Or Lannister (for Tommen) or Martell (for Myrcella) or Neutral (for Littlefinger - I mean, eventually, let's face it).

+1 to Littlefinger!

Kennon said:

For truth. I was obsessed with finding a slot for core set Little Finger, when I first got into the game.

Seems like people are forgetting that there were events after Worlds. Several of them. Some of them quite large. In which Lanni kneel got drubbed by Wildling decks out of Stark and Martell. Erick has claimed a certain Lanni Kneel deck couldn't ever beat his Stark Wildling in testing. So I wouldn't get too worked up over how poorly aggro decks have been doing. Yes, a Lanni kneel deck beat a Wildling deck, but looking at the whole tournament season tells the bigger picture. Before that, as was mentioned, Stark Siege with Epics ran amok during the Regionals season. So let's take it easy with the revisionist history.

The writing was on the wall that Bara's speed was going to define the meta with Heir to the Iron Throne, and not in a good way. I would have been happier if it had been "any house but Bara," but c'est la vie.

If you want to play the game, then quit whining about cards being changed and play the **** game. Otherwise, put your cards in a box and stuff them in the closet. Geez, we could be playing Magic and dropping $100+ on a single playset of a card that will no longer be useable in 6-9 months. The playtesters aren't paid for doing what they do it's all voluntary. If they miss something, oh well. People have lives. Heaven forbid they do anything other than look for every single broken combo in a card pool that never decreases and gets harder to playtest every time a new set comes out.

skeletonator said:

If we want to be truly Nedly and adhere to Westeros lore then the only true Heir to the Iron Throne is Daenerys and an Agenda named Heir to the Iron Throne is truly appropriate only out of House Targaryen. Her claim is the only true one. Any claim for the Iron Throne Jon Snow might have had was forfeited when he took the black of the Night's Watch as was his Great-Uncle Aemon's before him

Although the Dragon does have three heads. Daenerys is the first. Jon Snow would probably be the second but who is the third head of the dragon?

longclaw said:

I played Stark/Siege/epic events at the Regional in NYC and Wildlings at Black Friday. I'm well aware of both deck types and when they hit the environment and when they were banned out of prominence or made unplayable. No Revisionist history here. Stark/Siege/epic events was made unplayable by the NW and Wildling army decks which were nerfed by the banning. Stark Siege had a shelf life of less than 2 months and was really Stark murder(which is a form of control) and Wildlings was only allegedly unstoppable by Lanni Hyperkneel post GenCon. Because Alec beat Wildling decks to win the tournament. So Stark ?Siege?Epic had less than 2 months of "dominance" and Wildlings post GenCon to the banning. Wildlings were heavily represented at GenCon and many placed top 8. But even if you want to include GenCon, that only adds maybe 2 months to Aggro's "time in the sun."

Most people who ran Wildlings ran them as the character base of their control oriented build. Targ burn/Wildlings, Martell challenge control/Wildlings, Stark Murder/Wildlings, etc

And for the sake of full disclosure, aren't you a control player through and through, Longclaw.

LaughingTree said:

If we want to go by the laws of succession in Westeros, Stannis is the true heir since Robert had no legitimate children. Targ's won the kingdom through conquest and lost it the same way. Dany has as much claim as anyone with a large enough army to conquer and maintain their empire. No more, no less. By public perception, the Lannister children have a claim as true born heirs of Robert. Westeros has been a "might makes right" world since the conquest of Aegon the Conqueror, and it doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon.

Husemann said:

Post release of complete Wildling/NW cycle of chapter packs:

GenCon: 1st-Lanni kneel.

2nd-Martell/Uber Viper

Days of Ice and Fire: 1st-Stark/Wildlings

2nd-Lanni kneel

Any other Major Joust events in the US before the banning?

kpmccoy21 said:

I'm guessing he is referring to some of the overseas tourney's that far outdrew the major US tourneys.

I'm out.

