Apophenia said:

Yeah, youre right. I forgot that you only get another 7 cards to look at per mulligan, not 7+3+2.

31.5% chance of getting one in the first 7 cards
54% chance of getting one by your mulligan
65.5% chance of getting one if you flop 3 and draw 2.
71.5% chance of getting one if you play counting favors.

True - but there are a lot of variables to consdier there as well. are you really going to mulligan out fo a five card flop if you don't pull a Basatrd (I'm not even going to address Ccunting Favors as that really isn't a tournament level plot).

I'll concede your odds in reality are better with a setup and draw than just pulling it at random form your deck - but the main point of my contention still stands. there is at least a 505 chance you DON'T get it - there is a 0% chance the Maester deck doesn't have its attachments at hand. Bastard still doesn't solve the Agenda/chain problem and its pretty clear that some sort of errata is going to be neded as well.

I'm new to the game, and have no experience with the meta outside a small group of friends... but I know that in any game like this, the banning/restriction tend to strongly over-compensate for issues which are really just ones in which the meta has not yet adapted to a new strategy or combo. Our Maester-Agenda deck fears Reek and Ghaston Grey, and has some trouble setting up fast enough to get the edge on Bara Knights. If I understand correctly, the Swiss 2011 Championship Joust was won by a fast Bara Knights deck.

I acknowledge that many cards being discussed here seem overpowered - but knee-jerk reactions are more damaging to the game than giving the meta a chance to adapt and, ONLY failing that, consider errata or restriction. I'm not qualified to make those calls, having so little experience with the game, but I think a majority (by no means all!) of the replies here are simply the product of frustration with a particular opponent.

Actually it was a Bara maester deck that won the Swiss joust championship.

Taht being said: i tend to agree with yuo mroe than not, -Istaril Knee jerk reactions usually are misguided and i am a big one for eltting the metagame sort teh rpoblem out through play adjustments and evolving strategy/card pool. Thsi is one reason why I remain outraged over teh Laughing storm restriction - and why I continue to press for its unrestriction. It was clearly restricted as a knee jerk reaction to a possibly degenrtae combo (with a card tat ahd already been restricted and now sees very little play) without ever being seen in teh competitive environment.

on the other hand, the maester thing has been evolving over several months and seems to be growing stronger and more NPE as the cycle unfolds. soem folsk were expressing concern in May - I didn't join the chorus until August (and not ebcuase of genCon - but becuase of the deck's prevalence in my local meta). I think we ahve seen enough to see there si an issue at this point.

-Istaril said:

I think you are halfway right. Some reactions are out of frustration, well and others are not. ~Wow, i´m in the mood to make great statements. ;-)

Seriously, i think every card in the LCG banned or restricted list or the cards which are discussed here could be off the list (maybe with the exception of Jaqen). No card on the list is really able to create 1 turn wins or per chance unstopable combos. The list is a more about balancing the game for a competive playing field for players which have all the cards x3 and some more playing experience like you mentioned. If you are for example playing without the cards from the king´s landing cp cycle you would never face some *problems* players have with Robert and Joffrey.

And there are some other cards discussed here which have been dominant for a relative long time and so some players just want a change here. I think the first card which comes to mind is venomous blade.

Stag Lord said:

Apparently the winner poster his deck list on agotcards.org, and it's not a Maester deck.

There's the "Printed Maester Only" reactions which IS a knee-jerk reaction to disliking the combos. Then there's the carefully considered "remove chain trait from apprentice collar", where the intent is not to destroy a combo or change it, but simply make it a touch less reliable and a touch more vulnerable, especially in a Tin-link dominated meta. I'm not sure if it's the right solution (as I said, I really don't have the experience with the current meta), but it's the right frame of mind.

If something IS a problem that the meta isn't adapting to solve, the solution isn't to destroy the offending card/combo.

-Istaril said:

Yes, if there should be a change, my personal favorite errata would be to add "Cannot be placed beneath an agenda" to some of the chains especially to the apprentice collar. I think that would help the gameplay and the nedliness in the game a lot.

Saturnine said:

Seeing as I was the winner I'm pretty sure it was a maester deck

I guess I have no "official" source; we've been going off the list and claims posted @ www.agotcards.org/deck/v/2818

Edit: Are you referring to the Gencon 2011 Joust (Maester Bara deck) played by Brett Zeiler? I seem to recall something about him/you posting under anonymous. I am assuming the "Swiss" tournament referred to here is a different one. One in Switzerland, not a "swiss" format!

