FAQ'd again - 2Champs1ChumpEP30

By Dobbler, in 1. AGoT General Discussion

Darryl is back!

New podcast up here

A few thoughts...

Comparing Burning with shadows Cat is stupid.

1) How many stark decks use Cat? how many martell decks use Burning?
2) How much effort do you need to put into a stark winter shadows deck to get her passive effect going? lots, and its harder because most of the winters/shadows is garbage. You make a martell deck and you dont have any burning at 60 cards, what do you take out? nothing. You grab three more sleeves.
3) To stop burning you need a cancel in your hand. Yes, paper shield exists, but you need to have the cancel in your hand right there. To stop Cat you can mil claim her out, valar, milk, whatever.

Besides, power isn't the only reason something gets restricted.

Mathias Fricot said:

A few thoughts...

Comparing Burning with shadows Cat is stupid.

1) How many stark decks use Cat? how many martell decks use Burning?
2) How much effort do you need to put into a stark winter shadows deck to get her passive effect going? lots, and its harder because most of the winters/shadows is garbage. You make a martell deck and you dont have any burning at 60 cards, what do you take out? nothing. You grab three more sleeves.
3) To stop burning you need a cancel in your hand. Yes, paper shield exists, but you need to have the cancel in your hand right there. To stop Cat you can mil claim her out, valar, milk, whatever.

Besides, power isn't the only reason something gets restricted.

Booyah! Take that Chump!

In regards to Cat vs Burning

Cat stops you from ever making an INT challenege if it is Winter. You can never kneel characters to make that challenge

Burning happens after characters get knelt, big deal. And can be used on any type of challenege, another big deal.

I do not see where there is a real comparison between the two to be made.

Kennon,

You forgot to give props (or +1) to Hope Solo, Wed's game was awesome!

Good topic guys, though I don't think this was your best episode (better than some of your earlier ones, but not top 50%). I felt like there was just a bit too much irrelevant stuff early on. Since this is all volunteer though, and you guys gotta have fun too, guess I can't complain too much about banter.

The thing that I found somewhat disappointing though was the discussion of the contentious points of the FAQ. I definitely agree with the others who stated that Burning is NOT the same as Catelyn, but nonetheless I agree there are two sides to this issue. Unfortunately, the conversation about this card and some of the others was poorly delivered, and it wasn't clear that most of you had really thought through the points that you wanted to make prior to the discussion. There wasn't much analysis, it was mostly just posturing. Greg advanced the discussion fairly well on a few points, but even then I definitely don't buy the argument that the restricted list is comprised of cards that people complain about. And here's why...

If the restricted list were only about mollifying the masses, then only a couple of the Fury plots would be on the list, the Lanni attachment event wouldn't be on it, and there'd probably be a few new cards added. Moreover, cards wouldn't be restricted before they were released. In fact, restricting cards pre-release seems to have the opposite effect, and actually makes people angry. So whether or not you agree with the decision, I think it's factually wrong to say that cards are added simply because people complain. (I'm not saying complaining doesn't have any influence, but that's clearly an enormous oversimplification.) If you wanted to get into theory or process regarding restrictions, which could be a very interesting topic, it would have been *much* better to discuss timing. For example, we know that major FAQs tend to come before tourneys, and that historically they have disproportionately hurt one house or another. Are there any trends there over the past 2 years? What types of erratas/bans/restrictions are most common, if any? Alternatively, if you want to explore a specific restriction like Burning, then please take the time to explore the justifications behind it. You don't even have to think on this one...the arguments here on the boards pretty much cover everything. You may agree with 80% of it, but there's definitely something to many of the arguments. All you have to do is take 10 minutes to go through and review the arguments briefly, and even make a bullet list so that you have the arguments there. The worst thing you can do is to hold up a straw man (ie "restrictions happen only because enough people complain"), then beat the crap out of it...and all your listeners are left wondering, "what the hell is he even talking about?"