No Regionals for me. I won't be buying any Maester cycle CPs or the Targ box. Won't be posting much here any more. I doubt i'll be helping to set up Black Friday in NY.

I'm just not interested in palying a game where control players always get what they want. Always. Its been nice chatting with some of you. Take care.

Stag Lord said:

Sorry you feel that way Chris, but I sort of understand...it certainly seems that way given the lack of explanation (or any form of real communication) from FFG. I honestly doubt their aim was to stick it to aggro players, but given the last-minute decision without justification, it certainly reads how you've framed it.

FFG, if you're listening, this is EXACTLY the reason why marketing shouldn't be in charge of your direct communication with its community. I work in the PR/communications field, and you failed epically (as you continue to do) at this. You have to understand, there's a BIG difference between marketing a product (short-term) and engaging your customers to build a community that will ultimately create a brand (long-term). And organized play support (while an important component) doesn't fill the hole either, as the reactions on this thread exemplify.

NYC, which tends to have large turnout, is looking this year like it will be eclipsed (in turnout) by DC's regionals. I hope that's not the case, but losing key community drivers like Stag and Kpmccoy has a much larger impact than losing 2 players. That could cost us 5+ people or more.

It seems that the Wilmington/Philadelphia meta won't be traveling to the NYC or DC regional, so that's <however many> people less for both.

Stag Lord said:

Stag Lord said:

Oh, jeez. I have always really liked Stag, but that might be the most emo thing I have heard. Taking his toys and leaving the sandbox I guess.

For the record, I wouldn't quit if they would have kept TLS non-restricted. Or kept the agenda for all houses. My favorite house, Lanni, has had good success, but hasn't won THAT much and has the lion's share (pun intended) of bannings/restricted/etc. I didn't quit on rotation, or LCG, or anything. I enjoy the basic rules, the people, and the world too much.

It is two cards. That you can still use. Get a grip my friend.

As a sidenote - almost no decks I see are either control OR aggro, but some combo of each. I love the renown keyword since it can speed up games so you can press your advantage. I like control cards to keep the board simple, and to remove threats. I think (with some exceptions like hyper-kneel) almost all decks are a combo of both.

Sidenote #2 - I wish I had kept copies of all the threads where something is banned or erratta'd. We get complaints, and then go on to keep playing basically 99.99% the same game and forget about it 1 month later.

If you didn't have control, it would only be a race to the best character/agenda *shrug*

To comment on the Lanni vs. Wildling: There's obviously little doubt that Lanni could beat it at the time of GenCon last year; however, Stark Wildling/NW Defense was pretty much owning it (and a lot of other builds) in my internal play testing prior to GenCon (alas I couldn't go ). In fact, I was expecting Stark Wildling/NW Defense to win the Joust event that year, but I don't think anyone played with it or took advantage of the Traitorous Crow/The Wall if they did. Do I really know if it would have won; of course not, and I'm not trying to undermine Alec's performance or victory. My point is Wildlings/NW were insane aggro, and while not invincible, they were the decks to beat, and some were very much less beatable than others. Since then, both the Wildlings/NW and Lanni kneel have been gimped.

So while I think the active community of players that talk on these forums may be more biased towards control, FFG has very much allowed for extreme elements on either side and they are realizing that isn't a good thing....or are they?

Bringing me to Twn2dn's point that FFG did do a horrible job with presentation this update and they messed up on their marketing - big time. I don't know (nor does anyone else) if Heir was errata because it was in fact a misprint or done for balance, but this a problem. We don't know what design is really thinking (neither does their Marketing department apparently) and if players want to be upset over a lack of communication -- I'm with you there too. It's just that FFG usually does nothing and doesn't communicate. When I see 1 for 2, I'm happy, but there's no really no reason why we can't have both.

