Stag Lord said:

Stag Lord said:

QFT. There are definitely two different discussions to be had here: attachment control and character efficiency. The first your right is meta-specific. In DC we don't play a lot of attachments because they're not setup cards and they're easy to get rid of in multiple ways (are some attachments worth it? yeah). ~Many don't know the real reason behind Twn2dn's leaving DC is he was kicked out because of his love for attachments.

I agree though, when Martell has 1-cost 3-str 2-icon dudes, and the best efficient cheap Targ dudes are 2-cost 3-str mono-cons, there's something not right with house balance. All of Targ's most efficient weenies are only mil icon (with the exception of Jorah Mormont which is dual-house anyway).

And +1. Stupid software.

Yeah, I think there's consensus here on Targ. Stag Lord is right that Targ has plenty of ways to deal with attachments (even Venomous Blade), though often after VB has already done the damage. 1-for-1 removal is still pretty good.

On the other hand, Widowmaker is right that it normally isn't quite as easy as it should be, especially against Martell. I don't play 3x brothel + 3x thief...usually I play 3x thief and 1-2x brothel, but occasionally 2 and 2. The problem isn't that these cards aren't good enough...these are actually pretty solid cards for Targ. Rather, the problem is that like 4/5 of Targ cards, neither actually helps you win. Once you've hit that critical attachment, you either have a 2-STR bicon vanilla ally or a 1-gold location sitting there doing nothing while you're strapped for influence or gold. Since Targ already has too many 2 STR characters (and an unjustifiably high number of allies), fitting in more chud is just very hard to justify. Even more difficult is fitting in more locations. A normal Targ deck already runs 15-18 locations.

I think it all goes back to the character base and the crappy draw. If I had more high-efficiency (low gold, high STR) cards like Ser Jorah, or if I had a bomb character of some kind like The Red Viper, I could justify adding in that 19th or 20th location (extra brothels) or a bit more chud (always 3x thief). But since the whole deck is basically just chud already, excluding a few characters like Pree and Jhogo, Targ players run into these fundamental trade offs that other houses don't have to deal with. Of course, one can build a Targ deck that doesn't play much chud, but all those 3-4 gold characters quickly ruin the setup phase and significantly slow down the deck to the point at which it's no longer competitive.

In the end, I think some of this could be corrected by...

Print a few "Bomb" Targ characters. The dragons are supposed to be these cards. But let's be honest, those guys aren't all that scary. One Lannister Pays His Debts or a Game of Cyvasse just kills/bounces a 4-gold character. Targ needs a "centerpiece" card that will really hold a deck together. In short, Targ needs a Robb Stark, Shadows Tyrion, Red Viper, or Knight of Flowers-like card that really just pulls things together.

Print cards that are more reliable and versatile. We don't need more "uber L33T pwn" response effects. Flaming-Pitch Tower is great when you can afford it and trigger it, but both conditions are pretty tough. Even Dany's Chambers is pretty annoying much of the time. Here's a card that costs 2 gold, requires an attachment in the discard pile, and for you to play a *Targ* character all just to basically draw a card that you've already played. Again, not awful, but consider an alternative: 1-gold location that provides 1 influence and says "Any Phase: Kneel to return the top attachment in your discard pile to your hand." That would be *much* easier to use. Instead of cards like the Maegi Crone, why not just make it a 1-gold character with a limited response? Or even give it the same exact stats as Castellan? (Why Maegi is 3-gold for a 1-STR monocon when Castellan is 3-3 bicon, I will never understand.)

Twn2dn said:

Amen, brother. Testify.

Targ's problem is definitely its character base. Draw is an issue too, but characters are the most important card type in the game and Targ has the worst base of any House. That's the main difference from CCG. Targ characters were simply *good* in CCG, but most of them aren't in LCG. It's definitely better now than it was in the earlier days of LCG, but it still has a long way to go. Draw and the dual-resource curve are issues too, but much less so than Targ's characters, in my opinion.

What's interesting about Targ is that its control mechanics are in fact very good, but it completely lacks the aggro-base to really capitalize on it. We saw this last year with Targ Wildings, where many of Targ's crappy characters got replaced with highly-effiecient, beefy, stealthy dudes; consequently, you had a very strong Targ build. I'd even wager we'll see something similar sooner or later with Targ leeching off of Maesters/Chains, but perhaps less of an aggro-push (it'll still be there) and more just revving up control with the Chains. Either way, Targ will never be a successful "stand-alone" House until it has a better character base. Period. Until that changes, I will continue to seldom play the House of Fire and Blood.

rings said:

Of course, that's neglecting the fact that you've already hit a character of theirs with Daario. Seeing as how it's a theoretical Martell matchup, the most likely target is The Darkstar, so after you play Daario, you're actually up one gold. If they kill him with Venomous Blade, it's now 6/3 in terms of gold spent, cards are 2/1. If you use some other method of ridding the board of VB, then you've reached card parity at 2/2, though I'll admit the gold comparison can skew depending on what's used, if influence is involved, etc. Likewise, if something like the Brothel and Forever Burning are involved, it gets more complicated. Still, the main point is that you've already knocked one of their characters off the board when you played Daario.

