Everyone who posts "Baratheon isn't dead, but the best builds are Wildling, Maesters, control, and toolbox." That was never the point. The point is that Power Rush has no place in the game. If Baratheon cannot run Rush in Joust, no other house has a chance at Rush in Joust. Also, if I wanted to play toolbox, Stark has better search. If I wanted to run heavy character or challenge control, Martell and Lannister are better. And Wildlings and Maesters are really house interchangeable. It's not necessarily about house, it's about playstyle. There is an active campaign for Rush to be held down. Control and big beefy Aggro are fine, but start claiming power and the majority of players on these boards start agreeing that Rush needs to suppressed at all costs.

Hmmm... the deck I won with in MO was certainly about as far down to the rush end of the spectrum as anything that's won a regional. I'd guess it's probably more along the lines of tempo, but it sure feels like it's playing differently from control.

I still see Stark Seige builds as powerful rush options. They just generally also happen to abuse my least favorite card in the game.

Kennon said:

I concur, but I'm curious as to which card...Frozen Outpost?

Haha, Fear of Winter, actually.

Agree that Brotherhood is a strong Rush deck. Stark Siege really didn't make much of a showing this Regional. At least not in the top cuts.

I started playing AGoT at roughly the time that the Core Set came out. Since that point, it seems like there hasn't really been that much of a rush presence in the game (probably the Siege decks have come the closest?). What kind of position would rush players like rush decks to have in the LCG environment? One of the things that I like about AGoT (as compared e.g. to M:tG) is that the games take longer, involve larger numbers of cards, and require more tactical decisions (in contrast, M:tG games often come down to strategic decisions made before turn one). Rush seems in principle to push away from this space and so doesn't seem like something I'd like to see become more viable. However, as I said above, I don't think I have really experienced rush as an integral part of an environment, so I might not understand it properly.

Really i think Rush is not dead because of Martell/Brotherhood, which is fro me the best House for Rush .. ANd i'm a Bara player!!

Really i think Rush never be so efficient in Joust, But in Melee, there some meta where they only play Rush!! And in all house ^^

I'm still pretty sure that baratheon rush is a viable build, saw one here in melee that nearly won in one turn even when 3 players had been kicking him down the first 3 turns. I think there are few rush builds with baratheon that are possible in joust. In joust WWDrakey had a built one called "ultimate power" that most of my decks have lost to, it heavily uses epic battles/extra power challenges to get as many P challenges as possible in one turn and used renowned vigilance/nonkneeling characters to claim power fast. In those games if I was unable to fully stop it turn 1 I pretty much lost it since the deck was able to sometimes win turn 1. Dunno if he has completely discarded that deck idea since I haven't seen him playing it for awhile, but tuned version of it could have possibilities. (Also I would have had no chance of stopping it if he would have had that heir agenda on that deck...).

I don't know about rush being actively put down. I liken the game to walking across a balance beam, one you make it across you win. Think of Rush v control as to the speeds in which you travel across the beam. As a rush player you go as quick as you can but if you get disrupted at all you most likely fall off the beam and probably can't recover. A control player is going across slowly, maybe even crawling and if they get disrupted there's a good chance they will be able to retain their balance and keep going. And that's why at tournaments you see most of the champs (or folks with chumptitude) playing control, they are more consistent, and that's what gets you through swiss.

kpmccoy21 said:

kpmccoy21 said:

Pretty hard to argue this thesis from a design standpoint. Actions speak so much louder than Designer Journlas. And its the vibe you get competitive community as well - I can cite any number of instances where notable personalities have posted "I don't like rush because I don't like games to be over on tunr 1 or 2. I feel like I can disrupt a control deck given enough time" Too mnay tiems have I read or heard that to discount teh feeling that this sentiment is over represented.

To th specific examples cited: Stark Siege looks good on paper - but it never seems to win anything. I think they rely more on cramming in as many milaitry challenges as possible as opposed to characters getting multiple attacks off. so if you can withstand the intial blitz - they run out of challenges adn you cna manage tehm form Turn three onward. Taht's why Lineage & Legacy and Uneasy Peace see a lot of action in Stark heavy metas.

Beric is Beric. You ahve to have control, and it has to be more than Milk of the Poppy and he can be dealt with. He has shifted the meta towards mroe control (teh way soem peopel were arguing TLS eventually would) and there is no doubt he is good out of Martell - but I'm nto a big fan of the "all eggs/one basket' design and its still not what I am looking for philosophically.

So the rush options that are there aren't exactly the multiplatform speed builds that some of us want and miss.

And KP is exactly right when he argues: why opt for Baratheon as a toolbox or control build when Stark searches for tools better and other Houses do control so much more efficiently? Its a losing proposition.