Intentionally Anonymous said:

When did you go to Switzerland?

Kennon said:

Wondering the same thing

Kennon said:

Switzerland = a small country in the midlle of Europe

~There live clansmen in the hills and there also maybe some dragons (left)...

But does making the Agenda have printed trait maester only really break the combo, or does it force people to play that specific iteration of maester Bobby play like everyone elses combo decks, and pretty much every other deck, forcing you to draw into your pieces. If you want to create a deck around maesters and use the agenda why shouldn't you actually have to use maesters? Thematically it makes the most sense, and it doesn't stop the chains from orking the way they were intended to, it just limits who can take advantage of them.

I have little sympathy for people who decide they want to abandon a deck because it is now subject to the same restrictions every other deck is.

Penfold said:

This.

Lolol, I read "Swiss" as swiss style event. Apparently it didn't dawn on me that Switzerland is a country!

I'll go ahead and blame that on the fact that I had just woken up, but a more likely excuse is that I'm just kind of stupid

Stag Lord said:

But just for the sake of argument (and a bit of clarification), despite a few minor adjustments, I believe the mechanic is playing out almost exactly as intended , and here’s why.

First, it’s pretty clear that the game designers intended to give combo a BIG boost. Not only did they make 12 non-unique neutral chains that work with each other in extremely obvious ways to generate very powerful effects, they created an agenda to make it EASY to set up the combos. It clearly isn’t coincidence that three of the 11 chains with triggered effects are “any phase” while the other 8 are responses. And let’s be honest, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how good combining many of these chains together are. In fact, the Gold Chain explicitly says draw X cards for every chain attached. Even if we naively believed these powerful combinations were somehow overlooked (in other words, playtesters are incredibly sloppy), the application of “limit once per phase” suggests designers DID consider that characters might be stood by effects and used in combination with the links. In short, it’s pretty clear that designers not only acknowledged the chains would provide a boost to combo, but actually INTENDED to boost combo in a BIG way.

Second, the statement that printed maesters were meant to be the recipients of the chains (rather than powerful characters like Robert) also seems unjustified. If that were the case, each house would have received MUCH MORE in-house maester support. As it stands, most houses have few options for playable maesters…certainly not sufficient to build a maester-focused deck. Even incorporating neutral maesters, most decks couldn’t reliably run the agenda + more than 2 chains without the Apprentice Collar. Now, one might argue “well, there wasn’t really space in the block to give all the houses enough maesters,” but that clearly isn’t true—there were 12 non-unique chains designated to the block. This could have easily been reduce to 6 chains AND an extra non-unique character (3x per deck) for each house, had design wanted to go that direction. Clearly, design INTENDED to go in a different direction.

Maybe I’m reading too much into this whole argument though. Is it more accurate to say that design intended to boost combo, but that FFG underestimated how powerful the combos would be?

If that’s the argument, then I still disagree, though I think it’s right in a few cases. For example, it’s likely the case that design overlooked the ease with which discard (“mill”) decks may completely discard a deck too quickly. But barring a few exceptions that I suspect will be dealt with eventually, there’s really no basis for the conclusion that design underestimated the power level of the combos that are currently very popular.

All this said, I am not suggesting design is somehow “right” or what they are intended is “good.” All I’m saying is it doesn’t matter at all what design thinks once the cards are out. The only important question is “do you think this development is good for the environment?” It seems like the designers think it will be, at least in the long run. My guess based on your post is you dislike the move toward combo though. I personally love it. Who’s right? Maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle? I will say this: The maester block is the first time I’ve seen a lot of players develop very unique, interesting builds, and it’s the first time in A LONG TIME deck building has been fun. (I’m one of those players who likes deckbuilding more than playing against people.)

As for the Robert maester deck, I think it’s a good example of how powerful combo is. Other than that, I think we have to be very careful about how we push for change. In my mind, the goal of changes should be to promote variety, rather than restrict it. If the Robert deck is so powerful that it is limiting deck diversity, then by all means make a change. Do you think we’ve reached that point?

You completely misrepresented my position. I don't blame you, I obviously did not express it well enough.