Had this update come a month ago or had marketing and design had better communication, I don't think people would be reacting as negatively as they are now. In the long run, I believe the update is and will be for the best, but I understand where those that are upset are coming from; even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Stag Lord after carefully considering your resignation I have decided to deny it. While i understand your frustration and would usually accept your decision, with regionals coming up and a promise of future practice i cannot allow you to quit. You are needed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Sincerely,

all NY players

jack merridew said:

+1

~I think the old man is just acting up due to increased cramping again.

jack merridew said:

"Heir to the throne" Targa only surpised me... Anyway I pretty understand reasoning of this. I'm an aggro player so now taht after first "restricted" my stark common deck lost his sense (no narrow, no fear of winter, no party) I feel the bad feeling of some gamers.

Anyway we all knew (more or less) that TLS needed "something". We spoke in a forum about changing its test limiting it to intrigue challenge. I think putting him to the restricted list is the wisest thing. At least avoid a NPE combo with Val and at least If I kill him Narrow escape cannot affect the situation.

The best thing I feel about the restricted list is to have Narrow Escape out of 99% of the decks. Lanni will choose castellan, Stark or Fury or fear, Baratheon TLS, greyjoy Fury and so on.

I hated Narrow escape since first time i saw it (and I played it). So I don't feel Baratheon rush deck getting lesser competitive. This is my thinking. Solution to test and design a game can be only 2:

1-rotation

2-errata,ban,restricted

I strongly prefer number 2.

I think one thing is clear:

Heir to the Iron Throne with Baratheon would have been like the lions turning into voltron. It might seem awesome but the agenda's extra power challenge at the cost of intrigue would not really affect things until you have a claim 2 plot and giving you a net gain of 2 power. (If the opponent has 4 power on their house). Otherwise in the early game for rush... does an intrigue or power challenge differ since the opponent isn't likely to have much power on their house... and you still get power for uo and renown regardless of challenge type.

TLS - Again, if you are targeting turn 3 to win as a rush deck, does 3 cards matter in the long run? This card was more broken in twink combo decks and Bara control then Bara rush.

I actually challenge anyone to provide a detailed explanation as to how either of these cards help in the first 3 turns of the game.

bloodycelt said:

The current rush decks don't target turn three wins, they target turn 1 and 2 wins. I played a Bara rush deck proxying Heir last thursday at our local store. I was also proxying THreat from the East and using TLS/Val stuff.

I won game one on turn ONE with 19 power.

I won game two on turn TWO with 22 power.

Both games I got out TLS...Game 1 I used him in conjuction with Val. Game 2 I used him in conjuction with THreat from the east.

Arena Knight, Knight of Flowers, ANtishadows Robert, lots of power stealth...and hopefully DotN Melisandre. Those are the cards that kicked Heir into overdrive. TLS just helped me pad my hand with 3 extra cards in the first turn, and with all the cheap reduction (3x Seat, 3x Narrow Sea) I had no problem flooding the board.

Dobbler said:

~Wait, aren't you a control player!?

But yeah, Bara Heir was pulling Turn 1, 2 wins for me as well, and draw helps everything regardless of whether it's rush, aggro, control, combo, etc.

I had the distinct pleasure of watching Dobbler, sit across the table from me and drop a TLS on set up then threat from the east into a Val. Turn 2 loss with my bara power, and a turn 3 or 4 loss with my clansmen. It was brutal! The whole time he was remarking that TLS should be restricted, I couldn't help but agree.

Fotonurth said:

It was actually turn 1 against your Bara and turn 2 against the Clansman.

Bara rush is still good though, now I might just have to think a little about how I put the deck together.

kpmccoy21 said:

None of that holds if you don't accept Robert Baratheon as the true King on the Iron Throne. He was just a temporary Usurper. Clearly Robert never felt like the true King while the Targaryens still lived and Barristan the Bold spoke true when he left Joffrey for the true Heir to the Iron Throne.

Of course those with favorite Houses can make a valid argument. But its not a sound argument unless you accept Robert's claim as true which not even Robert really accepted in his heart.