Staton said:

Seems Legit.

Seriously though, as Arrdet said this is one of the most varried and deep card games out there but I think banning or errata-ing GG (or most cards for that matter) would hurt that depth and variety, this is the same reason Im hoping against hope that they dont errata Shadows Bob or Satin. Tactics like this Need to exist and be possible for a broad and interesting game. What the game needs more of now is answers to these combos and cards, not a longer errata.

Frankly I dont know why there isnt more location control, especially with better and better locations hitting the card pool. Most tactics have clear and definite answers now:

Oh whats that youre relying on events? Paper Shield/Hand's Judgement. You run a lot of uber characters? Here are some Chains/Pulled Under/Military Rush/Burn/Milk/Bastard/Renly's Courtier. Is that an Attatchment Build? Dont even think about it, Chains/Bastard/Basically any Targ. And those are just a few of the options, however when someone shows up with an uber locaiton build, what now? As the comments have already pointed out here there isnt much universal location hate and thats what people are, in essence, complaining about here.

So is GG in need of an errata? Maybe, but then thats just a slippery slope to never have cards in the card pool above a certain power level. Should it have been released without a solid anwser to it, acessable by any deck, already in the card pool? Definately not.

I think there are a lot of great locations out there, but most of them are quite expensive. GG is a great location and costs 1 gold to play. So, there are some things you can do to it, like make it be returned to the opponents hand or discard it from play, but the opponent can get another copy and pay 1 gold to put it back on the table. It's a really low cost great effect and is a no brainer in most Martell decks even as a supplement.

There are multiple issues going on here. Let's tackle this by idea stream:

Is Ghaston Grey NPE? If your opponent is able to bounce a character of yours every round and still push through challenges and/or gain board control, then yes. But like someone said earlier, any competitive deck that reliably wins against another build typically leads to a negative play experience for the loser. That's not 100% true, but I'd say it's true 90% of the time with control decks. Nobody likes to feel helpless in a game, but a good control deck makes you feel that way...regardless of whether it's Martell, Targ, Lanni or something else.

Even if a card/mechanic is "NPE" for some players, does that make it a bad card? We all love different aspects of this game. I find most aggro builds incredibly boring, and this game as a whole would be a negative thing for me if I couldn't play control or combo. (Would love to see more combo in the environment.) GG is going to be negative for some people, regardless of whether it's overpowered or underpowered. For others it's just a good card in a fun deck.

Is GG too powerful? This is a separate question from "NPE," and where the debate should be, and really there are several ways to look at it.

1. First, is the card itself overly efficient? No...this card does nothing on its own, unlike most of the currently restricted/banned cards.
2. Second, is this card too strong in combination with others? It would definitely be if we had a bunch of non-unique, 0-cost Martell nobles. The existence of a single 2-cost unique noble even raises the question. My feeling is it's on the "close to overly powerful" line, but likely not quite OP. I definitely wouldn't say it's underpowered though, and can appreciate the opinions of those who feel it's OP.
3. Third, are there sufficient answers for this card in the environment. This game has already created quite a few glass canons...and most players have come to accept the existence powerful effects with large draw backs. For example, Maegi Crone is a perfect example of an extremely powerful effect on a card that just has too many vulnerabilities/costs. Applied to GG, are there enough competitively viable mechanics in the environment to keep GG in check? Well, since the card relies on characters and locations, there are three houses that tend to do at least one of these well (Stark + GJ with location hate, and Targ with character control). It would be nice if a fourth house had a better answer, but I wouldn't say the environment as a whole lacks solutions.
4. Lastly, has GG significantly reduced the number/variety of deck types at recent tourneys? This is really the most important indicator in my mind, and the answer should ultimately decide GG's fate. All of the debate outside of this realm seems to me very subjective. Since people tend to like different things, the goal in my mind is to create an environment where people can choose from a variety of mechanics, from trait-based decks (knights) to mechanic-based (shadows, kneel, etc.).

For all those decks that 'outrush' Ghaston Grey Martell... who are you playing against and why are they not using the Viper to punish you for rushing?!

Martell are ridiculous, they drop tons of claim soak that replaces itself with draw or search, then take advantage from losing challenges.

I've never seen a side so favoured in any game I've played

For all those decks that 'outrush' Ghaston Grey Martell... who are you playing against and why are they not using the Viper to punish you for rushing?!

Martell are ridiculous, they drop tons of claim soak that replaces itself with draw or search, then take advantage from losing challenges.

I've never seen a side so favoured in any game I've played

Twn2dn said:

I think the effect is not what I consider "overpowered" as there are plenty of instant effects that kill or remove a character from play. It's the ease of the recursion of its effect that has everyone's panties tied in a knot.

