I do think Rings proved his point pretty precisely above. See how difficult it is to balance Agendas? Theory is fine - but those of us who have been playing for years have laerned that you have to be really careful about the Agendas that come out - or the game can get a lot less fun.

in an environment saturated with agendas I'd want that theoretical 4/3 unique who blanked them. The Agenda player would have to build with the threat in mind and it would be a solid counter is something OPE got through the design process.

papalorax said:

Umm, trust me on this one...Rings understands game concepts very, very well. He is not only a former world champion, but the only player to make the top four at Gencon the past 5 (6?) years in the joust.

Stag Lord said:

The problem with blanking any non-specific agendas at all through game mechanics is that if treaties or City of Shadows agendas are rendered useless, that doesn't just hurt strategy, but automatically makes a decks built around them illegal. Treaties and City of Shadows create an exception to deckbuilding rules that say playing "House X only" cards out of house is illegal. I also agree that it would also severely cripple the Brotherhood or Night's Watch agendas, and just like that, players would no longer choose them, making a large amount of the available cardpool of two cycles effectively wasted.

I don't think agendas should not be about shutting down deckbuilding options, or muddle up phases and framework actions, but should open up room for exploring deckbuilding ideas. Although in the current environment (and probably throughout the history of the game) winning a lot of the time boils down to draw and maintaining hand advantage, it's dangerous to make agendas all about draw, because that just creates even more of a power creep situation in the environment where decks with little draw, and houses with few draw options, are left uncompetitive (although that may already be the case). I don't think agendas should be the go-to for creating neutral draw options, but that there should be a couple more card-based neutral draw engines in the game. The craziest I think it should get for draw agendas is something more general for draw options, such as "Any Phase: Kneel your house-card to name a trait. Kneel 2 cards you control with the same Trait to draw a card. Any Phase: Discard a character you control to stand your house card." Or "Any Phase: Kneel your house card and 3 influence to draw a card. Any Phase: Discard an influence providing location to stand your house card."Discard an influence-providing card to stand your house card." This would reward specific builds like trait-based deck design and still have a built-in down-side to draw. However, I like the idea of other trait-based agendas, especially for neutral-house only decks.

rings said:

Why do you think I was comparing Brienne to an agenda? It seems to me that you compare cards in draw deck to an agenda.

I thought this topic was about better deck diversity (maybe I misread something). Ideas like blanking all agenda is anti-diversity.

I really like the idea, mentioned already, of agendas that enhance a strategy or play-style, rather than enhancing certain cards. I think those are the agendas that will really increase diversity, since whether or not to include them would boil down to a player's preference. I'm thinking stuff along the lines of

"Your characters get -1 Str while participating as attackers. Your characters get +2 Str while participating as defenders"

or

"At the end of the dominance phase, if you have 3 or more events in your discard pile, return one to your deck and shuffle your deck. You may not play or take control of attachments."

I don't know if those are balanced or not, but they're examples of the general concept. An agenda like that wouldn't necessarily make a deck better than one without, but would increase play-style options.

I agree with the OP (as i understood it) that if an agenda is going to enhance a trait, it should be house specific. Rather than one Maester agenda that adds the same cards to every deck, have 6 Maester agendas with Maesters enhancing the themes of individual houses. If you control 4 Maesters in house Stark, increase your claim by 1 (to a maximum of 2). If you control the same 4 Maesters in Targ, characters are killed if their Str is 1. Etc.

Danigral said:

Excellent point, Dan. I was thinking the same thing while considering an effect that blanked Agendas. I think you'd see a ton of Agendas no longer being considered, and deck variety would actually decrease.

I guess it would depend on how it would be implemented, but if it were too weak (such as if it were a character with an Ally trait, or a unique with "Cannot be Saved," it probably wouldn't see much play as to be effective. Otherwise, Agendas would likely only be run out of Targ or other houses which could kill it with ease.

This kind of reminds me of the promo that was printed that stopped you from playing doomed cards in the CCG era, Widow of War. Doomed cards were very powerful, but there were probably lots of reasons why that card was never played; among them, you give up the chance to play your own powerful cards with her in play. Some houses, I'm convinced, need Agendas to be competitive, so chances are, Lannister would benefit the most from a card that blanks Agendas (since Lannister is the most likely to be self-sustaining with its wealth of good in-house draw and gold).

Rogue30 said:

~Funny, I thought this thread was about playing like a Jaime while looking like a Ned

I would like to see cards that reward a player for not running an agenda or punish an opponent for running an agenda. There should be some drawback for running an agenda within the game. I would like to see more cards that are playable on their own that blow up when an opponent runs an agenda like AHoTH Tywin.

For example: Raise your claim by 1 for each opponent running an agenda. Or maybe: Reduce opponents draw cap for each agenda he is running. Or maybe: Opponents cannot claim power for unopposed challenges while running an agenda. Or maybe: Reduce opponents claim by 1 if they are running an agenda.

