Putting the New FAQ in Perspective

By Staton, in 1. AGoT General Discussion

Posted at

Hey guys, here's my thoughts on the new FAQ. I know they've been causing quite a bit of discussion on here and the various other sites.

OK guys. I'm here to put some stuff in perspective.
First of all, let's look at GG. The card used to be able to stop a deck from getting renown power at all. You needed to get 15 power on your house. However, now you can play those four cost and up characters and be able to rely a bit on renown. The way that most of you were using the card made GG the best resource denial card in the game, hands down. That's not what the card is, or ever should be, about. The card is about challenge denial, which is what the card is STILL about. You can still return enough of their characters that you just win the challenge. You still have Burning on the Sand, Red Vengeance, The Only Game That Matters, The Scourge, Orphan of the Greenblood, etc etc. If you can't win a game with those cards, you probably should pick a different house. Martell is still the number one house in the game. Did the gap between it and other houses just become a lot less? Of course, but that is the point, right? FFG is trying to keep the game balanced, and before the eratta it wasn't. Could you win with other houses? Sure, but if you were looking for the best deck, it was clearly out of Martell. There wasn't a reason to run another house if you were just looking to win. Now with the errata you have a more balanced and more diverse meta. GG needed errata and I think FFG came up with a very elegant solution.
Now onto The Laughing Storm. I'm sure you're all expecting me to say "Man about time! This is awesome!" That's not what I want to say today. Am I excited? Am I going to run The Laughing Storm and Val in my Baratheon Rush deck? Yes on both accounts. However, I'm also a bit cautious. Baratheon needed a leg up, and it needed it badly, but I don't know if this was the right call here. That combo is VERY unbalanced. The problem with Baratheon is that they are very combo oriented, even if some builds aren't in the conventional combo format like The Laughing Storm and Val. This means that you balance them by giving them limited access to draw/search, but since they still need some card advantage you make their cards very cost effective (they've accomplished this with Baratheon's resource acceleration) and make it easy for them to reuse the cards they draw (which they've tried to do but missed the mark a bit here). The fact that Baratheon has the best draw engine in the game is kinda scary. Do I even really need to run that many dupes when I have two guaranteed turns of unkillable uniques and access to massive draw? I doubt it, which means I suddenly get to run more toolboxy (I admit that Baratheon has a lot less toolbox stuff than they used to have) and situational cards that will let me beat those negative matchups. My deck also just became A LOT more consistent, even with cutting out some dupes. I'm not sure what the best Baratheon build is right now, but I guarantee you it involved The Laughing Storm and Val. Val is still pretty fragile in and of herself (The Laughing Storm is too honestly, as are all cards) so I foresee Targ becoming pretty popular. I'm hoping that the meta can shift enough to handle the The Laughing Storm being unrestricted, but its something that I'll definitely be keeping an eye on, and I'm sure FFG is too.
Now onto the last point of contention, which is "Martell keeps getting hit with restricted cards but doesn't win any major tournaments!" Well, then you're doing it wrong. I'm sorry if that's offensive, but its true. Martell has been the top house for awhile and has completely dominated the US meta for well over a year now. The fact that Zelier's deck came out of left field and won was nothing more than a fluke. People hadn't really considered it and weren't prepared to deal with it. Martell was still the best house, but people were ready to deal with it. The EU community has always been much more in favor of Aggro decks like Stark Siege and the like, which means the Martell decks just aren't getting the same amount of play, and people aren't as familiar with the build. Martell is NOT a deck that you can just pick up and win with by the way. It requires a lot of practice and a lot of thought when playing it for it to be effective. You are CONSTANTLY faced with decision trees, much more so than any other house, imo. If anyone is doubting this fact, look at the OCTGN tourney results. The top 8 was dominated by Martell, and the decks that ended up in the finals were the GG decks. Hell, there was a GJ deck that Treatied with the South just to get access to GG and Martell Nobles (He was also the only EU player that made the top 4). The problem with Martell is that people keep looking at each card in a vacuum, but each card needs to be considered in the context of the house its in. Martell has the strongest combination of cards in the game, which is the fault of the designers of this game that they keep giving the best cards to Martell. So when you have power creep effecting one house much much more than others, you are going to cause that house to be hit the hardest by errata and restricted cards. Its just the way that balance works. I think that once everyone settles down and starts playing, they'll realize that the game is in a much much better spot than it was two days ago.
tl;dr - The game is much more balanced than it was before. If you thought Martell wasn't that strong you were doing it wrong. TLS might be a problem down the road in the context of the Bara house.

