Stag Lord said:

No one in the thread is really talking about restricting cards. The discussion seemed to be more about, "Why do people find hyper-control 'ok' but not hyper-rush?" At least, that's how I read it. Personally, I think you either allow for both, or for neither.

EDIT: Alright, Twn2dn mentioned it, but after that I think the conversation moved on.

Kennon said:

Oh, no - I always listen. And appreciate any shout outs, no matter how sarcastic

When I'm facing a control deck until the lock hits I usually feel like I am winning or will win. When the lock hits I usually know I hav e acard or two in my deck that will break the lock, I just need to get to them before my opponent wins. With Rush... well I'm not also playing rush I just have to hope to get the disrupting card in my opening hand, or that they don't get what they need in theirs.

Hyper rush becomes a flip of the coin, a roll of the dice, immediately.

Not saying anyone who sees it differently is wrong, just explaining why I feel hyper-control is more desirable than hyper-rush. Personally I think they both are equally non-interactive, once they hit their stride... the difference is the control takes about 2-3 turns to get into place, while the rush does it in one, and the game is over before the third challenge phase ends.

For players like Stags who have long harped the "draw is everything" mantra they feel keeps houses like Lannister and Martell on top and Baratheon on bottom, I'll say that the matter of hyper-rush versus hyper-control comes down to draw. If I'm playing against a hyper-control deck, I have many turns to draw into the pieces that I might need to break the lock or otherwise turn the game around in my favor. Each card that I draw over those turns is an equal number of possible chances. In a game against hyper-rush, I have that many fewer chances to have any impact of my own on the game.

Put simply, an environment that favors hyper-rush skews toward absolute min/max-ing, which will eliminate the play of a great many interesting but borderline cards, decks, and ideas at any sort of competitive level and will in general, be less fun for the majority of players.

Maybe the best solution for Heir to the Iron Throne is to make it Targaryen Only*

I think the real question is the environment it is being used in.

For example, a friend of mine runs a Lanni deck pretty much identical to last years world championship. As a casual player, anything I throw up against it will probably lose 4/5 times because the decks I am using are not made for tournaments. Yes, I could make them more optimal, but that would also make them less fun at the level I play at. Casual play leaves room for errors, which is nice, leaving the "deck vs deck" aspect out, and emphasizing more on the "player vs player." At the competitive level, you need both. You need a better list, and you need to be able to run that list better and more efficiently than your opponent can run theirs, because if you make a single mistake, they are (or should be) positioned to take advantage of it in a usually painful way. And when that swing happens, it happens big.

I don't think Heir will make a difference to me because every game I play is not leading up to GenCon or Regionals. In fact, I like melee more than joust because its the deals and inter personal play that makes it so much fun. Yes, I will be in Minni on May 13th for the LCG Days and Regionals, but your not going to find me running a Tier 1 deck. I plan to make the trip to GenCon anyway, but lets be serious. That first round joust by will not actually get most players anywhere when we pair up with rings or dobbler or kennon or FM in round 2. At least this way my casual deck won't get ravaged as quickly with the restricted list out. Maybe I will even double up on the passive plot sweeps to deal with the rush. Who knows, but if your like me and your only objective is to enjoy it, none of this really affects casual level play. In fact, it closes the gap between casual and competitive for us.

I think the real question is the environment it is being used in.

For example, a friend of mine runs a Lanni deck pretty much identical to last years world championship. As a casual player, anything I throw up against it will probably lose 4/5 times because the decks I am using are not made for tournaments. Yes, I could make them more optimal, but that would also make them less fun at the level I play at. Casual play leaves room for errors, which is nice, leaving the "deck vs deck" aspect out, and emphasizing more on the "player vs player." At the competitive level, you need both. You need a better list, and you need to be able to run that list better and more efficiently than your opponent can run theirs, because if you make a single mistake, they are (or should be) positioned to take advantage of it in a usually painful way. And when that swing happens, it happens big.

I don't think Heir will make a difference to me because every game I play is not leading up to GenCon or Regionals. In fact, I like melee more than joust because its the deals and inter personal play that makes it so much fun. Yes, I will be in Minni on May 13th for the LCG Days and Regionals, but your not going to find me running a Tier 1 deck. I plan to make the trip to GenCon anyway, but lets be serious. That first round joust by will not actually get most players anywhere when we pair up with rings or dobbler or kennon or FM in round 2. At least this way my casual deck won't get ravaged as quickly with the restricted list out. Maybe I will even double up on the passive plot sweeps to deal with the rush. Who knows, but if your like me and your only objective is to enjoy it, none of this really affects casual level play. In fact, it closes the gap between casual and competitive for us.

This discussion about game speed is getting interesting, so thought I would weigh in

I don't think there's any intrinsic benefit one way or the other for a game to be fast or slow. At the end of the day, people play short games like tic-tac-toe and long games like D&D. The thing that all games, I think, have in common though is that every player should feel at some level like they are "in the game." Once a player feels helpless or like they have no impact on the game, I would hope that the game ends shortly thereafter. So card design and rules should, in my opinion, structure the game so that games don't just drag on unnecessarily.

For people who think that ultra-fast rush (or even combo) is NPE, my guess is that they feel like its too non-interactive right from the beginning. An experience like that *IS* NPE. On the other hand, the same thing can (obviously) exist with control...and it can drag out even longer. I personally feel that given the 2+ card draw each turn AND the plots (which you are highly impactful and you will always be able to play), there are generally more chances to disrupt a control deck than there are to disrupt a rush deck. Every once in awhile though, control gets the lock but can't win right away...and those (awful) games really do feel like time is moving too slow.