Take Core Set Ned and add "Raise your claim by 1 if an opponent is running an agenda." Kinda vanilla on it's own, but makes it completely playable in an agenda heavy environment.

And also, why not a cycle of "character agendas" like AHoTa?

Danigral said:

I totally see the other side, but a unique character isn't unbreakable/blankable in the least. Other strategies have to be protected by counter-strategies, so why shouldn't agendas? If my entire deck was based on GTM draw and my opponent controlled all my GTM's, is that design's fault?

I guess I just don't buy the story that we can't print balanced agendas that actually have a drawback OTHER than what is printed on the card *shrug*. No other card in the game starts in play (other that house card, which doesn't really have a direct ability) and is untargetable. It is just my opinion that they would be easier to balance if they had the same inherent drawbacks as every other card in the game.

~when you whippersnappers see so many agendas banned or changed (which hopefully you have seen already with at least 2 in the LCG era counting the Wildlings/NW erratta as 1), you will understand

I LOVE the idea of agendas - for the reasons stated very well in the above posts. Just over time I have seen how they have actually happened, and it isn't pretty. There are exceptions (Dobbler's, for example is VERY well balanced at least in the current environment), but many get changed. *shrug* maybe it is just the past 4-5 years of designs...if the effects were lessened it wouldn't be as much of a problem...but that wouldn't be the aGoT we love (swing cards)!

~But, maybe I don't understand game design much, having only made 'Worlds' final cut in seven different brands of games, playtested four, and won titles in two.

rings said:

The biggest draw back for all the other cards in the game is that you actually have to draw them. Why not just make agendas have to go in the main deck? Then you could put a cost on them too to help balanced them out. If they want to print cards that become better when up against an agenda (or better if you are not running an agenda)...great. But to even suggest anything that would blank an agenda makes it hard to even read your other ideas. Besides the fact that it would make City of Shadows decks illegal...it would cripple any treaty/alliance deck...but moreso it would so severely limit the ability for design to make future agendas playable they would be forced to push the power even more. Imagine if they were faced with an environment where the potential to have you agenda blanked existed. To make a playable agenda they would need to make it really worth the risk of having the agenda blanked...which in turn would mean that people would almost always have to play the blanking card...which would mean in games where you don't get the blanking card early (because you have to draw it) that person would be severely behind. ugh.

rings said:

Sounds like you have enough experience to realize what you are suggesting is a path that leads to terrible situations. You should also know that creativity actually flourishes in scenarios where people are given more boundaries than "freedom". Not to get to terribly into theory, but assume for a second that deck building rules were completely thrown out for AGOT:

* No house restrictions
* No card number restrictions - play any number of a card - have any number of cards in your deck

The question is, would you expect more diversity then you see now? Of course not. People would just grab all the best cards and slap them into one deck. The biggest question would seem to be how many total cards to include.

Agendas should be viewed as simply tweaking the rules for a particular player for that deck. You manage the negative and try to take advantage of the positive. I would agree that you can't put a huge positive on a card and try to cancel it with a big negative that someone can avoid.

Agenda(s) that blank agendas would destroy deck diversity. Perhaps a non-unique character that has "no attachments" would be feasible, because if you make it a unique and you begin to put dupes on it and attachments like Nymeria or Bodyguard, it starts to become an issue.

I think something that can only blank an agenda for a very small period of time is something more feasible. Perhaps a plot card that can blank an agenda, or a card that can blank an agenda for just one phase in a round.

Overall, though, I'm not very fond of the idea of blanking agendas. I'm much more in agreement with printing cards that give you bonuses for an opponent running an agenda. Harkening to kpmccoy21, a plot card or something that increased your claim based on the amount of agendas your opponent was running would be interesting. The opposite effect (lowering their claim based on agendas) is a very bad idea, however. It would severely screw decks that weren't chock full of claim 2 plots.

I mean, look at Loyalty Money Can Buy right now, it's such an omni-useful card. Playing the game with 0 claim on a non-Valar turn is a serious NPE. I even think Loyalty Money Can Buy should've been printed to only activate if the opponent's plot card had 2 claim or higher. That would make it a much more strategic choice rather than just an easy mode decision to play.

While I'm in favor of a handful of cards that reward for non-agendas or penalize for agendas, I just can't get behind Rings' idea of blanking agendas. While it would make Brotherhood or Nightswatch useless for the duration, the real problem is the City of Shadows agenda. If that agenda is blanked, you wouldn't just have some useless cards, you will actually have an illegal deck and be booted from the tournament as you'll have a deck of one house with "House X only" cards of other houses. Penalizing people reasonably is one thing. Ejecting them from tournaments is entirely different.