Posted at

Staton said:

Hey guys, here's my thoughts on the new FAQ. I know they've been causing quite a bit of discussion on here and the various other sites.

OK guys. I'm here to put some stuff in perspective.
First of all, let's look at GG. The card used to be able to stop a deck from getting renown power at all. You needed to get 15 power on your house. However, now you can play those four cost and up characters and be able to rely a bit on renown. The way that most of you were using the card made GG the best resource denial card in the game, hands down. That's not what the card is, or ever should be, about. The card is about challenge denial, which is what the card is STILL about. You can still return enough of their characters that you just win the challenge. You still have Burning on the Sand, Red Vengeance, The Only Game That Matters, The Scourge, Orphan of the Greenblood, etc etc. If you can't win a game with those cards, you probably should pick a different house. Martell is still the number one house in the game. Did the gap between it and other houses just become a lot less? Of course, but that is the point, right? FFG is trying to keep the game balanced, and before the eratta it wasn't. Could you win with other houses? Sure, but if you were looking for the best deck, it was clearly out of Martell. There wasn't a reason to run another house if you were just looking to win. Now with the errata you have a more balanced and more diverse meta. GG needed errata and I think FFG came up with a very elegant solution.
Now onto The Laughing Storm. I'm sure you're all expecting me to say "Man about time! This is awesome!" That's not what I want to say today. Am I excited? Am I going to run The Laughing Storm and Val in my Baratheon Rush deck? Yes on both accounts. However, I'm also a bit cautious. Baratheon needed a leg up, and it needed it badly, but I don't know if this was the right call here. That combo is VERY unbalanced. The problem with Baratheon is that they are very combo oriented, even if some builds aren't in the conventional combo format like The Laughing Storm and Val. This means that you balance them by giving them limited access to draw/search, but since they still need some card advantage you make their cards very cost effective (they've accomplished this with Baratheon's resource acceleration) and make it easy for them to reuse the cards they draw (which they've tried to do but missed the mark a bit here). The fact that Baratheon has the best draw engine in the game is kinda scary. Do I even really need to run that many dupes when I have two guaranteed turns of unkillable uniques and access to massive draw? I doubt it, which means I suddenly get to run more toolboxy (I admit that Baratheon has a lot less toolbox stuff than they used to have) and situational cards that will let me beat those negative matchups. My deck also just became A LOT more consistent, even with cutting out some dupes. I'm not sure what the best Baratheon build is right now, but I guarantee you it involved The Laughing Storm and Val. Val is still pretty fragile in and of herself (The Laughing Storm is too honestly, as are all cards) so I foresee Targ becoming pretty popular. I'm hoping that the meta can shift enough to handle the The Laughing Storm being unrestricted, but its something that I'll definitely be keeping an eye on, and I'm sure FFG is too.
Now onto the last point of contention, which is "Martell keeps getting hit with restricted cards but doesn't win any major tournaments!" Well, then you're doing it wrong. I'm sorry if that's offensive, but its true. Martell has been the top house for awhile and has completely dominated the US meta for well over a year now. The fact that Zelier's deck came out of left field and won was nothing more than a fluke. People hadn't really considered it and weren't prepared to deal with it. Martell was still the best house, but people were ready to deal with it. The EU community has always been much more in favor of Aggro decks like Stark Siege and the like, which means the Martell decks just aren't getting the same amount of play, and people aren't as familiar with the build. Martell is NOT a deck that you can just pick up and win with by the way. It requires a lot of practice and a lot of thought when playing it for it to be effective. You are CONSTANTLY faced with decision trees, much more so than any other house, imo. If anyone is doubting this fact, look at the OCTGN tourney results. The top 8 was dominated by Martell, and the decks that ended up in the finals were the GG decks. Hell, there was a GJ deck that Treatied with the South just to get access to GG and Martell Nobles (He was also the only EU player that made the top 4). The problem with Martell is that people keep looking at each card in a vacuum, but each card needs to be considered in the context of the house its in. Martell has the strongest combination of cards in the game, which is the fault of the designers of this game that they keep giving the best cards to Martell. So when you have power creep effecting one house much much more than others, you are going to cause that house to be hit the hardest by errata and restricted cards. Its just the way that balance works. I think that once everyone settles down and starts playing, they'll realize that the game is in a much much better spot than it was two days ago.
tl;dr - The game is much more balanced than it was before. If you thought Martell wasn't that strong you were doing it wrong. TLS might be a problem down the road in the context of the Bara house.

