So I switched out Valar for Counting Favors (I don't really like Threat since if I don't have three cards to discard, I don't get to draw three cards). It seemed to do fairly well actually. I've also changed the deck to make a bit more sense. 3x Dragon's Tail and whatnot. Also changed King Bob for Grimace Bob.

Personally, and especially in such a fast deck, I would go for Val X3 as my restricted card (especially with so many good plots right now). Get locations, dupes, etc.

Thanks for posting, Holy is fun, and Confession might be one of the best cards out there!

Yeah might not be a bad idea there Rings. I had initially put in Fury to counter the large number of Martell that I knew I would face. Val might be a better idea though. Also I feel like if Fury of the Stag is going to be restricted, it really needs the errata to come off. As it stands, it just isn't restricted list worthy.

Staton said:

And it isn't as if the Fury plots have been an unpopular restricted card choice. Based on GenCon numbers though, seems like it was a pretty popular restricted card.

I know we all want our preferred house's cards to be boosted a bit though. If I had my way, Targ's Fury plot would have a lethal effect on it rather than just reduce STR to 0...but that would likely be too strong too. I think it's important to recognize that despite erratas, many of the restricted cards still deserve to be on the restricted list (Castellan is another good example).

I don't understand your point here. You say permanent steal is strong. OK, cool story brah. How does it make the plot too strong? As for it being closer in power to the other plots, how is a targeted non cancelable kill that gets around immunities close in power to a single phase take control effect?

Staton said:

In contrast, Bara gets off its Fury plot and is able to trigger it to good effect the VAST MAJORITY of the time against Martell and Targ. Neither of those houses can save against the effect, and both tend to have a tough time successfully defending a Baratheon power challenge (Core Set Stannis alone can make it impossible). Often, a round 1 Fury of the Stag with the errata is so crippling that I have to flip Valar on round 2 anyway. The major difference is that now I have a much better chance at waiting it out.

The ONLY real argument for reverting back to the original (non-errata) Fury is that it would improve the game experience (including balance) for players. I just don't see how reverting to printed text (removing the errata) would result in a different outcome from the pre-errata situation described above. As it stands, the Targ-Bara match up feels somewhat even, with Targ likely having a slight edge, depending on the build. However, Bara has an edge against houses that Targ struggles against, so that the overall environment remains more balanced.

Balance isn't the only consideration, of course. There's also the "fun" of using the steal effect. My personal feeling on this is that (1) it's still fun to steal characters for a round, and (2) it creates BIG NPE experiences when the Targ/Martell player permanently loses a character to Fury, to the extent that even if the Bara player finds it a bit more fun, the net impact is still negative.

I don't think round 1 Fury is the one that causes the problems. Hell if it was always round 1, then you could just not throw down anything worth stealing. Sure you might be behind a turn, but aren't you usually behind a turn against Bara anyway? Their resource acceleration is kinda nuts. It was the round 2 or 3 Fury that always seemed the best to me. You get a character and a few power usually. Plus, you point out that between Game of Cyvasse and Ghaston Grey you can generally get the character back.

As for targ, if you are really worried about the plot that much, why not just use True Power? Granted its only one card, but you still have some decent power icons. You could generally just win the power challenge between defending and throwing down some burn. Granted Core Set Stannis might be hard to defend against, but aren't most decks running Nightmares or Milk these days?

Staton said:

Also, you're right that Bara's Fury plot can be stronger if played on round 2 or 3. But that isn't exactly an argument for removing the errata. If the plot can ruin games on round 1 (which it frequently did in my experience), then gets stronger on rounds 2-3, why should the errata be removed? In any case, it's a matter of opinion, and I guess we just disagree that the Bara Fury plot is comparable to Stark's/GJ's. But do you think it's worse than Targ and/or Martell? Since Bara's plot will be going off against those houses, it seems most relevant to find a level that compares with them.

In the end, I don't think proponents of removing the errata (and I don't mean you specifically, just the supports in general) have addressed the main factor, which is this: How will removing the errata improve the gaming experience for players?

Do you feel your personal gaming experience has been significantly degraded because the Fury plot doesn't have a permanent steal? I can tell you that the permanent steal DID create significant negative play experiences in my games. Some of the other veteran DC players can attest to the fact that the popularity of Bara and the existence of the Fury plot (pre-errata) effectively deterred them from running Targ at some NYC tournaments. Definitely more so than the Stark and GJ Fury plots, which didn't deter them from playing Lannister (or later Stark) at the time.