Kennon said:

Very true. I was just looking at big-picture mechanics rather than specific cards. It is kind of like our tax laws, there is a bunch of stuff that sucks, but we can't get rid of it because it will ruin a lot of things (i.e. taking mortgage interest off your taxes would instantly hit real estate prices 10-25% that day).

Since I really don't think agendas are a broken (not in the too powerful sense, but the non-working sense) type of card, I will agree with you that some 'reward' cards (for not running one, or playing against one) is probably the way to go. With lots of playtesting

I just want AHoTh Tywin back. That would probably save me from ever running an agenda again. Ever.

Forgive me iggnorance with Stark having never really played them but how can Brienne stop Siege?

She prevents the player from using any effects during the challenge, so you can't use Siege of Winterfell's effect of gaining power from a Mil challenge.

*Watches the same shadows dancing on the wall another year round.*

*Looks into the flames for answers.*

*Rises up and grabs the gnarled staff leaning against the cold stone wall.*

*Opens the Black Book, and chants the words to bring back a conversation from times past*

Another regional season. Stark Knights. GJ Maesters and Winter. Baratheon Knights and Maesters. Martell Knights of the Hollow Hill. Where are all the new Champion Decks that should have risen? There may possibly be a new power lurking behind the throne, but nothing else has come. No sudden turns of events. The same shadows merely dance, forever on.

What completely new decks did the recent cycle open up? A few cards replaced here and there with new more efficient versions. Even errata's and FAQ's having a larger impact on creating new deck types than an expansion of 120 unique cards of power. Where are Joust decks? Where is the Melee keyword? Where are the non-Maester Learned decks that were promised? Where lurk Asshai, Raider, Dothraki, Sandsnake, Clansmen and Bolton?

The answers, they were foretold. Here. Heed.

the shadows have come to dance, my lord, dance my lord

Under the sea, the summer sun and the winged snake in chains stay under a hill, I know

It's always winter under the sea and the squid straggles glimmering dragons, I know, I know

Under the sea the stags laugh and only a princess will hear, I know, I know, oh, oh, oh

Under the sea the wolves have mail instead of fur, oh, oh

We will march into the sea and out again. Under the waves we will ride seahorses, and mermaids will blow seashells to announce our coming, oh, oh, oh

[edit: I'm really bad at this but I had to]

And to speak some sense I now do agree with this thread seeing as how we do in fact have diverse meta, but its still being dominated by the same kind of decks as a year before with just more efficient cards, but I think WWDrakey made this point clearer in post before this. Seeing a lot more agendas to more themes sounds like a really good idea.

Well, we had a couple of errattas based on an agenda already (the Targ one and Maesters)! What does that make it, 50% of all agendas have been changed/erratta''d► ~Sounds like a good type of card to me!

Seriously though, the agendas printed have been fairly balanced. Maesters was a little tough to start with (but is still playable), and I think the ''Targ only'' language was just missed at printing.

But, the issue isn''t agendas. It is new sub-themes and supporting old ones more. The easy way out might be to make new agendas, but agendas are just as much made by the cards printed to support them (i.e. good Maesters, strong Knights, etc.). Except Kingsguard, which will always be crappy (at least in Joust)

I made this point in the rotation thread. If you have 1-3 main themes for each house, and maybe release 1 sub-theme per CP cycle, it is logical that the main themes will just get more and more efficient. Either your sub-themes have to be REALLY good with every card on the cutting edge of being too good, or (assuming no rotation or limitations on deck-building to X CP''s) the main themes will always win. *shrug*

Staton said:

Staton, you have predicted Seal of the Crown. I can imagine the first time you saw that card you were like this

rings said:

That is correct; my fear of a burn-dominated meta of negative play experience is widely published in the underground harmonica concert circuit.

papalorax said:

We got agendas that come from the main deck too!

It is as if this thread were a gateway to the future.

rings said:

Hmm… Now now, the current track record with agendas is even worse than that. Erratas for all 6 Wildling Agendas, Alliance, Knights of the Hollow Hill and Maester''s Path. However, the KotHH and Alliance ones are less related to balancing and more with correcting bad wording. Total number of Agendas: 21. So… either a little below 50% or exactly 33%, depending on how you want to interpret the results. However, with this small a group of datapoints, the fact that 6 of the 21 agendas are dependent on each other quite badly skews the results.