For a good many players, an envrionment without a viable aggressive rush build spiking your adrenaline and ending games in just a few brutal challenge phases is missing something.

I know I am splitting hairs, but is rush considering turn 1 or 2, or can it go longer? I actually think Bara has options for a slower rush - it is amazing how getting to 10 power with a couple of saves on the table turn 2 can change the game rather than having 5-6.

I think rush is viable. If this regional season has taught me anything (~other than I shouldn't post when the French are) it is that good players tend to win quite a bit. And other than Dobbler, many of the better players gravitate towards their favorite houses as long as their is a viable victory solution. I just haven't known many of the historically winning players to enjoy playing Bara, probably due (at least for me) to the perceived notion that it is 'win fast or lost fast' coin flip? Even Stag Lord splits his time between Bara and other houses like Targ. Stanton is the only truly dedicated Bara player that I can think of, and he has had decent success.

On the stage of the game, Power Rush is up there with Discard and Agendas on the hardest thing to balance. It really is a razor edge, mainly since the power rush cards are perms while MOST control cards are not repetative (and yes, I know VB, Bear Island, Grey Wind and some others are).

I agree, rings - balancing rush is really,, really hard. i don't want to see it ever become reliable, becuase then ti will dominate. I just think they always step too far the other way Like mill - if ti gets too reliable, everyone will play it and that would be just as boringa s all these Martell and lannister decks doing the same thing tournament afetr torunament the way it is now.

its kind of why i like playing with newbies and casual players more. these days. I lose about half the time, becuase I'll constrain my builds and only use Core set decks + like one cycle - but I see a lot of variety and the game is vibrant. not Martell summer. Greyjoy winter, Lannister kneel ....

Anyway - I can see how balancing things can be really tough. FAQ 3.2 for instance. I buy their argument that the Heir things was designed before retsricted List and with control slightly hampered with Castellan and Fear and VB getting limited - that extra uncancellable constant pwoer challenge could be an issue for the Vigilant Renown House. my issue was TLS - becuase given that lsit; it wasn't an automatic that eh woudl pair up with Val in every deck, and even when he did - he would get turned off by most decks anyway. You 9and others_ differed but I wnated to settle the argument in tournament play - and i feel cheated that we'll never know. Here - i think R&D played it TOO conservatively.

Its tough. Balancing this stuff is tough. Getting your ass kicked on turn 2 challenge 1 can turn people off if it happens all day. I can't rmemeber hsi baord name now, but I dropped the first round match at Origins 2008 to the guy form the Cincinatti meta, Redwoman's protege, playing the fastest goddam Baratheon deck I ahd ever seen. thsi was faster than any Jousting deck from Valyrian block. i think ti was Brothers at war Agenda and it sure sued J'aquen H'gar adn a hwoel bunch fo vigilant gusy with renwon atatchments - but he never even got J'aqen out agaisnt me. i tipped my hat - but i am a fan of the House. I didn't mind lsoing liek that - but I know some people would. I know he ended up losing in the finals to longclaw who knoced me out in teh cut round...but that might have been his only loss on the day.

i wnat that abck. stuff like that. Consistent, but not automatic. scary fast, but beatable if you knock it off kilter. I'm asking for balance adn i knwo its ahrd on R&D - but you do get teh sesne that they let OP control stuff get out and hang aorund a lot longer than OP Rush stuff - and that just feels wrong to me.

Oh - and that Staton guy has discredited himslef too may times with LANNISTER (!!!) builds at big events to get the loyalist title. The only pure Baratheon loyalist who was a force at the big games was King Madkasel, may the Seven keep him safe.

Well, since I guess I made the original statement about there being several other builds out of Baratheon I am somewhat obligated to respond. While I will agree that the rush decks of the past are no longer viable (out of Bara) it sort of makes me wonder what makes people choose favorite houses. If its the style of play I would say try Targ Heir or Martell Brotherhood. If its the type of character or flavor I don't really see how its changed that much (Nor do I see Val/TLS representing a throwback to that flavor).

Either way, I can't disagree that the Bara of today is not the Bara of the past. In fact, I would argue the same about both Stark and Greyjoy. That doesn't mean its not a viable house or fun to play.

Stag Lord said:

Stag Lord said:

Yeah and how many Targ decks did you take to major events?

I think you're right for the most part. The powers at be enjoy control for the most part, and those are the cards that they like making. Although there actually IS a very strong rush build in bara, everyone just uses it to discard cards though instead of claiming power.

Stag Lord said:

I consider myself to be a pretty loyal Bara player. Sure, I am new to the game (comparatively), but this last regional was the first tournament I've ever played in as something other than Bara. You can thank Shadow Stag for that. His Targ deck was consistently rolling my Bara deck, and I knew that there was going to be a ton of Targ and Lannister, two difficult matchups for my deck. So, as a result of my perception of the meta, I did not play Baratheon.

