Old Ben said:

I'm just trying to follow along with this thread since I'm far removed from competitive play at the moment, but how exactly is combo a different playstyle than control or aggro? It seems to me that combo decks still accomplish the same things but through a synergistic loop instead of just a series of different pieces that individually work towards either controlling the board for a gradual win, or ignoring the opponent and trying to win as fast as possible. Is the difference because it involves more deck performance and less tactical decisions?

Twn2dn said:

And is this really a problem? Skill to play is required, right? Doesn't combo environment actually creates more netdecking?

BTW: I would like to (at least) restrict Rhaenys's Hill.

Rogue30 said:

No!

Without that card, how else are my Targ decks going to pull off incredibly skill-testing wins by shouting " Building Season, fetch The Best Hill... brief interlude while you all play out a few largely irrelevant cards for your marshalling... crack The Best Hill, beat you all senseless with Baratheon's dead pile! ... for my next trick: Regroup! "

I suck as a player and need that card to pull off Turn 4+ wins with. When my dragons have all been killed, my gameplan has ground to a halt, other peoples' better decks are about to steamroller me, and all of our dead piles are all full to the brim; two turns of Rhaeny's Spam is what I need to turn a game with.

Don't ruin that for me.

LoneWanderer said:

Restrict Rhaenys's Hill ? Come on, let us all stay serious.

the best hill is still aegons.

AegonTargaryen said:

I am serious.

Restrict Rhaenys's Hill? Don't get me wrong, it has a very powerful, often game-deciding, effect, but it has plenty of limiting factors: 4-cost, must be knelt AND discarded, is basically a dead card otherwise. Also, Targaryen, despite Twn2dn's impressive joust showing, isn't so strong in the current environment so as to warrant a restriction like that.

Shenanigans said:

And of course you did play against it with smart player, right? Except for rarely used Salladhor, you are defenceless against it. You can use Nightmares or Frozen Solid but it depends on who is first player. So I'm not sure what you mean "knelt AND discarded". Effectively, for 4 gold you have a card "Win at least 3 challenges this round. Your characters cannot be killed. Cannot be canceled." And then you use Regroup obviously. That's significant power shift for 4 gold, I think.

Twn2dn said:

I guess I disagree with this statement. Lanni was certainly very powerful early, but with any game in its early stages, that is going to be true (limited card-pool). Wildlings/Martell were a product of both overplaying by the players, but remember neither won a GenCon either (ironically, 'over-the-hill' Lanni beat the 'unbeatable' Wildings, GJ beat Lanni one year, and now Bara kicking Martell's butt). And the onus here is playtesting/restricting. Martell wouldn't be as good with ONE less card at their disposal. Wildlings the cost reduction cards should have never seen day as printed. etc.

All I am looking for (yes, in a perfect world) is an environment where I can make a solid deck, that has at least a 25% chance of winning if played well vs. all comers. I know I couldn't do that playing Lanni vs. an anti-Lanni traitor deck (they have, what, 9 traitors against them including a 1 cost one that hits anything in the game basically). Unless I specifically draw silver bullets vs. Bob or Joff Maester (and they don't draw the counter-measures that will most likely come into play) I lose 95% of the time. So I meta hard against it, and lose to someone who didn't meta, who most likely will then lose to that deck.

Historically, aGoT CCG has had a good balance at the top. Rarely has the favorite deck won the big tourneys. I do like that - and to be honest I was very happy to see Bob Maester win because at that time I thought it FAIRLY balanced and draw dependant. Adding in more chains with more options makes it less so (again, IMHO). *shrug*

I have mixed opinions about Rhaenys' Hill of course, considering Twn2dn knocked me out of worlds with it.

It's a great card. Lanny kneel typically can control it, and maybe greyjoy to some extent, but it plays pretty well against most other decks.

It's super good, but I don't think Targ is even close to powerful enough right now to warrant restriction.

I think out of house play of the card (Its not house only, right?) is the only worrisome thing. What other good restricted cards does targ have, anyway?

Baras kicking Martell's butt? Did you really say that? Cause a Maester deck got through (and went 1-1 against Corey'ssummer build anyway)? Really?

A four cost location with a game winning effect - if you keep it qorund until late game needs ot be resiticted? ReallY?

Must be something in the water today. I am finding argumentation a little dubious the longer this thread goes.

Stag Lord said:

What do you mean by keep it around until late game?

On Targ/Hill: We are a long ways away from needing an errata/ban on anything Targ related, at least if you're looking at it from a balance perspective. With specific regard to the Hill, you're forgetting the biggest downside, which is that this is a TERRIBLE card early game to play...it basically only works late game, and only if you've managed to kill some key characters, which isn't always easy. In fact, as good as the Hill was in my GenCon deck, it was literally a last-minute add...I put it in the deck the morning of the tourney. It's one of those cards where 1/2 the time it just sits in your hand, and the other 1/2 if helps win you the game. Given all the requirements that have to be met (and on a 4g card), this is not overpowered in my opinion.

@Rings: I don't disagree, but I do think I see things a bit differently. On an aside, if you're looking for a deck that can beat anything at least 25% of the time, then you should play Targ. That's EXACTLY the sort of deck that maester version was.