In AGOT, I think both are bad. It should be extremely difficult (happen ~5% of the time for a "fast" deck) for a player to win on round 1, and still very difficult on round 2 (maybe 20% of the time for a fast deck?). On the other hand, getting an absolute "lock" should be very hard with control...and it actually has been very difficult to get that lock outside of Lanni hyperkneel or Martell control.

I suspect much of this recent discussion is fueled by the fact that the strongest control builds - Lanni and Martell - that were most likely to be able to get that "lock," and thus compete with the rising strength of uber-fast rush (Bara), have taken a big hit with the Restricted List. At the same time, it's perceived that Bara rush will become even stronger with the introduction of Heir (so that round 1 wins happen ~15% of the time, and round 2 wins happen most of the time). So the pendulum is swinging back the other way toward aggro/rush. If that's the case, it's really just a matter of time before designers/players overcompensate again toward control, unless we can all agree that something more in the middle (rush that is a little slower, combo that is less consistent, and control that has major weaknesses) is more desirable.

Twn2dn said:

Agreed, I also dislike how the designers have a tendency of giving a House bad cards in future cycles if it's already "too good." Lanni DotN is the perfect example. Lanni BwoB wasn't amazing either.

It also has to deal with the # of moving parts. To be honest, rush might be getting to the point where a built in card you start the game with (the Agenda), combo'd with efficient cards, renown cards, and an ever-expanding list of game-quickening cards, has very few parts you need to draw.

Kneeling/lock doesn't have an agenda that starts the kneeling/lock process. In the past, they just had better cards. Rush is catching up, AND has an agenda.

Again, this is way to early to tell - and historically whenever rush started getting props for being too powerful, it never really was. Broken record time: I still wouldn't mind some more control cards al la Tears/PTTS/PTTT/Fire from the Sky that might help a little more.

Twn2dn said:

Have we had any consistent combos in this game?

Twn2dn said:

Agree with your whole argument - and the above in particular. Of course I'm coimng from teh point of view that over the hsitory of this agem, cotnrol locks ahev been much more prevalent and much more represented than Rush decks. Even with Jousting and Tourney Grounds - it was still pretty easily disrupted.

Stag Lord said:

True, but there has never been a period in aGoT history with less control cards (IMHO of course). Rush was MUCH more easy to disrupt when you could target kill the guy w/ 4 power.

Have I suggested just making Heir to the Throne House Targaryen Only ?

Just finished the entire episode (I usually break them in 1/2) - good episode for sure.

Oh, and I used to be the lead banker for Rogue Ales (Dead Guy Ale being their #1 seller) out of Newport, OR (with Rogue offices in Portland as well). They used to have a vendor-type day where they would open the warehouse for free samples, along with a casino and stuff. Best...client...EVER. Never came to a meeting without a 12 pack - so I know where Will is coming from trying to 'work' while having a few.

rings said:

rings said:

All relative of course. There are still much better control cards available thanaggro cards - although i am getting an agenda. Back when you had more control tools, i ahd better rush cards - ABC, servant of rhllor, forvever vigilant....off the top of my head.

Kennon said:

But yeah, point taken. I'd like to see more game-swinging combos (not just a "combo" of interacting cards) that can majorly swing or win a game in rounds 2-4.

Stag Lord said:

Really? Like what control cards? I am seriously wondering...

The thing about rush is that they have a keyword (renown) or two (stealth helps too). They don't need events really, since their keyword effectively doubles/triples/+++ the 'claim' effect of power challenges.

There are pretty decent control cards for smaller characters (V. Blade, burn, Grey Wind, etc.) or non-uniques (Seductive, Toll Gate, etc.). But what is the control cards for Robert with an attachment and 5 power on him...Bear Island? Red Wedding? There are some situational or combo control cards, but nothing like PTTS. Yeah, rush lost some, but they got 90 cents on the dollar replacements it seems.

*shrug*

rings said:

You are thinking mostly of "kill" control cards. I find some of the best control cards don't involved kill, but involved repeat incapacitation - Black Cells, Shaggy Dog, Alchemist Guild Hall, Castellan, Lannisport Brothel, Wicked Seductress, Kingswood Trail, Flogged and Chained, Wintertime Maruaders, Motley, Stinking Drunk, Lost Oasis, Milk of the Poppy, etc, etc.. Then there are others which involve single shot incapacitation: Orphan, Burning, Cyvasse, Distration, Parting Blow, etc, etc. There is alot of control in the game right now. Is it more or less than the CCG days? I have no idea. But much of it is different than the CCG days, and there seems to be much more control that doesn't involve removing cards from the table.

Dobbler said:

~If you don't have any idea I do...

Removal and control are different. I guess I should have been more specific. There is just as much control (I don't think there is MORE), but almost no removal. Control can be stopped much more easy (since you usually have to do it again and again, or keep the attachment on), while removal is...well...removal.

What Dobbs said.

Yeah - you should have been specific. No; there isn't as much removal, but Fat Bob gets knelt or blanked pretty much just as easily as he used to. Sure - he's still on the baord, but no way does he rush consistently game after game. like the Viper can. (Only cause TRV has immunity).

rings said:

Yes, much less removal in todays environment