Well, I think my major problem is not that there is an errata, its that it is a restricted card. As such, I think there needs to be a reason to run it over other restricted cards available to Baratheon. Right now I don't see a reason. Sure I run it sometimes, but that's probably because I didn't really build the deck that well. If I sit down and really analyze every card in the deck, I don't keep Fury of the Stag. It gets cut. So I don't want the errata removed as much as I want the card to not be restricted. If it is going to be restricted though, I think a way of making it playable over other restricted cards is by removing the errata. I still don't think I would use it over some of the other restricted cards if it didn't work against Martell. I honestly could care less about it working against Targ, but the fact that I face Martell as half the field in tournaments that I go to makes me want to run it.

Also as to the improving my gaming experience, most of the time I use it, the other player either defends with the character, or kneels it in some way. So I never even get to use the character I just took. I'd say I get to use the character around 20% of the time. If the errata WAS removed, I'd get the use the character all the time!

Nice decklist and tournament report

Just wondering of you having any reasons of why you aren't running Shireen? The ability rarely matters on her, but she is still a 1cost H crest char (good for confession) and a lady (red wedding).

Bah! I knew I was forgetting something! Yeah I need to slot in a Shireen as well. Good call there. Thanks!

I know Wicked Seductress is an ally and 3 gold but you should reconsider using her, i really love this card in a asshai deck

Yeah I really like her too. The only problem is that she is a bit too fragile for my tastes (two str and an ally), and she doesn't have a holy crest. Plus I'm not sure who I would even take out for her. I think she's a great card, she just isn't meant for this deck.

I missed this dicsussion earlier - but I have to jump in here.

You can't take the errata off the Bara Fury plot - it becomes way, way unbalanced. I know twn2dn plays Martell and Targ all the time - but even sitting on the toher side of the tbable liek i do - it has been rpoved in tournament afetr tournament that the permanent steal effect was just too much for Targaryen to overcome. i agree - it only slwos Martell down a little bit, they have always had bounce to get their dude back - but it really owns Targ. And given that targ and Baratheon are probably about equal on teh power elvel right now, with Baratheon probably being a slightly stronger House - i don't think you can break the matchup and take the errata off.

Really if Targ loses so badly to one match up if the Fury plot was un-errata'd, then they would run answers to that deck. Its like if I was constantly losing to a Stark Murder deck, I'd probably start running saves, not just hope that they errata'd and restricted a key part of the Start Murder Machine. I feel like this community doesn't want balance, it wants an environment where they don't have to run answers. Where they can build a deck and just have it work.

You shouldn't have to run "answers" to address an imbalance. You run "answers" to make your dck effectvie against a variety of matchups so you can navigate the rounds at a tournament and get into the cut round. This sin't a new phenomenon - the community has ALWAYS been viocal about thisg being out of whack and the need to run silve bullets. If one card causes an imbalance for a Hosue, forcing it to run sub apr effects like the auot pwoer win thing (which you **** well better hope you draw before The Fury flips) its NOt a good thing.

Perma steal has always been a hard thing in this game - and sometimes it has been way too easy: Swayed, Fury. Bara traitor. Soemtimes it has been balanced well - Robert's Wine Cellar, Seductive. But right now, in this card pool, given where the Hosues stadn - teh Fury plot should stay the way it is. It is still really strong against Targ and Martell and still sees a lot of play as Bara's restricted card.

It might see a lot of play, but that doesn't make it the best card to use. Also, how many winning Bara decks have used it as their restricted card? Probably not many. Also, I'm pretty sure stopping Bara from winning any power challenge is a good idea. Its not like putting in ways to win power challenges would be useless every turn a Fury of the Stag isn't revealed. The problem is that Targ players don't want to worry about losing challenges. They want to build whatever deck they want and then just say "who the **** cares about losing a power challenge"

Staton said:

Can't we just let this debate end? It will be the way it is unless or until FFG decides to change it. I think it probably likely they won't. Even with the errata it is a powerful card especially as a game closer via power steal. I can understand rooting for a favorite house and wanting more better stuff for them, but there is a difference between good and broken. Perma-steal has always been broken on some level, that has also been discussed to death. Don't believe me? Ask John Bruno about the melee deck he brought to the Regionals in LA what 4-5 years back now? Over the course of a almost 3 hour final table play off he stole perhaps 12 characters from me. Perma steal effects, especially repeatable ones are just plain strong and have to be very carefully implemented for balance sake.

Of all the Fury's this card gave the only net 2 boost in card advantage. You gain one character and the opponent losses one. Stark, Greyjoy and Martell are a simple 1 card advantage effect. Lannister and Targ don't even get that they get non-removal game effects. The Bara Fury plot was truly strong, it's simple math. And yes, the effect on the overall game was well documented that while it was un-errated and pre restriction in almost every game of Bara vs Targ it was THE effect that most signioficantly contributed to the Bara winning if they did. More importantly it meant that except for a few die-hard loyalists competitive players just stopped playing Targ period for competitive play. And having a majority of players completely give up on a house because they knew that if they played that house and were matched up against a Bara deck they would essentially auto-lose really hurt the game's balance as a whole - in terms of the balance of people playing which houses. I would assume FFG wants the game balanced and they want us all playing various houses, they don't want everyone that plays to play just one or two of the houses.