Balance to some extent also turns the game into rock-paper-scissors. (*I don't want to offend anyone, since hindsight is pure speculation about "what might have been", so I'm using words to soften what I'm saying.) Zeiler's deck at Gencon, for example, was not necessarily out of left field, that much is certain, as many people were talking about it and testing against it leading up to Gencon. Ghaston Grey was the (not so) secret weapon against uber-maesters. Reading Zeiler's tournament report, though you see that it was merely a case of rock-paper-scissors in setup and draw to get the combo cards. The fact that Zeiler's deck made it past them, is a fluke, as he probably shouldn't have made it that far against a field of GG. So, with an errata to Ghaston Grey, will we actually see more uber-maester rush decks since going up against a Martell deck hampered with multiple 5-cost characters would choke itself to death? I suspect that is the real reason behind the errata to Shadows Bob, not that shadows cards see less play, because that's not necessarily so.

But as for Laughing Storm, I applaud FFG's decision to let it enter the meta, allowing it to play out. It may be that it needs to go back or to face errata after seeing how the meta adjusts (or fails to adjust) to it. I've always thought that a simple erratum would suffice: During the challenges phase, The Laughing Storm gains "..." No more abusive card draw combos. But hey, perhaps it's time for Bara to have its 15 minutes. gran_risa.gif

Posted at

I didn't hear anything about the Maester Bob combo until like two or three weeks before Gencon, which isn't enough time for players to adjust to it, imo. I agree that he did get favorable match ups in the swiss rounds, that is definitely true.

I don't think balance HAS to be rock paper scissors. That's only the case if people don't toolbox their deck. If you are playing deck A to beat deck B, but lost to deck C, then you need to toolbox against deck C since you are already playing the counter to deck B.

Posted at

Staton said:

I didn't hear anything about the Maester Bob combo until like two or three weeks before Gencon, which isn't enough time for players to adjust to it, imo. I agree that he did get favorable match ups in the swiss rounds, that is definitely true.

I don't think balance HAS to be rock paper scissors. That's only the case if people don't toolbox their deck. If you are playing deck A to beat deck B, but lost to deck C, then you need to toolbox against deck C since you are already playing the counter to deck B.

I think it was being talked about in the European meta for a couple months prior. I remember hearing about it a month or so after regionals. Regardless, I didn't say that Zeiler's match-ups were favorable, because he had to play GG 3 or 4 times, only losing against it once (to Corey). I'm saying that if you look at the match-ups, it came down to who got GG and enough nobles to trigger it, and who didn't.

Sure, toolboxing: there's no way to toolbox for viable deckbuilds for all six houses, though, which is why reading the meta is so important, as is the versatility of the toolbox card. Deck A can plan for deck B, and even fit in stuff for deck C, but then there are decks X, Y, and Z, which bring their own problematic cards. Not to mention some cards you can't do anything about, even if you know they're coming. Perhaps GJ will become more popular then because of its plethora of cancel.

Posted at

Dang, nevermind. I just reread the errata to GG and it's equal or lower cost, whereas I misread it at first as lower. Martell still has Arianne. So that won't affect uber-maester really.

Posted at


Sure, toolboxing: there's no way to toolbox for viable deckbuilds for all six houses, though, which is why reading the meta is so important, as is the versatility of the toolbox card. Deck A can plan for deck B, and even fit in stuff for deck C, but then there are decks X, Y, and Z, which bring their own problematic cards. Not to mention some cards you can't do anything about, even if you know they're coming. Perhaps GJ will become more popular then because of its plethora of cancel.

At that point, it isn't Rock-Paper-Scissors. At that point, it is exactly how it is supposed to be. A deck shouldn't be able to handle everything that is thrown at it. If it can, then there is a serious issue of balance.

This is more like Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock.

Posted at

sWhiteboy said:

Danigral said:


Sure, toolboxing: there's no way to toolbox for viable deckbuilds for all six houses, though, which is why reading the meta is so important, as is the versatility of the toolbox card. Deck A can plan for deck B, and even fit in stuff for deck C, but then there are decks X, Y, and Z, which bring their own problematic cards. Not to mention some cards you can't do anything about, even if you know they're coming. Perhaps GJ will become more popular then because of its plethora of cancel.

At that point, it isn't Rock-Paper-Scissors. At that point, it is exactly how it is supposed to be. A deck shouldn't be able to handle everything that is thrown at it. If it can, then there is a serious issue of balance.

This is more like Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock.

Heck, it's not even that straight forward, given the different flavors for each House. Meta'ing against Stark Siege isn't the same as meta'ing against Stark Shadows, for instance.