Compare it to Black Cells if only one copy of it was out.

Black Cells
Black Cells is brought into play to start with 3 gold cost total.
It has an "Until the end of the phase" effect.
It literally freezes a chosen character so that it can't kneel or stand.
It's Response can be canceled by He Calls it Thinking(for example).
It CAN remove a character's usefulness for an entire phase, but it depends on cards coming out of the shadows.
That chosen character's passive abilities still apply. They are still in play.
It's ability can only be used by kneeling itself to pay for the effect, so it's essentially one time in a phase.
Cards that don't kneel to attack or defend are unaffected by The Black Cells.
If there are no more cards in the shadows to bring out, it is a useless location.
This is generally done during the Bring out of the Shadows mechanic.

Ghaston Grey
It costs 1 gold to put into play.
The only cost to power the effect is returning a Martell Noble character to your hand in play(could be 2 - 5 gold). This is a Challenge phase player action.
It effectively removes from play any character chosen. There is no restriction on the target chosen nor at what point during the Challenge phase this can be done.
This can be done as many times as there are Martell Noble characters that you have in play.
If you have no Martell Noble characters in play, it is a useless location.

They are both control locations, but the difference is that GG will remove a character from play while Black Cells simply limits the characters useability. GG will effectively discard all attachments and power on a character in play that is chosen to be returned to their hand. The effect has an additional bonus, being that it can bounce an expensive character back into your hand and is almost like a version of choke.

I know, it is hard to compare, but the point I am trying to make is ease of execution versus the effect. I don't think Black Cells is all that easy to pull off compared to GG and its effect pales in comparison to it.

I think Twn2dn pretty much nails the issue down, regarding the ways in which GG could be detrimental to the (competitive) environment. And the competitive environment is what needs to decide the errata/ban/restriction problems. NPE really doesn't factor in.

Actually, I think we're all pretty much on the same page here. What irks people about GG is the fact that there aren't clear cut options for dealing with it in some Houses. Some want this to be fixed by doing something to GG, while some think that the answers themselves need to be introduced into the environment. Essentially: Should the symptoms or the cause be treated? Or, rather, should the symptoms be alleviated until a cure is found for the cause?

Essentially GG creates a sort of 'Non-Constructive Experience' (NCE), when building a deck with some Houses... you just don't feel that there's any way you can build your deck so that it can have a decent chance against it, without compromising your whole deck structure to begin with.

Now, first, what could be done to alleviate the symptoms:

• Ban? - I wouldn't do this, since it's a card that nicely supports a clear House Theme (Bounce) in a House that's already gotten nerfed more times than I can count. And let's face it, GG is no Jhagen. It just ain't.
• Restrict? - Would this really remove the NCE? Has restricting VB made 2 STR characters suddenly viable in people's minds again? Honestly? I'd venture a tentative "No" here as well.
• Errata? - This would be the most flexible option IMHO, GG's effect could nicely be toned down in utility with some kind of limit (kneel GG to bounce a location, limit 1 per phase etc.) or target restriction (equal or higher cost, non-noble, without attachments). Would nicely treat the symptoms and NCE, without completely removing a nicely house thematic card.

But then the real question arises... would 'fixing' GG suddenly make all those decks that people would like to play, viable again? Or would we next hear a huge outcry when someone figures out that you can abuse The Scourge with Hellholt Engineer? Or maybe that the Iron Throne and Sunspear Tourney Grounds have made character abilities useless? There's still a wealth of powerful unique locations out there, that can easily ruin your day if you have no answers to them. And the amount of answers available is still as limited with GG gone.

And now what about curing the ailment itself:

Now, a powerful neutral solution to all locations might seem like a blessing, but let's venture to compare this to another card that has clear NCE value: Tin Link. Which is essentially what we were clamoring for, a while back. And me, personally, I would REALLY like to run at least some attachments in non-Targ Houses. Guess not ,eh? Now there's a card that could do with some restricto-action, yet the clamoring for that has all but died down.

So... that's why I'd go with either a well-balanced plot (that's powerful, but not auto-include) or some in-house solutions to locations. If people want a cure for the symptom, please advocate something sensible (errata, feel free to pick your flavor), instead of something nonsensical (banning? really? I'd rather see VB banned TBH.). The nonsensical stuff just makes it all sound so much like Martell-hating. Of course, if that's your thing, then go for the whole prize and advocate banning of the whole House card. "Why settle for the lesser evil?"