I'm sure a lot of people try to win power challenges against Bara decks, but just saying to go do it is just kinda silly, people would if they could in general especially with that plot out. Clearly trying was never enough especially vs Bara's initial resource curve. No house does power challenges like Bara does (unless you happen to have that Targ I win cheater card in hand - which note was one of those super rare only 1 copy per chapter pack events - most more casual players are not going to have 3 copies of that. Heck, even a fair number of competitive players may not.

Bara is still a strong house. Rush is faster and better than ever in the LCG. Even with the Errata the Bara Fury is still considered one of the best if not THE best one. It is still popularly played despite having other in house restricted cards. Greyjoys and Starks often play theres because their houses have no other restricted cards. Sure Stark kill or Greyjoy discard is kinda nice but those can be saved against. There is no save against control change, even with a duration only till end of the phase it's a strong and often useful effect. In fact I just played it as my restricted card of choice this past weekend in my Bara deck. Oh, and yes my deck did win the tourney and yes I was playing Fury of the Stag, and I was very happy to have it.

I'd like them to take a look at the restricted deck and really think about if ALL the fury plots should be restricted. Or if any. Those plots are the furthest thing from my mind in most decks. Maybe if I need the keyword, but that's only in Stark and Greyjoy.

goshdarnstud said:

I would play a fury plots in 90% of my decks if they werent restricted. Thats the sort of thing FFG is trying to avoid.

Fieras said:

Agreed, the Fury plots weren't put on restricted because they were overpowered they were put on the list because every single deck was running them. a high gold high initiative plot with a cool situational effect. yes please

it was done to create more creativity in plot deckbuilding

jack merridew said:

I see your point, but in that case why not restrict Loyalty Money Can Buy and Retaliation!, which seem to show up in every plot deck lately? Or if we're talking House-specific plots, how about To the Spears?

I don't honestly think any of those should be restricted, and I agree with the creativity in plot decks to a point, but with the power level/impact of the other restricted cards, the Fury plots seem a bit weak in comparison (post Stag-errata that is).

I know why they were restricted, but as more and more (Martell) cards get on the restricted list, you've effectively banned those cards in some houses. And as my esteemed Meta-mate pointed out, there are now plenty of plots that make it into 90% of decks as well. Given the choice between retaliation and Fury I'm choosing retaliation for most decks, most of the time. Heck I'd probably choose Loyalty Money Can Buy over the fury as well. In making my Holy Hand Grenade deck, I looked at Lineage and Legacy for the same reason Staton did, but then thought, for one less initiative I get no (most likely) claim against me. Yes please. (See what I did there, I brought it back so I wouldn't completely hijack this thread).

If the goal of restricting the plots were to force variety in plot decks and not for power reasons (for the most part) at this point in the card pool I'm not sure that's actually being accomplished. *me making a new plot deck* Let's see, start with Retaliation, Loyalty, Valar, At the Gates....ok, now I want it to be a season deck, add Time for Ravens....

Ok I'm pushing the truth a bit, but not much. But I think my point is there.

Shenanigans said:

There aren't any significant downsides to playing most Furies. FotStag would be decent for its stats and Power Struggle trait, it then has a good ability on top of that. It has more advantages than Loyalty. Retaliation and Spears both have disadvantages to using them.

I personally would prefer the Furies weren't restricted although mainly for flavour purposes since I like to see House specific plot cards. It would've been preferable if their stats were lowered or they had a downside to using them.

goshdarnstud said:

I'm failing to see why this is a problem. Can you explain? The restricted list is a great way to to effectively "rotate" individual cards without having to outright ban or rotate them. I can get why you may have a problem with the Furies themselves being on the list, though I fundamentally disagree, and expect to see more plots added to that list over time, but I think the idea of using the restriction list to balance the meta game without having to take drastic actions, and still giving the players the lion's share of the control, is fundamentally sound.

If you disagree that is one thing, and I'd love to hear what your thought are on balancing the meta game in a different manner, which breaks combos, creates some additional deck diversity, reduces the number of NPE's by lowering the number of broken/overpowered cards available in any one deck, and still gives players the greatest number of cards to choose from. If you agree with the idea of a restricted list as a fine-tuned means for FFG to tweak the meta game, then you need to demonstrate why the Furies should not be on that list, which essentially means pointing out how they don't qualify for any of the above things I named (saying other cards also do that is not a valid refutation since that instead is an argument why more cards should be included on the list).