I was thinking(I know terrifying prospect), but what makes people believe a card is good? From observing the boards, discussions on various websites, it seems that most folk seem to use a universal good/bad system. Meaning if the cards isn't good in 90% of X house decks, then it's a crap card. (First, please don't respond to this defending yourself, because clearly I'm not talking about you ) And this isn't even a melee vs joust argument either. A card like Iron Fleet Raiders, folks might say it's over costed why would I put that in my deck! There's no penalty to discarding off the top of your deck! Except.... if you have a reason to want them to discard in a raid deck. So that card is good situationaly, in perhaps only one type of build.(This is just an example, but take any card that you think is awesome in only one type of build and use that in your head if you don't like my example) So should that card not have been printed? Shouldn't we want that power level of card more often, because that would actually lead to more variety it over all deck building, each style of deck would feel very different. Unlike say, Martell, where the core is pretty much the same, with different window dressing in each Agenda. Or plots like Into the Lists, it's going to suck hard in most builds, but the right build....BOOM goes the dynamite!

I'm not sure if that made much sense, but I think some cards get dismissed because they aren't autoincludes in every deck type and I'm not sure why they are then labeled as "bad" cards.

~Because they are bad?

Seriously though, you are right that 90% of cards don't see the light of day, especially as the card pool grows. Maybe 10% of those are very situational cards, that might see action in a very specific deck. And maybe 5% of those are cards that you might find a use for 'later in life' as different cards work with that card better. ~Like when all the Bannermen love starts coming out, and we all dust of them

Just a fact of life. Bara knight/asshai chud #47 in the very hard to find space for 3-cost spot has to be pretty silly to beat out the cards successful Bara decks play in the 3-slot. *shrug* We only have 0-15 slots for events @ 3X each normally, so it takes a heck of a card to beat out Game of Cyvasse, or Paper Shield, or whatever your poison is.

Personally in every game i play (miniatures/cards) I'd say cards/units can be split into 5 categories

Tier 1- best card/unit that fit every deck/army

Tier 2- good cards on their own which in certain combos create tier 1 results

Tier 3- average cards which sometimes can be good in certain decks

Tier 4- bad cards which sometimes can be used to fill theme deck

Tier 5 - junk cards not worth using in any case

Not to take this thread in a completely new direction (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record), I think a big part of it is the lack of "combo" builds we have in this game, as well as the constant introduction of new mechanics. These go hand in hand, but there are clearly A TON of very situational cards that appear to have been printed with a specific idea in mind, only that idea was never fully fleshed out (mill is a good example). These cards would be *perfect* in the right situation, but ultimately prove extremely crappy in the absence of that situation.

Another example...a lot of players like the idea of the rookery's *in theory*, but the way they play out is terribly inefficient. If one could build a deck that created some major bonuses each time a plot was revealed, the rookeries might be looking a little better. One such ability could be a non-unique character that says "after you reveal a plot card during the challenges phase, each of your characters claims 1 power" (or even just a keyword + STR boost). Not very reliable, but would suddenly make all those plot-rotating effects MUCH more interesting.

A good card to me is one that amkes me say "Oh Wow" when I read its effect or ability and captures a moment or aspect of a ahcacter's psersonality from the books.

A good card to me is either 1) a card that will fit into a large number of decks and make those decks better, or 2) A card that facilitates a certain type of deck by making it playable. So something like retaliation or Power of Blood.

Is there a difference between a good card and a great card?

For me, the greatest thing that determines a card's overall "goodness" is the overall utility (or reliability) of the card. If it's a card that is only useful in very specific circumstances and therefore a "dead" card more often than not, it's bad. The more often that card is going to be useful to me, the better I'm going to rate the card. It's possible sometimes to build decks around cards that might not ordinarily "go off" very much in normal play. It's not always possible though.

That is one component of being good. The second half to that is the power of the effect. The effect could always be relevant but not be powerful enough to be good. This is mostly relative and depends on the power level of other cards and other factions. The power level of Martell or Maesters is making a lot of cards that would otherwise be very good into cards that may be mediocre.

You're entirely right; dismissing a card as bad often happens simply because it isn't fantastic in every deck. The ratings system favoured on, for instance, AGOTcards seems to be entirely artificial; one card is a 5 star, another a 4, another (situationally great) a 2... when really, a card should be reviewed in context of the game. I've suggested as much on the suggestion board there...

As rings/Twn2dn stated some mechanics get well fleshed out (Say, Seasons, Maesters), others get left behind (Bannermen), which currently makes the Bannermen "bad" cards. Ghaston Grey would be middling without little Edric Dayne, and is very good with him. With a cost 2 noble Martell character, it would be phenomenal. Cards must be assessed not only in the context of the deck they might see play in but in context to the opposition they will see. Anyone who builds a deck for a tournament and takes into account the meta knows this, while anyone who just looks at the 5-star rating of a card... clearly doesn't.

If you rate cards based on their "average value" in any given deck (by house)... then there are few good to great cards (unless it's Martell). There are plenty of cards that are solid (even spectacular) but only in specific builds. I tend to enjoy finding cards that have a weakness but can be stellar, and building a deck around them that obscures the weakness (My CCG-era Bolton deck as an example). Cards like those might only be good in a few builds, but are 5's in those builds... ten 2-ratings and two 5s only averages to 2.5.

Surely it has to have a lot to do with what else is around.

take Maester of war- I'm sure I'm not the only one whose copy had been sat around in a box for ages- "great, all Maesters gain a military icon, who ever plays with more than one Maester in a deck?" - suddenly there was the Maester cycle, and it was a brilliant card. (lost some of its shine again now that Maesters have been reigned in a bit [probably for the best])

I'd like to see more of that sort of thing- cards/themes/combos that make currently average cards suddenly useful.

ill go the opposite way, whaht makes a bad card there are some cards i look at and just go alright time to put this away and never ever play it

Secret Hideout

Favors from On High

Son of a King

i think the good cards are the ones where you look at it and go alright this could work for me in either 1 very specific deck or a lot of ways in a few different decks

I think a card is a good one when:

- It improves an existing "competitive" build. It means this card is the best of his cost, or is better than other cards that are being played at the moment. Cards like Ser Jorah Mormont would be in any Stark/Targ deck as long as there are no better cost 2 characters for these houses.

- It makes a new competitive build just by itself. Siege of Winterfell would be a perfect example.

Problem with new cards is they have to compete with every other printed card, and some types of cards don't see much play. New events and attachments, as an example, are published every chapter pack, but no one of them makes the cut, because attachments are hard to play and the power level of them is quite low. Events are more problematic, really situational events like Overwhelming Support (just printed) won't see play when you can run other events that helps to solve this deck weaknesses in a more efficient way.

A good card "does" something. It has to do one of the following:

• Add to a current theme
• Create a new theme
• Be vanilla good
• Act as character, location, event, or attachment control
• Draw a card
• Reusable

If a card does more then one of these it starts going up the "goodness" scale. For example, a one cost character with two strength is vanilla good. Give them the asshai trait to help a theme. Give them an ability that helps shadow cards theme. Put them in a house that doesn't have a lot of good one cost dudes vanilla good. this card is now bordering on amazing, or otherwise known as Shadow Seer.

Any one of these makes a good card. The more you add makes nuts cards.

Ghaston Grey. Creates/adds to a theme with nobles. Provides character control. Provides attachment control. Makes this a good/great card.

clu said:

Ghaston Grey is an OP card

Q: What makes a good card?
A: A House Martell alignment.