The bottom line is that we can all disagree on Burning or any one individual card, but if you're going to spend 15-30 minutes discussing restrictions/erratas, then you have to either (1) add something new, or (2) provide a very good discussion that explores in depth the rationale for taking the action, even if you disagree with it. This episode didn't do either. If I were a new player listening to this episode, I would come away confused..."I have no idea why this card was restricted," and not because I would disagree with the restriction; I would actually be very confused, because I wouldn't really understand the full picture.

Honestly speaking, I see the restriction as a nerf to Venomous Blade rather than BotS.

Up until now the choice for martell has been a no brainer really. VB vs FotS, im fairly certain VB comes out on top. I dunno maybe some decks might consider Val or FoW. And in my opinion VB has a pretty big impact on the meta, making all 2 str characters somewhat unappealing/unreliable.

So, now there is another big contender for the slot, it forces the choice.
I was listening the whole time waiting for yous guys to bring up a comparison of the two, but VB wasnt even brought up once.

But yeah thats my whole point, the new restriction effects VB just as much as it effects BotS; so i was confused why it (or any other restricted card) wasn't even mentioned.

The card wasn't errata'd at all, nor was it banned, so its effect in a deck in unaffected at all. Getting put on the restricted list doesnt make it any weaker than it was, so why do you all talk about how it wasnt that strong in the first place. What should be discussed is how this would effect deckbuilding and how you would make the choice between it and VB.

I'm going in circles here, but It is the deck which gets the impact, the card stays just the same at it was. So why so much focus on the card.

By itself, I don't think BotS belongs on the restricted list. However, once you start using event recursion it gets too dumb. For that reason alone, I'm fine with it being restricted.

Dobbler said:

Booyah! Take that Chump!

+1 to that, and I haven't even listened yet.

#1 - you did miss naming me in an episode about a month ago. ~*sniff* I assume I will have to drink w/ you guys heavily to get on the full playlist?

#2 - pretty good episode. Not sure if I can follow the Chump's logic on a few things, but I respect his arguing :)

#3 - I am a Stannis player as well as K-dog. There have been repeated cards that I refused to play due to power level and overall yukiness - Castellean being lately, Prince's Loyalist in the CCG days being the worst offender.

#4 - Boo trait manip going away (for now at least!) as a playable deck (IMHO). It needs something repeatable, like...Carrion Birds.

#5 - couldn't find the Facebook page...? 2champs1chump I thought?

rings said:

#5 - couldn't find the Facebook page...? 2champs1chump I thought?

you would think that would be the Facebook page rings, but it is in fact, "2 Champs and A Chump Podcast".

I was surprised at the lack of meaningful Thrones conversation with all of the changes and everything else going on. Maybe GenCon on the near horizon has everyone a little more tight-lipped.

Big fan though. Thanks for what you do.

I will admit, I didn't read all the posts above. I will say that I am 100% in agreement with the chapter packs that are legal for gencon. Although the cards have been spoiled via uncut sheets for a solid amount of time, some of the most competitive players in thrones have had inside access and knowledge of the cards and their interactions for much longer then the general public via playtesting on behalf of FFG.

ShivesMcShivers said:

I will admit, I didn't read all the posts above. I will say that I am 100% in agreement with the chapter packs that are legal for gencon. Although the cards have been spoiled via uncut sheets for a solid amount of time, some of the most competitive players in thrones have had inside access and knowledge of the cards and their interactions for much longer then the general public via playtesting on behalf of FFG.

Well, playtesters are always going to have a bit of an edge. Unluckily that is life (full disclosure, I have playtested, but not currently or in some time).

I am torn this year, the pack released last week - you could order direct from FFG and get them in time, and the proxies have been up for months. It is a crazy pack though, so glad we don't have to deal with some of the cards the first time competatively in a big tourney.

Sure, they will have an advantage but certainly there are diminishing returns. The cards still arent out on OCTGN for anyone but playtesters.

ShivesMcShivers said:

Sure, they will have an advantage but certainly there are diminishing returns. The cards still arent out on OCTGN for anyone but playtesters.

Just use proxies...

Bronson (San Diego) has like 95% of his deck in very artistic proxies :P

LaughingTree said:

Just use proxies...

Bronson (San Diego) has like 95% of his deck in very artistic proxies :P

Well, it's more like 5%... he does actually own every card. But you're right, they are very artistic.