I just wanted people's opinions on these cards. I would have thought alliance over treaty in every case until I saw success with the treaty agenda at worlds.

I think with greyjoy and Murenmure, alliance is the obvious winner. However, with Rush, treaty might be better.

I made a chosen few Bara treaty to the south deck and it's been pretty good so far. I am missing out on some good cards like loyal guard, kings law, retaliation, renly, etc, but it still does okay in the format.

Thoughts?

Just curious, but what is the advantage of Murenmure with the agenda? I don't see it

I'm interested in this topic, as well.

I had posted an article a few months ago on BGG relating to this, FYI:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/664726/opinions-on-treatyalliance-decks

Looking forward to hearing any thoughts from other experienced players.

Syd said:

Murenmure can cancel the opponent's attempt to trigger the alliance agenda.

Fieras said:

On the Alliance vs. Treaty, I think they're just meant for different decks. In an incredibly fast rush deck, the Treaty really doesn't have much of a downside. If you can get to 15 power before your opponent gets to 10, then there's effectively no downside. Given the strength of rush in the current environment though, for some reason that extra five power is a pretty big deal. And against other rush decks, 10 power can be a bit of a liability.

I suspect we'll see more of each agenda played though as the cardpool expands, with the Alliance agenda in particular getting a boost. With more cards, the game tends to speed up (call it power creep or whatever you will), so that 2 gold or drawing 1 extra card just isn't the boon that it currently is.

Whereas a year ago these agendas were pretty poor, it's possible that a year from now they will be pretty powerful in some very specific builds.

Fieras said:

The effects of an Agenda card cannot be cancelled (FAQ, 4.11 Agenda Cards).

Saturnine said:

Mance Rayder (RotO) "Any Phase: Kneel Mance Rayder to choose 1 The North agenda or location. Until the end of the phase, treat that card as if its printed text box were blank."

Starblayde said:

That is not a cancel.

Saturnine said:

Alliance gives your house card the triggered effect. You CAN cancel the house card's triggered effect.

I think he's right. The house card GAINS the ability. So you are cancelling the house card's ability, and not the agenda.

While it is true that an agenda is outside of the game, a house card is very much a part of the game. That character has specific text that allows him to blank the agendas thus superseding any rule that says otherwise. As for treaty vs alliance, I would have to go with alliance out of shear terror of giving my opponent 5 less power to win.

Fieras said:

I wasn't paying attention to the fact that opponents' house cards gain the ability in question. I'll try and save a little face by saying Murenmure still cannot cancel an opponent's attempt to trigger the Alliance agenda, because there is nothing to trigger on the Agenda card in the first place (However, if there was, he still couldn't cancel it)

Saturnine said:

lolol.

Gearhalt said:

Is that a Darryl sighting?

Any more insight to the two agendas? I want to hear some opinions.

I talked with some people about this @ Gen Con, including Bloodycelt, who ran the deck with Treaty in the melee and a similar deck with Alliance in the joust, so I'm partially repeating his rational, though I happen to agree with him (gotta give credit where credit is due). I played against him both days and saw the deck using both Agendas.
Using Alliance in melee gives your opponents a lot of options and gifts 3 other people with free cards/draw every round, and I think he was better off using the Treaty agenda instead. The rationale he put forth was that running Treaty means all the other players have to deal with the fact that someone could win in Round 1. It forced us to play very competitively against anyone who might be able to win; in one Round (Fieras, I think you were in this game with me actually) my opponents triggered like 6 effects on the chance that I could win when I was sitting at just three or four power. Meanwhile, the guy running the Treaty isn't even "in the game" til he gets five power, and everyone will ignore him/her for a while unless that person becomes an easy target to milk for power and unopposed challenges.
I agree with Twn2dn, and would think that a rush deck would run Treaty and wouldn't care that the opponent needs five less power to win. A hardcore control deck probably wouldn't either; who cares if your opponent needs less power to win if you are playing some freaky Lanni kneel + Martell icon removal and your opponent can't ever make any challenges anyway. Alliance would be harder to handle with a control deck since the opponent could in theory marshall more than your control can handle by using their House card.
I think the answer is going to depend on the deck type you are playing against. A control player is going to be much happier to see you using Alliance, it gives that player a lot more options to get their engine going. A rush player will be much happier to see you using Treaty and hoping they can win Round 1 or early Round 2, and the extra gold/draw from Alliance wouldn't be as useful if they have the rush pieces in place already.
Overall I would prefer to run Alliance, since the extra draw/gold may not even help your opponent (who has already hit the draw cap, doesn't want to overextend even if the gold is available, etc). Also, we are still missing three Treaty Agendas, and those seem to be the ones I want to play with whenever I consider any sort of dual-House deck; I always wanted a Treaty with the Stag so I could build a Bara rush deck running nasty Martell events or so I can drop Stannis, DotN Mel and Ser Eldon Estermont into GJ unopposed, and Alliance allows for that.
Hope these ramblings constitute an answer in some way...

Totally agree. I wish my deck was out of martell too, but Bara to Martell has had to suffice so far.

I don't know if it has the strength to succeed outside chosen few though.

I had an idea for an agenda that could be called 'Treacherous Alliance'. If your opponent reaches 10 power before you, all your allied house cards switched sides.

I 'm not sure how workable it would be in reality but it would be cool to represent how opportunistic the alliances are in the books, with factions switching sides when one side looks like winning, e.g. the Freys and the Boltons.

Ok so i played a bara/treaty with the north/noble deck so here are what i think about treaty.

In melee, i can have only one advice : ever ever ever play with alliance!!! i don't know how melee work in the USA, but here in france, targ/heir to the iron throne can easily win turn 2, sometimes turn 1... if there is a treaty at the table, you can do what you want, targ will win.

In joust, the problem is different... If you play rush, both alliance an treaty are good. the only point is to play more than one OOH card by turn and to have good draw mechanic if you play alliance.

If you prefer treaty, you have to be sure to be really quick, or to have something to defend opponent to in power... and tat's why it's a pity that treaty with north don't allow to play catelyn...

diana olympos said:

Thanks for your post - I am tinkering around with a Bara/Stark "Noble" deck, but have some concerns about the whole "Treaty" or "Alliance" issue...

One thing I heard mentioned/discussed somewhere was that in a Melee game, the "5 less power to win" for your opponents is actually not as bad as it would seem, since the other players will be working even harder to stop the "leader" from getting to 10 power, leaving you alone since you still need the full 15 - which could give you a chance to sneak in the win. Thoughts on that?

Ok don't know how melee work in your meta, but there i ppl need 10 power to win there is no leader.... Just somebody who have 10 power turn 1 maybe turn 2....and lot of other with 7 to 9...

What exactly is going on the players are all being allowed to jump to 7,8,9,10 power on the first turn? I get that sometimes one player can jump that high but to imply that its happens near automatically seems a bit odd.

Using Deep Freeze might help if you are running Treaty. Doesn't help as much when using Alliance, but it could be extra nasty in any sort of dual-house Stark Winter build.

First Turn DoTN Melisandre + Knight of Flowers + Stannis + Distinct Mastery.

5 from unopposed challenges, 5 from renown, and 1 from claim = 11 power.

Tomdidiot said:

That's a lot of pieces that have to come out (and survive) in a single Round; its not beyond the realm of possibility, but I'd be more worried about getting hit by simpler shenanigans like RV + Taste for Blood...