush, I'm not worried about slowing it down. I'm worried about stopping it. IMHO, there are 2 ways to do that. 1, hold off the initial rush until the player's hand fizzles and use card advatage to get back in the game. 2, hit their hand with intrigue to cause this fizzle ASAP. TLS can stop both of those weaknesses. I would gladly trade in my turn 2 win for a turn 3 or 4 win and a card that plugs the major weaknesses of my deck.

Again, I'm not saying ban the card. Let's play with it for a while and see if this is all true.

Stag Lord said:

I haven't lost to Lanni Kneel in a tourney yet *shrug*

People act like kneel it is unbeatable, or it is too easy to set up and can't be disrupted. Nope. Put in ally removal, Seductive Promise, and some location removal. That is a good start. I guess I don't like it to get set up. ~Maybe you wait too long? To be honest, it is a lot easier to disrupt than a 2 character combo that draws 3X a turn plus stops intrigue claim and a host of other effects (some of which are triggered by the player playing LTS).

Lanni Kneel won Worlds using a good deck and a very good player. I didn't get to play him (that I remember, maybe I am blocking getting crushed by him, but for the life of me I don't remember playing him), and maybe I would have been destroyed by him. Maybe I would have beat him - I offered to play after the tourney (since it was the only deck in the Top 4 I didn't play, having gotten 4th), but he said no - rightfully so (he was tired, he just won Worlds, etc.). it really hasn't won anything since (even before Restricted List), unless someone wants to correct me?

Military challenges rarely, if ever, break up a character combo. If you get military claimed out of winning...well, your deck has issues. And don't worry Alec - I never take anything personally!

Bara can't pay for TLS and Robert on the same turn? Or flop one of them? What?!? Bara has the best gold location in the game right now...I don't even know how to respond to that logic really...

But, like SL I will stop talking about it (finally, I know!). We all have opinions - I just don't like what he does any more than I liked the old Queen of Thorns or the mythical Lanni character that would claim 3 for Renown or a dreamed up Martell-house Blackfish. How he is any less powerful than the Castellean is beyond me

I, for one, would love to see a Martell Blackfish. lulz

rings said:

~*cough*

finitesquarewell said:

Good point, although THAT was a Lanni Traitor deck I didn't even get close to kneel-locked, if I remember right I got rid of the Castelleans. I just lost (which happens a lot around you).