[Now for a side rant into Bara deck construction, feel free to skip if you don't like stags]

I'd really like to have fun while constructing say a Baratheon deck, instead of the painful realization that my options are really limited and there's no way of getting all the pieces together correctly. And having no draw or clever tricks to smooth out the kinks doesn't help. Now, I'm pretty resigned to the fact that Bara will never get solid draw, so I'd settle for solid recursion... And I'm pretty sure that even banning GG will not make Bara any better, they'll just get tossed around in new and exiting ways. Probably any new location control for Baratheon will be a character attachment that costs 2, is a condition, requires you to win a P challenge with that character and even then only functions on locations with power tokens on them. Just saying.

I am pretty torn.

I agree it is WAY under-priced, and all the moving parts are still good cards. It isn't a combo deck. It is a strong deck, that is close to unbeatable for certain builds (Bara rush, new Cercei decks, any deck that relies on large characters). I agree with everyone who has made that point.

However, I also agree that three of the strongest builds right now (IMHO of course) probably beat it. Targ burn, GJ choke, and Stark Siege (although I think that is a little closer than people think).

I don't like that many restricted cards (heck, my main house is Lanni, the only house with a card banned due to not being thematic), but I see the benefit when a singular card restrict large swaths of the deckbuilding choices.

~I think we should restrict Flea Bottom, that is the broken part of the equation.

rings said:

The problem I have with that is that Flea Bottom has a reasonable give and take in many builds and restricting it keeps that in particular out of decks where other restricted cards are completely unrelated.

Streets of Silk will still function just as well as Flea Bottom in that respect.

Bomb said:

It is probably worth noting that the ~ denotes sarcasm or a joking tone.

Bomb said:

Bomb said:

Hopefully you saw, and understand, the '~' before that comment. ~ equals sarcasm on these boards...in no way do I actually think Flea Bottom is the issue, I was just Trolling to try and get Dobbler to get pissed off

rings said:

Haha. I have honestly never seen that used before. The comment didn't make any sense at all, so I had to say something! Plus, I like Flea Bottom. I'd rather put out a character knelt than no character.

Bomb said:

~ Yeah, I like playing against Lanni more than GJ too.

I think my only problem with GG is how hard it hits Baratheon, since they rely on expensive characters and don't have any in-house answers apart from Sallador, with all his weaknesses. Most people would probably agree Bara is the weakest house at the moment (which is another topic maybe). So rather than restrict GG, maybe Baratheon should get some easier location control, or bounce protection.

Alando said:

Admittedly, GG hits Baratheon noble rush the hardest (I think Asshai has more ability to deal with it.) Sure, Bara runs plenty of dupes, for important characters, but that's about the only save that works against bounce. Bodyguards and Power of Blood don't help at all.

That said, I think it's ok that decks have a "silver bullet." Am i happy when my Stark Siege runs into Lanni Kneel? No, but that doesn't make playing it less fun overall.

Hmmm... actually, I think it hits Brotherhood the hardest. Any anyone attempting a Viserys combo deck.

Kennon said:

True, but I was restricting myself to decks that are actually even remotely viable.

Seriously though, is it just me or does everyone have an answer for Brotherhood now?

Well, everyone except brotherhood xD.

GG.....thank god we split cards in my meta and i have both martell and bara, so when i play bara i know i'm not going against GG

On serious note, GG is very good, and it really mess with your opponent mind (i.e. "When is he going to use it....is my challenge going to work?").

It should be particularly nasty with the old Doran.....attack me in military, i'll defend, i'll send your big costy guy to your hand, win, and make you pay the claim....

And as a sidenote, if i go to gen-con (when actually), i'm still going to play Bara....hopefully by then we will have some good answers for this type of effects....and probably martell will have a 1 cost non unique noble too.

Cheers,

Francisco G. aka "Choco"

I want to apologize for even posting the thread to everyone that is getting sick of the GG debate; as Deathjester said, there are a lot of torches and pitchforks out there. I mostly try to stay out of the "ban this and restrict that" mob, though I do happen to agree with the current restricted list... except please FFG, free the Laughing Storm! I certainly don't think GG should be banned or restricted, but an errata is in order imho. While its not unbeatable, there are counters for anything my opponent tries to counter with... for example, worried about Newly Made Lords? Run Fortified Position (which incidentally makes my weenie Martell guys like Lost Spearman even better). I think GG is just plain bad for the environment, and while location-hate is useful in every deck, I consider many of the arguments being made for GG counters to be similar to arguing that Cannot be Bribed, Cannot be Bought is an appropriate counter for hyper-kneel.

HoyaLawya said:

As I said, I'm not even bitching because I'm getting regularly owned by a GG deck. I'm actually the only one using it in our meta and I don't even think its fun to play with; every Round is about the same: opponent makes challenges, I bounce some guys, challenges fizzle or I win them, then a 10 sec dialogue occurs, basically consisting of "I make all 3 challenges, stealth X Y or Z if necessary, so discard a card and please kill someone (if you have anyone left on the board), I'll take this handful of power for unopposed, I obviously win Dominance, lets stand and Plot again, stop me if you have some triggered effects that are going off anywhere in here..."
And I agree with everyone that said some variant of "I don't want to run a deck just because it is the 'best' option right now, I want variety and creativity."