Posted at

Staton:

Hey, don't sweat TLS man. Enjoy it!

It's a strong combo, yeah, but the draw cap is there for a reason, and as you mentioned it's fairly fragile and not in-fallible.

It also locks you out of running Fury of the Stag, which gives you an edge against 2 of the hardest matchups Bara has.

What I like about TLS just as much, is that it can protect rush from first turn RBD.
Down the line though, I agree. He's quite similar to Robert, and will probably enable some other rediculous combos. But I don't think Val is all that bad.


Martell is very good, but I don't (and never have seen) the broken talk. I've found Ghaston Grey no worse than Flame-Kissed and Forever Burning loop madness when Targ gets Lady Daenery's Chambers out.

I personally think Bara is harder to play than Martell, because not only do you need to be aware of the board position, you also need to dance around Valar and Search and Detain. Once you get 2 or 3 powerful control events in your hand as Martell, you can relax a little bit.

The OCTGN results are telling, but OCTGN is just another meta. The same meta with 7 page GG OP? threads.

Posted at

If OCTGN is a meta, it is the largest most diverse meta out there. I do agree with Rave that looking down the line, TLS really creates design issues - potentially more than now-erratta'd Bob.

Good points Stanton, ~and glad you can see the light on LTS gui%C3%B1o.gif I agree that she is easily controlable, but that becomes an issue in that everyone needs to run specific control. Is that a good thing? I think yes, but some might not agree.

I also agree this helps Targ. A stronger Bara (especially one relying on any dups/saves) helps Targ.

Also, saying their is a draw cap and the draw is fragile doesn't mean much. If a house where draw is a supposed weakness gets easy draw, that is an issue. And all draw is inherently fragile. The fact remains that TLS + Val probably gets three cards a turn each turn they are out. Plus they get to be characters that are strong on their own. Plus you have to use a card to control whichever part you try to control. Oh, and if you kneel TLS, Val still will most likely get you cards, so it usually needs to be destruction. I know you need to get both parts out, but that isn't rocket science.

Posted at

rings said:

Also, saying their is a draw cap and the draw is fragile doesn't mean much. If a house where draw is a supposed weakness gets easy draw, that is an issue. And all draw is inherently fragile. The fact remains that TLS + Val probably gets three cards a turn each turn they are out. Plus they get to be characters that are strong on their own. Plus you have to use a card to control whichever part you try to control. Oh, and if you kneel TLS, Val still will most likely get you cards, so it usually needs to be destruction. I know you need to get both parts out, but that isn't rocket science.

Well, there's the trade off I think. You balance out the draw weakness with some lost stability in the deck.
This is still character based draw from a combo. So it's still a weakness.

Since everyone thinks that Bara is weak unless they aren't rushing. I assume most will go 3x TLS and 3x Val in their rush decks?

You ARE missing out on Fury of the Stag or Narrow Escape, both of which are very rush-friendly cards.

And rocket science or not, I don't think you want to be fishing for cards to create a combo in a rush deck. What if you have 2 or 3 copies of 1 part in your hand? Are they just going to sit there for 1 or 2 turns? Those are slots that could be contributing to your board position (or setup). And even if you get both parts out, there's no guarantee it goes off for very long.

Most decks are running Valar and Search and Detain too.

I don't see anything OP about this combo. Maybe not ALL decks, but I'm pretty sure all top decks are going to have an answer to this once it hits the table.

Posted at

Rave said:

rings said:

Also, saying their is a draw cap and the draw is fragile doesn't mean much. If a house where draw is a supposed weakness gets easy draw, that is an issue. And all draw is inherently fragile. The fact remains that TLS + Val probably gets three cards a turn each turn they are out. Plus they get to be characters that are strong on their own. Plus you have to use a card to control whichever part you try to control. Oh, and if you kneel TLS, Val still will most likely get you cards, so it usually needs to be destruction. I know you need to get both parts out, but that isn't rocket science.

Well, there's the trade off I think. You balance out the draw weakness with some lost stability in the deck.
This is still character based draw from a combo. So it's still a weakness.

Since everyone thinks that Bara is weak unless they aren't rushing. I assume most will go 3x TLS and 3x Val in their rush decks?

You ARE missing out on Fury of the Stag or Narrow Escape, both of which are very rush-friendly cards.

And rocket science or not, I don't think you want to be fishing for cards to create a combo in a rush deck. What if you have 2 or 3 copies of 1 part in your hand? Are they just going to sit there for 1 or 2 turns? Those are slots that could be contributing to your board position (or setup). And even if you get both parts out, there's no guarantee it goes off for very long.