Rogue30 said:

Like twn2dn says - sitting in your hand until you get the opporunity to play it for the win. Can it win you the game in one swoop? Sure. Is it balanced though - and tricky to pull off - also sure. its basically a balanced combo card - sufficent dead opponent's characters to win you the agem the turn you play it (or after). It defintiely isn't defining the environment or making Targ dominant.

Ergo - no action is needed.

Stag Lord said:

I'm not so sure. It can be played in 3rd turn. There is nothing tricky. You just play it and that's it. Opponent has little or no chance to stop it. But you are probably right - I don't understand this game anymore. So you are saying that Burning on the sand was restricted not because this card is too good, but only because Martell are dominant?

Rogue30 said:

It's a combination of the two, but Nate and Damon explain it better. From the pre GenCon FAQ/Restricted List announcement

"The biggest change here is the addition of Burning on the Sands to the restricted list. House Martell did perform very well in the regional events, and the idea behind this restriction was not to completely cut them down or even take away their best card, but rather to check their power, and place a restriction on the card that is most widely recognized as making them an unpleasant House to play against."

I'll admit that if you just look at the effect of Rhaenys's Hill, it's arguably more powerful than BotS, but BotS is an event, and is therefore easier to play and protect, especially in Martell, with its abundance of intrigue icons, general challenge deterrents (especially Intrigue) and other events to protect BotS as it's played. Also, its effect is as powerful as it is simple. Certain decks (Siege, Baratheon Noble rush) are simply turned off by this card.

Like has been mentioned before, the Hill is potentially devastating, but much more difficult to set up and more vulnerable once it has been (is it just me, or is location hate becoming much more popular?) As Twn2dn pointed out, it's a horrible early draw and is conditional in several ways (must have enough dead characters, must pay 4 gold, must survive location hate and possible kneeling.) Also, it's not just a "play and forget" card; you still have to make the challenges, which are themselves vulnerable (like to BotS, for example.)

Shenanigans said:

Ummmh, i must say i really thought that a discussion about restricting Rhaeny´s hill was an april prank in september. There´s really no problem with the card, it only works if you managed to kill some of your opponents charachters- at least you have to play Valar/Wildfirer early or you have to win (military) challenges or have some kill effects (like burn). Than you need to invest 4 gold and have the location survive till challenge phase, of course the effect can also be cancelled. Than you get some charchters but no staying power, because all charachters go back to the dead pile. I think it´s a nice card with a good effect which can be a game winner. But it´s in no way comparable with a card like BotS which can be played from round 1 and has the obviously effect of negating a challenge for free and the effective effect that all the declared attacking or defending stay knelt.

I just don't think it is comparable in power and general usefulness to the rest of the restricted list. And Targ doesn't need to be nerfed since they aren't really OP in any way right now. I could see calling for the restriction if it was showing up and winning games in every Targ deck, and if that happens I would support a restriction, but at this time it seems unnecessary.

If I can use a a single army in my bolton deck ranging from one to two gold (of which there are nine) and hit it for zero cost with a Price of War or just a vanilla condemned by the council, or salladhor, or war horn, or frozen solid, or freezing rain, or climbing spikes, or theon, or any other location hate, like say tyrion's chain, then I am not at all worried about that cards ability to define an environment.

Burning was different because when you build a deck you would assume you ran into three burnings. That was the state of the meta. What, 70% of joust was martell at the sweet 16s of regionals or something equally stupid? and every single one had 3x burning? Thats an issue.

I still think a turn 1 Aegon's Hill is much more devastating.

Rogue30 said:

I'm a little curious to what specific circumstances led you to believe that this card is overpowered.

I presently only play Targ and I always use it because its useful. I've found:

I've won after using it. Lost after using it.

I've had it rot in my hand. I've had it get discarded from my hand. I've had it not get drawn at all.

I am currently waiting to play against my buddy's Bolton deck and wondering if Roose will stomp all over this card.

On second thought, I suppose I could support adding a Deathbound keyword to prevent abuse if people are really worried about it.

playgroundpsychotic said:

If he does, then I think you just used it at the wrong time.

Mathias Fricot said:

Price of war? Condemned? Yeah, right...

a decent bolton is running at draw cap every turn. combine that with 3x to be a stag and you get your Price of War. Play for keeps, yo.

What currently annoyes me with the maesters is the huge str boost maesters get with the collar, it's very unnedly and makes them better in aggro since (a deck type they should have weakness against). Also the second thing is that they are doing somethings better than what the links are imitating (milling like that with a raider deck takes considerable alot more effort). For me they are the jack of all trade type toolbox deck that is too strong (there are not many repeatable mill, draw, burn, icon control, attachment control, location stand...) the efects are very powerful (and usually only one house has repeatable effect of such if there even is an effect like that) and usually you don't have to pay the cost thanks to the agenda.

I was just building a dragon lore deck to cheat Ballerion into play, usually when I can do this I have a linked advisor that is higher str than the Ballerion just found it funny, that my advisor was suddenly more powerful than the biggest dragon there ever was (well yes no deadly, but more str easily).

I still feel that the collar should get rid of its chain trait.

After a few more plays with and against Maester Bob decks, I do think that a non-chain Apprentice Collar and a "limit once per round" for all the other chains is a good start.