Can't Be This and That isn't a great answer because it it ONLY works against kneel decks... but location destruction is good almost all the time. If you aren't playing MArtell you are still likely to face a location you'd rather your opponent didn't have, even if it is just hitting a street or gold location.

Location destruction is rarely a bad thing to draw in any given deck.

I think that location hate isn't necessarily the answer although after looking through some cards it seems to me that one thing missing from the game are cards the help mitigate location effects. There are a variety of cards that specifically ward against Characters, Attachments and Events. There are no cards that are "Immune to Location Abilities". There is no "Paper Shield"-like event that specifically stops a location trigger.

I think the other thing that's missing is that despite the emphasis on this CP cycle's Unique character emphasis, there is little additional support for duplication. Bara gets some love since they have superiour discard pile recursion but no one else does. Its an essential defensive measure for uniques and the cycle feels incomplete without it.

There are two major forms of GG-Tech control, location hate and character hate. Your deck should already be packing character hate, but not every deck runs location control. If you are getting pwned by a GG deck you should be running both. Make them choose between their reducers and GG. Run Favorable Ground. Which is worse having no locations or not able to keep your important characters on the board. Of course they may cancel it... but that is where we get into the heart of building and playing this game. Can they put out a cancel for every effect that you play that disrupts their plans? In the end their combo for GG is more fragile than yours of just playing the same characters again and again until they run out of cancels or run out of nobels. Run Ghost of High Heart (and Confessions if your House/deck can support it).

If GG is the main deck that you are having problems against change how you build/play your deck. If no particular character is central to your deck then them returning it isn't a big deal. Load your deck with 3 cost and below guys with stealth or deadly and force them to constantly return their noble characters for fear of direct kill or Condemned by the Council. Or switch to a House that destroys GG decks until they get tired of losing and play something else.

I wish I didn't have to worry about first or second turn rush victories and could play long games with super thematic decks that were not focused on uber control... but that just isn't viable. I can either adapt to the meta, complain until FFG bans or restricts or errat's enough cards to make the decktype non-viable, or quit. I'm still here and I rarely complain. I can't imaine that FFG will let the GG go unchecked if it starts ruling the roost comes regionals... but what events has this deck type won so far? Are we still theorycrafting because of Dagos(sp?) and Myrcella? Can we perhaps wait until the entire cycle is out and we have gotten a chance to play with the cards to see what is what?

Also, isn't the idea of a card/deck that keeps maesters in check fundamentally a good idea? Especially if the deck while strong does not seem to completely dominate the competitive meta?

Skowza said:

This is interesting.

-I don't really think there is any silver bullet theory going on with this discussion. I personally feel that location control is pretty solid right now, and most decks can find a suitable slot if they wanted too.

Condemned by the council is the most brain-dead card in the world, and all of the decks that can't run it could probably run Price of War.

Barring that there are the pyromancer's apprentices.

Those are all neutral choices, and they are all good. I don't think saying 'Location control is an appropriate counter for GG' is a stretch.

That being said, I do think GG is sitting right there on the cusp of OP with all of these new nobles. However, I could say the same about Drogon + Crone back in the day, and nothing happened to that, right?

Rave said:

The issue with those, as others have pointed out, is that you have to win a challenge to use them, and Martell has plenty of ways to screw that up. They can just GG you to keep you from winning the challenge, they can Burning the challenge and declare no one the victor, and they have more than enough ways to cancel the event if you do manage to get a win through. Condemned and Price are good solutions to GG, but Martell likely has more solutions to your solution.

alpha5099 said:

Hmmm... This depends. Control decks are just as weak to the early game as rush decks are to the late game. Condemned by the council and Price of War are cards you would primarily see in fast decks, when Martell is at its weakest. The Martell cancels everything you do scenario doesn't usually work until you are already locked down and Martell is playing the game the way it wants to. As a contrast, Martell with GG against Baratheon with 4+ renown guys going first with a 2 claim plot doesn't mean GG is pointless against Bara rush.

Also, Pyromancer's Apprentice doesn't need to win a challenge to trigger, what do you think about this card in the environment with GG?

I think people have a tendency to be afraid of Martell because of their tools, but how often are all of the tools in the same deck?

I don't think you will see He Calls it Thinking and Paper Shield in the same deck often, and if you do, you probably wont see Burning on the Sands at the same time, (because you'd probably want to run The Prince's Plans for that....)

I would like to see a decklist that runs GGs as a frontrunner with all of these cancel cards and icon removal.