And Daario with melee and and 3 STR tricon with a war crest and trait hate... come on now, that would be crazy. My eyes jumped out of my head a little when I saw him and read what melee did. Sure he can be killed by a few different things because of his STR but with all the bells and whistles he has got going on... I actually think he may be a touch undercosted. If your opponent doesn't have a VB in shadows when you play him you are probably knocking out a knight (and just about eveyr but Greyjoy and Targ play with some knights) very possibly going to win a challenge with him (and possibly play a war crest event off that). If they kill him after that I would consider it three gold WELL spent. Oh and his ability can trigger off of To Be Dragon... Yes please.

All that said, Targ does need some more bombish characters and some better 3/3 characters.

Penfold said:

It would be great if Targ could just get a few solid characters that are reliable and not situational. I guess he's better in melee though, where VB + burn are a lot less common, and there are tons of knights floating around. Still, without renown, he seems like a pretty crappy melee character...at least until control becomes a viable melee strategy.

Of course, one of the standard comments that I see around on the boards is that every Martel deck is playing He Calls it Thinking, and unlike Aerys, Daario can't be canceled. This is plus in some situations, a minus in others. I'd call it roughly a wash between the two.

In general card costing math (Assuming that Aerys Oakheart is an average to aggressively costed character- and I'd vote aggressive) we'll use him as a baseline. 3 gold for 3 strength, two icons, two keywords, and a good ability. Now lets assume that from our baseline, subtracting a major feature subtracts 1 gold, and adding a major feature adds 1 gold. Seems like a pretty decent general formula, and one that I know I saw Eric or Brian or someone write about in the early stages of the game in a Designer Journal. Now in comparison, we'll subtract one strength to 2 (-1g= 2 cost), add an icon (+1g= 3 cost), subtract a keyword (-1g= 2 cost) and add a crest (+1g= 3 cost). It seems like he's right in line here. And heck, some would argue that the no attachments except Weapon keyword on Aerys is actually a drawback, in which case removing it would be +1g rather than -1g. All in all though, I'd say the costing of the two is exactly in line for the game.

*Shrug* Now overall, I'll admit Targ still needs a little oomph, but Daario as a specific example is spot on with where he should be.

LoneWanderer said:

*begin rant*

Ok, so the software on these boards has got to be the worst I have ever seen. I mean come on FFG has got to be a multi-million dollar company and this is the best they can come up with?? SERIOUSLY!? How many times do I have to hit the "publish" button(whatever that is) to get something to work around here? I really think that they brought this software over on the Mayflower. The pilgrims at Plymouth Rock must have had better ways of communicating efficiently than we do. Heck, if this were Westeros I would almost rather send you guys messenger ravens than put another post on this board. But, alas, it is not so I'm stuck with this archaic fossil from the stone age.

And don't even get me started on the shear massive amount of double posts on the boards. Sometimes I would like to get through a thread without having to read someone rambling regarding how they had to edit a double post. It wastes my time to read through a 4 page thread and have 16 posts be apologies by people that SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BE SORRY for something that is not their fault.

UGH...**** these boards...**** them.

*end rant*

widowmaker93 said:

awesome.

Twn2dn said:

QFT

Look at a card like Aggo, and compare it to Elaria Sand. Both are 3 cost for 3 strength, 2 icons. Elaria simply requires you to lose to move a power from a character to her, with no limit to how many times you do it per round. Pretty great. Aggo's ability is only good once per round - during a military challenge, and requires all attacking characters to have the Dothraki trait. Not so great. Same with Rhakaro. Jhogo is awesome because you get to draw 1 card per Dothraki, but doesn't require all attackers to be Dothraki. Only one of those Dothraki cards tends to see a lot of play, and we all know which one.

Ok, that I'll admit. The other two bloodriders shouldn't have had the all attackers must be Dothraki clause. They'd be much, much better then.

Apparently the designers are afraid to give Targ a decent 3 cost character that can actually HELP you win the game. I cannot think of a single 3 cost character in Targ that is as good as Elaria Sand. I challenge anyone else to show me a character better than her for 3 cost that has 2 icons.

No argument here. I'll agree with Kennon that Daario looks to eb costed just right - and I think he'lls eee quite a bit of play (actually don't Martell decks run Dayne knights and Darkstar and Arys?) I think he has a target rich environment for the msot part - only against Greyjoy will he be limited.

But at the three cost slot Targ is really hurting. I'll take Pree over Ellaria - but that's it. After Pree, (And Johgo) its a steep decline. Even at four they are limited - Dany, a couple fo Khal drogos and the dragons - and not much else. I'm a Rhaegar fan, but a lot of people don't liek the drawback. Ceratinly no bombs in the foru cost slot. And beyond that - nothing.