Most decks are running Valar and Search and Detain too.

I don't see anything OP about this combo. Maybe not ALL decks, but I'm pretty sure all top decks are going to have an answer to this once it hits the table.

Well one thing why everyone has been saying that baratheon needs to rush has been their lack of draw. You can still do a fast rush with 3x TLS 3x Val in your deck, heck I'm pretty sure you can do it better than without em. The problem with rush has had is that it will lose its steam in 2-3 turns so it needs to win in that time. Now with added draw it can add elements that make it more resiliant and now it has the option of not going for all out rush assault if the player decides that a more slower tactic is better one. Two card combo isn't two hard in agot if you can get TLS first you should have no problem getting Val as there is the nice threat from the east plot out there. Thing is TLS is not only going to combo with Val you can combo him with the new Seal, Ghost of high heart and other stuff, Val just is clearly the best. I dunno I have mixed feelings about this, kind of happy that now I actually have to fear when my opponent places "house baratheon" card on the table. ;)

I cannot see how fury of the stag or narrow escape could compete with "hit your drawcap for a turn or several if you are lucky". Haven't we seen this already with people playing a lot pyromancer's cache even out of house to fix their draw problems even when they have great inhouse restricted cards.

Posted at

Hmm but is it really worth it to get Val as restricted card ?

Especially when you have Narrow Escape and thanks to TLS you can actually keep it in hand.

Now I might be a bit biased as mainly Targ player but STR1 unique character which you run in 3 copies seems kinda vunerable ;)

Posted at

michaelius said:

Hmm but is it really worth it to get Val as restricted card ?

Especially when you have Narrow Escape and thanks to TLS you can actually keep it in hand.

Now I might be a bit biased as mainly Targ player but STR1 unique character which you run in 3 copies seems kinda vunerable ;)

I totally agree with Rave, and above that you are giving something up (Narrow Escape more than Fury, which these days isn't that much better than the other plots you see). And that it is weak to Targ a bit. But it will win games. I beat Dobbler a couple of years ago in Top 8 ONLY based on controlling his Val quickly, and it took a couple of turn for him to control mine. And that is without TLS.

I think Narrow Escape is more breakable than Val, to be honest. The point about Targ can much more easily be made about Stark Siege or other builds that don't really have a problem discarding their hand to keep board position. Or of course any cancels to NE. And NE is a one-time effect.

One final thought - didn't a Bara Wildling deck do fairly well in some recent tourney (New York? OCTGN?)? Is it one of those decks using the location that stands stealth characters or whatever? Since this probably would fit right in, just wondering.

Posted at

rings said:


I beat Dobbler a couple of years ago in Top 8 ONLY based on controlling his Val quickly, and it took a couple of turn for him to control mine. And that is without TLS.

You triplicated Val on the first turn. And you Venomous bladed my Val I believe. That game was ugly!

Posted at

With the errata on Bob, I think the Laughing Storm needed de-restricting.

The Bob errata was a shame in my opinion. Only needed as a result of insufficient thought when publishing later cards - if they'd included "printed" trait on Maester's path, Satin etc. none of those ridiculous combos would have happened, and those of us who were just trying to win 4 challenges around with him (or 6 if I managed to give him Devious Intentions) could have been left in peace to progress to later rounds of competitions and get soundly beaten by Greyjoy Choke or Martell Brotherhood...

sorry, I may be getting a bit personal now...

Posted at
Obviously - I am thrilled. I think this fix was way, way overdue - and I agree with Rave; speaking as a Baratheon loyalist there is no way Val is the automatic pick: losing the Plot is HUGE for most of my Rush decks and Narrow Escape was a staple in the others. .

The Grey fix makes perfect sense - if i am losing Robert and six power, you better be losing more than just Myrcella. I don't think anyone can argue that this just seems more balanced.

And i think it balances the overall meta. Baratheon will not be dominant, they may not even win a lot of Regionals - but they will at least be a threat and they may actually have a shot against Martell now.

*applause*
Posted at

And I am excited to finally get a chance to see how the competitive metagame adjusts in actuality to The Laughing Storm and the various combinations. If it turns out that this combo is really broken (which i am sure it isn't) than - by all means: a fix to TLS would be fine. But let's play it out first.

Posted at

Stag Lord said:

And I am excited to finally get a chance to see how the competitive metagame adjusts in actuality to The Laughing Storm and the various combinations. If it turns out that this combo is really broken (which i am sure it isn't) than - by all means: a fix to TLS would be fine. But let's play it out first.

Let's Go Pens! lol