However, there'' something to be said about Agenda Erratas. They should never affect the result of a game, unlike erratas to other cards. Mainly, since you can ask about any possible errata before the game even begins (the card is visible to both players from the start), instead of when you encounter it mid-game, where it could affect the end result of the whole game. And asking this doesn''t really even break the flow of the game, since it hasn''t even started yet.

rings said:

Well, they are ''ok''. However, the combination of only Agenda-decks being able to win large tournaments for over a year now (to at least 95% accuracy), in combination with the limited number of ''realistic'' Agendas available to each house drastically limits the cardpool used in competitive decks. We''re already pretty much in bed with

rings said:

Exactly. The LCG environment is riddled with countless half-baked themes, without enough support. (I admit, that just thinking of Baratheon Learned, Joust, Summer, Winter, No-Season, Shadows, No-shadows -support makes me want to cry) And thus the actual number of competitively playable cards is oddly small in comparison to the actual cardpool size. Even when comparing to CCG''s. And what''s more worrisome, the changes in that smaller pool are really slow (something like ~10 cards per CP-cycle maybe►) Getting a larger portion of these cards out of binders and at least onto the decktesting table was what finite''s idea seemed to be about. For that to happen, we need SOMETHING that can turn the table around enough to provide them added value.

However, due to the existing Agendas (and other factors related to the game, such as almost anything being controlled quite easily) I''m quite skeptical of synergy providing ''regular'' cards being able to widen the competitive cardpool in a similar fashion as a single Agenda card. Mainly, since we already have these kinds of cards, but they aren''t really doing anything. Examples: New Tyrion was supposed to bump Clansman decks. Nothing happened. Queen of Dragons (Dany + Dragons) were supposed to enchance the Dragon synergies, and while these were actually tried out, they just didn''t function effectively enough. Even Shadow Enchantress wasn''t enough to bump Baratheon Shadows upwards. The only way to succeed along this route is to constantly raise the level of the synergy-effects, but I''m not really sold on this being any better (or less Errata prone) for the environment than a plethora of Agendas. I''m all open to ideas on how this could be achieved though, so feel free to propose.

Now, let''s look at the Agendas we already have, and how they are able to widen the cardpool by existing. I think Knighs of the Realm is one of the best examples here really. I mean, who would competitively play Hedge Knight, Former Champion, Arrogant Contender, Vanguard Lancer and many other Knight -characters without this existing► I''d bet that nobody would look at them twice (I only chose nonuniques here, but the same goes for many unique Knights). And this is not related to just Trait Agendas. KotHH itself opens room for several cards that wouldn''t otherwise see competitive play (thinking mainly of high influence cards, but I also saw Core Set Rhaegar used in a KotHH Targ in the recent OCTGN Tourney to maintain board position). Would Maesters have had any real impact on the environment without their own Agenda►

rings said:

This is sadly the case. Currently we just have those few ''cutting edge'' themes, and the rest is just the ''basic'' house build. What I think finite proposed, or at least how I''d like to see it, is that we attempt to rectify this in *some* fashion. I just think that with the limited trickle of cards in the LCG and the plethora of ''unfinished'' themes existing in the game already, Agendas would be the most efficient way of approaching this.

On a related note: I think the charagendas are a sort of attempt to work around the ''Agendas are untouchable'' problem, and an attempt of widening the usable cardpool. Will be interesting to see how they pan out in practice. However, as a pessimist I must admit to having doubts about them really having a large enough impact. Time will tell, I guess.

WWDrakey said:

Totally agree. And they have made them (unlike in the CCG days) pretty powerful if the Targ one shows us anything. It will be very hard to beat the power of a card that stays in play and is untargetable, but they certainly did with Targ. Knowing FFG they did something for every house (which sort of annoys me, there is little way to balance these, so you get another 'winner' of a pretty strong cycle). ~So, you balance hard-to-balance cards with slightly less hard-to-balance cards…

I think the point stands that there is a high likelyhood of agendas needing erratta it seems (from experience), which traslates into the fact that they must be the hardest type of card to balance. Which isn't a surprise. But, I can't say they don't add anything to the environment - I am torn on if they add as much to the table as they take off. Add in plots (my favorite mechanic in any card game ever) and you have quite a few game effects that are very hard to counter. Again, I don't mind this - personally I like to impose my deck's will than respond to my opponents…but there is a level for everything.

My knowledge of the advanced scene is far from substantial enough to know whether this is a good idea, but I was wondering what people's opinions were on making the more common agendas restricted. Would that be a good move that would see people less likely to auto-include certain agendas and cards that played off them, or would it just make other cards on the restricted list never see play because, for instance, people might consider Kings of Summer more useful for draw than the Viper's Bannermen? Or would it nerf some agendas too far and cut off potential strategies and themes that might otherwise be interesting? It does seem weird to suggest that FFG should make cards designed from the off to go on the restricted list, but it could allow for more fanciful agendas to maybe exist at the expense of the more common restricted cards.

Not really expecting much agreement here because I'll admit I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I'd be curious to know why I'm wrong, it'd be a good learning experience!

JCWamma said:

From a deck diversity standpoint I would say it's not a good idea to make common agendas restricted. The main purpose of the agendas are to add diversity to the decks so that you have multiple builds out of each house with different agendas. Placing agendas on the restricted list discourages people from playing them. Fewer played agendas results in more vanilla just pick the best in house and neutral cards type decks.