With Pree having the Ally trait I don't even know that I would take him over Ellaria. Too much ally hate going around right now with all this trait manipulation seeing play. I would actually rather have her in Targ than to have Pree. The INT and POW icon characters in Targ are very sparse and a character like that would fill one of MANY holes that Targ has. I agree that Daario is costed correctly...but I would rather pay 1 more gold and have him be a 3 str character. That would be a character that I would see myself playing.

Kennon said:

I see the potential logic, but unlucky it would be really hard to use this formula with only 4-5 gold spots available. Having 2 strength is a HUGE disadvantage in the current meta, I would take 3 strength over an icon + a crest + a keyword anytime, and probably 2 of the 3. The math doesn't work IMHO. Oakheart is in (or should be) in every Martell/Lanni build. I would be surprised if Daario is in 25% of Targ decks (and it has been established that Targ already has a lower number of playable 3-costers). *shrug*

I think you're underrating him slightly rings. Its good to kill knights.

I agree with Rings completely about Daario. I'll be surprised if he makes even 25% of my decks...though to be fair, with a few more cards like that a Targ trait manipulation deck could become viable. In a trait manipulation build, Daario would be a huge boon.

In any case, I think we can agree or disagree on a bunch of individual cards, whether it's Daario, Pree, or others. (I too think Ellaria is usually better than Pree given the ally hate and especially her usefulness in combo with cyvasse, but pree is obviously *very* good against decks without ally hate.) That said, I think it's pretty clear to most people that Targ's characters are generally inferior. Sure they have some good stuff (jhogo, shadow seer, etc.), but they don't have the range and options at the 3+ gold slot that really create major threats for the opponent. In fact, the only characters above the 4-gold cost are three expensive armies and a dragon (all above 5 gold, so no chance for setup) with effects that rarely help you win the game, excluding Balerion, though even he is extremely bad outside of a devoted combo build.

Stag Lord said:

You might be right. I just never (outside of trait manip decks) had any use for cards that could be 100% dead vs. some decks (Greyjoy Winter, another Targ deck, some Martell builds, Maester decks, Wildling decks, Holy decks maybe), and then is vulnerable against two main deck's repeatable kill (Martell and Stark), not to mention burn. *shrug*

Do you play Shadows Varys then?

Kennon said:

I think this comparison is a distraction though. Targ needs fewer cards like Varys/Daario that are situational. Why compare a Targ card to another sub-optimal card for Targ to justify how good the former will be?

I never though I'd hear Varys described as "sub optimal". For many players he's an almost auto include - that kind of targeted removal is just too good rto pass up - and teh odds fo him just sitting in Sahdows or your ahdn withut a target are kind of slim. If an optimal card si always good, in every sitaution, against every deck - there are very, very few "optimal" cards in the game.

I think Kennon is spot on - and he beat me to the post; For those who do think Varys is very strong, it should be sorta hard to pass on Daario. Removal is almost always good. and though Allies are a more prolific target,, giving varys more value - the Knights you do hit are likely to be higher value: key Baratheon rushers, Darkstar, Ser jorah, Jaime, guys liek that. plus he hits mercenaries too - which actually increases his taregt base agaisnt Targaryen. teh only deck he's really going to eb a dead card against will be Greyjoy Winter. He sure looks liek eh's goign to eb a decent addition to Targ's arsenal. 2 STR notwithstanding.

Stag, nobody is saying Varys is a bad card. When I say "sub-optimal," here is what I mean:

Targ has quite a bit of character removal. If you want to play a house that can kill an opponent's characters through effects that are not reliant on winning challenges or even waiting until the challenges phase, then Targ is the best choice. Burn isn't always the most efficient form of character removal (I think VB wins that award), but burn is likely the most versatile and effective. I think Targ's character removal, and burn in particular, is about where it should be.

What I see as lacking in Targ, and maybe this is where we disagree, is that although Targ has a lot of burn, it doesn't have adequate means to take advantage of the removal with powerful centerpiece characters. In short, Targ needs some 3-5gold characters that give it some board presence, like a shadows Tyrion, Red Viper, etc. Even if I loved Varys in every Targ deck I play (which I don't), I still wouldn't want a Varys 2.0.

Extending this logic, I can see why you and Kennon feel Daario is appropriately costed at 3 gold. And you're right. At 2 gold he'd be OP, at 4 gold he'd be unplayable. But what I am saying is that at 3 gold, as good as he *could* be, he's just not good enough, because he doesn't fill a hole that Targ is lacking. Targ needs characters that win games, not more glass cannons or situational, powerful come-into-play effects like Thundering Cavalry and Xaro Xoan Davos (that's his name, right?).

Maybe we just disagree on the *type* of characters Targ needs to give it a boost. I seriously doubt Daario fits that mold, but I could be wrong.

No- given that clarification: we are pretty much in agreement.

I think Daario is solid - but I agree: he doesn't fill a hole Targ was suffering. Neither does Varys really, and as much as I love Varys - i rarely run him out of Targ. I am on board and in agreement with your argument