I love combo. I am perfectly aware that the agenda and the chains were intended to boost combo decks. I also think that it is likely that design was unaware of how brutally Robert with his any phase stand or resilient Joffrey and his immunity would impact the meta when coupled with the easy access to the pieces.

If they are going to make any change, the one that makes the most sense is the one which brings everything in line with their original intentions with set design which seems to be maesters and combos. You want your easy combos run maesters, if you want powerful or hard to disrupt combos keep the chains in your deck. It creates a division between the two decks and how they play while still being fundamentally similar.

Penfold said:

In this light, my post was probably going off on an extreme tangent, since I was talking about something that was really only tangentially related to your post. But just for context, I'm on a train back home from a four-day event where I averaged 18-hour work days and got very little sleep. I'm a little out of it...definitely didn't mean to jump on anyone's case.

~Except Stag Lord...I'm always on his case for his resistance to using card sleeves at tournaments (Again, another tangent, but I couldn't help it.)

That combo deck that is a signal fire for overpowered maesters still lost two games in the swiss. The combo went off, and it worked. The combo didn't go off, and it didn't. Seems to me like its working properly.

Mathias Fricot said:

+1

Excellent point Mathias; Zeiler was the 16th seed after all, depending on strength of schedule and such to make it in. That is in no way a shot at him or the deck; all of us who were there saw what a clinic he put on.

So yeah, why don't we see how all these things play out in the environment for a while before we start bleating too much for restrictions, bannings, and errata.

Mathias Fricot said:

Mathias Fricot said:

~If a card said 'one per deck, you win the game' and I didn't draw it in two games so lost...would that card be okay?

Both games were easily winnable, and when there was far fewer chains . ~Thanks goodness, now they will have access to more income and draw and deck-thinning! Yes, there are ways to combat it people are not playing, and Bastard will be a semi-help at some point...I just don't want to see too many needs for silver bullets. If there were cards that were consistently usable vs. Maesters AND other decks, I would be happier (Frozen Moat is a good example).

I don't mind combo at all, I just hate it when games become more of a 'paper/scissors/rock' type atmosphere, which TOO much reliance on meta-guessing turns things into, IMHO. The same reason I don't like traitors. Packing a bunch of traitors = beating those decks, but thinning your usable deck so you lose to the other decks, etc. Packing a bunch of anti-super-Maester stuff and then going 0-2 against non-Maester stuff when I would have been 2-0 against Maesters based only on the luck of the swiss draw just isn't fun.

rings said:

I certainly don't love the paper/scissors/rock balance concept either...but I suspect it's the lesser of the evils. In my mind, the point shouldn't be working to create an environment where rock/paper/scissors works though. The goal, I think, should be establishing a diverse environment that allows for creativity so that players of all different walks of life can appreciate deckbuilding and playing. And the one thing I'll say about maesters/chains is that even if the cards used to create the combinations are the same (ie everyone runs Apprentice Collar/the agenda), the houses and various builds often play differently from each other. That's quite a contrast from what we've seen in the past, where no matter how you build it, Martell, Lanni, and Wildlings felt like they largely had the same tricks or play out the same way no matter how you build them. (Obviously shadows Lanni was slower, but playing with/against it still generally felt like playing with/against another competitive Lanni deck.)

I recognize this is all just a matter of opinion, but I'm still just wondering, if we don't shoot for diversity (and rock/paper/scissors is much more diverse than anything we've had to date in the LCG), then what should the goal be?

I think that there is too much noise against Maester deck. I would say it should help other builds because you know against which type of deck you should be prepared. Prepare meta and go to the tournament having at least 50-50 chances against Maester. Some houses like Targ, Martell even fast Bara have already answers. Others must develop something. I'm very happy that this mechanism was created in the game the idea was really brilliant. We should be prepare that having theme for 6 chapters we will have new leader.

Twn2dn said:

The alternative is to have decks with either combos or synergies. I mean chains are both synergy and combo- the more the merrier.

The chance to have at some point just nothing more than a rock/paper/scissor game is unfortunately very present in CCG/LCG games. If you just take MTG type I, people spend $ 10.000,- to get a competive deck and more likely than not the game ends in round 1 or 2 with one player pulling off the game winning combo. While some people may like that, it´s for me not the idea of an interesting card game. I think combo decks should be somehow slower and follow a control deck style or should be really hard to pull off if they support rush play style, just like the old devious mechinantions combo was.