ShivesMcShivers said:

You're approaching this way too logically, shives. The Baratheon fan base has long somewhat cult-like in its dedication to the House, despite being the historically most under performing of the six. Just look to Fieras, a relatively new player already proudly self identiifying as a Satg loyalist. So yeha - Targ hHier might satisfy the rush fix (though given their lack of renown - I seriously doubt it) but Baratheon players aren't going to stray too far in that direction

Where Baratheon stands out, where it gets its flavor is mostly in the areas or renown and stand - lending to a focus on Rush. They may toolbox well, they can even play around with their Asshai build and try to go with the hand strip delayed rush startegy. But other Houses do control and sahdows better - and the path to the Iron Throne is always going to be less effective when you try and play other Houses' game.

And we wholly agree that "Val/TLS not representing a throwback to that flavor". It was certainly being represented that way during the online debate though - which was a constant source of irritation and frustration for me.

Laughing Storm doesnt belong on the Restricted List

yea, i said it

Would we have been better off it he had just been erratta'd to say "Don't discard as a result of intrigue challenges"?

No - he should have been left alone. He was fine the way he was. Some disagree - but we'll never know now. He has seen a little play since he was Restricted - he even made a couple of Regionals decks: Has anyone noticed him unbalancing things becuase Baratheon could hold on to an extra random card or two a turn?

I've said it before, i'll say it again. Val should be banned. TLS is under-costed, but otherwise is fine as printed (especially with the power creep we're beginning to see in characters in general, which is arguably a good thing).

As long as Val is legal, TLS will have to stay on the restricted list. She gets banned, he can come off. Pyro's should be banned again too, but that's a different thread (and perhaps so is this TLS conversation).

The Laughing Storm is a very good card for Baratheon for sure - it shores up a weakness of a power rush deck and it's very efficiently costed. That being said, there's plenty of characters as powerful or more in the game. TLS is not the issue to me - it's Val in combination with TLS.

The only thing I can think of other than banning Val is maybe making the restricted list consist of separate "levels" or tiers. Where each group of cards on the restricted list is mutually exclusive with other cards in that group or tier, but not other tiers. I know this is very convoluted, it might simply be too inelegant to be considered, but it might be something that would work well.

For example: maybe the Fury plots are on the same tier or group as Fear of Winter and you cannot run a Fury Plot and Fear of Winter, but you could run a Fury plot and Venomous Blade in a deck because they are in separate tiers.

Stag Lord said:

At the end of the day, Bara needs more cards that are like shadows-standing Robert, or possibly even Knight of Flowers, and many fewer cards like dual-house Brienne, Royal Guard, or even King Renly (who is just overly beefy for his cost). KoF is actually a bit strong because his condition is so easily met, but conceptually more cards like this that have a very powerful ability (renown and doesn't kneel is one example) when a very narrow set of conditions are met.

Since there's apparently not going to be rotation anytime soon, I unfortunately can't see Bara getting this type of support. Likely they'll remain a round 2-3 rush house at their fastest...at least until control becomes consistent enough outside of 1-2 houses to add a bit of balance. (I think the assumption that Lanni and Martell could have dealt with a round 1-2 rush build is probably true, but they're the only houses. As much as some Bara players might prefer a rush vs. anti-rush environment, non-Lanni/Martell/Bara players might find it a bit harder to stomach.)

Stag Lord said:

At the end of the day, Bara needs more cards that are like shadows-standing Robert, or possibly even Knight of Flowers, and many fewer cards like dual-house Brienne, Royal Guard, or even King Renly (who is just overly beefy for his cost). KoF is actually a bit strong because his condition is so easily met, but conceptually more cards like this that have a very powerful ability (renown and doesn't kneel is one example) when a very narrow set of conditions are met.

Since there's apparently not going to be rotation anytime soon, I unfortunately can't see Bara getting this type of support. Likely they'll remain a round 2-3 rush house at their fastest...at least until control becomes consistent enough outside of 1-2 houses to add a bit of balance. (I think the assumption that Lanni and Martell could have dealt with a round 1-2 rush build is probably true, but they're the only houses. As much as some Bara players might prefer a rush vs. anti-rush environment, non-Lanni/Martell/Bara players might find it a bit harder to stomach.)

I'll go ahead and say that I never want to see a deck be able to win on turn one. That's just ridiculous. I mean the game hasn't even really started. Turn two I think is still pushing it but I'm ok with that, and turn two wins are def viable in this environment. Also with a degree of consistency as well. I think the problem is that there just aren't enough cards that really support that kind of deck, so you end up having to draw into the few cards that do support that kind of deck. Granted one of those is a plot and you can just run trips of the other cards.