So who else has been trying these out lately?

I recently tried out a Targaryen Tully Deck in a 3 player game. I flipped plot cards that nullified certain challenges between me and another player, or reduced claim on their plot cards, and I also just tried to rally my Tullys as fast as humanly possible. And then flipped Across The Summer Sea for the Riverrun win. Unfortunately I couldn't draw Riverrun before that point to drop on that turn so I had to stall for a turn before I drew one to do it. But it was an immediate strategy I saw when I read what the plot card did. It's amazing.

Oh yes, I've been looking to try that out as well. I'm pretty freaking pumped to give it a shot.

I had a buddy drop two Blood Debts on another friend playing a TPBtT Lanni deck. The Lanni player then fumed about Compelled by the Rock still being on the ban list.

Bwahahaha. I mean, I frequently think that it's kinda dumb to still have Compelled by the Rock on the Banned list, but that actually brings up a good point. It would open up some really cool potential plays in melee.

Controversy aside, it'd be cool to have Compelled by the Rock back for melee play at least.

I'm not even sure there is a controversy any more. After the release of The Maester's Path and friends, the old argument that Lannister shouldn't have attachment control because that steps on Targaryen's toes seems pretty farcical.

Stark Siege can take advantage of the Iron price pretty incredibly, 2 of these on a baratheon player caused the stark player to win turn 2, thinking about playing it OOH in my siege deck

Kennon said:

Unlike most attachment control, it takes control of the attachment which is a pretty rare effect (ie doesn't exist outside of a few Targ cards). Further, most Targ control is not event based. They have only one event and its a little weak (being a shadow). Between Ill Tidings and Bought and Paid For, Lanni isn't really hurting for it anyways.

*shrug* That means that most of the Targ attachment control is better due to the repeatable or more difficult to cancel nature of their cards.

Stepping on another faction's toes seems like a poor reason to still have a card banned in the LCG. That should really be reserved for cards that are flat out broken and or game warping. We've already seen a card come off the banned list before, and seen one come off the restricted list, so it really seems silly to leave it there. If we were to worry about banning cards due to infringing on the flavor of other houses, I could probably post a pretty considerable list of other cards that should be banned.

But ah well, that's stepping aside from the original point of the thread- melee!

Has anyone else been trying out Myrcella and Varys? Has anyone actually used the house card attachments?

Kennon said:

I've seen a lot of Myrcella and Varys used exactly twice, but both times Varys was used to prevent a win. Myrcella gets to be a real pain, especially once she gets duped and Power of Bloods are floating around. I've mostly seen her owner just abuse the heck out of her, taking Master of Laws and then swapping it for Crown Regent later, etc.
In the article, Will stated "I’ve already played several games where other players defended my Myrcella in order to keep her around to manipulate the Titles to maintain a general status quo on the table." but I can assure you that doesn't happen in our meta, it seems we're more likely to all work together to take her down once someone plays her. She reminds me a lot of Core Varys; both cards can quickly make you a lot of enemies. Both cards can also make an otherwise straightforward game into a giant mess... how many people have played a game so far where two opponents get Myrcella out? Ugh...

Kennon said:

I've used Stark's In the Name of the King. I found it to work really well in Melee.

I had built a Stark Kingsguard deck where I had a lot of "does not kneel to defend" characters and what not. I could attach that card to the strongest MIL player where they'd normally win MIL challenges without too much of a problem. Basically, it changed how that player played because they were fully aware of me benefiting off of each MIL challenge they won, so they had to either lose as the defender, or win and reward me with Power. If they attacked me in MIL, it was win-win because I would get a power for winning as the defender or a power if they beat me.

I know it's tough to want to give a player's character +2 bonus in any challenge type, but if they Support you or their MIL strength doesn't matter that much, then it's really not that bad. Another thing - If I decide to attack them, I could attack, with say 1 MIL strength. They'd easily beat me and let me get a power if they defend. With my agenda, I know I have to give up 1 power or kneel a Kingsguard character, but if I'm the last one attacking or can afford to kneel a Kingsguard, I don't really care if it gets me a power.

I'm not saying it's the best thing to do, but it can certainly change that opponent's game play if they can't get rid of it. The other thing that will **** them up is if you attach 2 or 3 of them to their house card. They will win just about every MIL challenge they commit characters to, but at the price of giving you 2 or 3 power. They are welcome to attack me and kill one of my crappy characters if it gets me that much power.

Basically, if you think the risk is too high to give it to a certain player, then give it to the weakest looking player. Or maybe spread it around so you gain power for any MIL challenge the opponents win. It can definitely backfire if you are not smart with it.

I was a little shocked about the reviews the House attachments. I could see how the Stark and Martell wells would be easy to build with, and probably GJ as well. I'm having some fun with them myself... though I haven't used them yet in a melee tourney.

Penfold said:

Honestly, the 3 that I find have the chance to be used really well are Stark, Targaryen, and Martell as they only reward power to the player who controls it. The others can reward other opponents and I just don't see a good place for them in any deck that I'd build. The Greyjoy one could be okay, but if characters are not killed because they are saved, then it can take some time to become useful.

I had a chance to try out a new melee deck. Its a bit half-assed since its part dragon deck, part cram all the melee crap into one deck. TQL is a bit touchy to use. I tried using Exiled Knight and Sorrowful Men as deadly defenders to cut back on unopposed challenges but stopping an entire power rush was harsh. I did manage to build up a fair amount of power from using TQL. It was a 3 player game so the titles created a lot of stalled attempts.

The others to me are all about making targets of opportunity. They are the kind of thing I'd slap on someone who I believed was a serious threat to winning the table, and most definitely what I'd toss on any obvious rush deck. Anything that gets more people to attack someone who is not me is a decent card. If I can set it up so that I get to go first more often than not then I get the advantage of the effect, but that to me is not the reason to play these cards...

It is about rewarding other players to do your dirty work for you. I think about how many times I see people use the pick an opponent and you both get X plots and the deals that people make to get chosen, and I see this card filling a very similar space.

Penfold said:

Oh absolutely. I envisioned the same. Have you ever gotten that to work for you like you describe?

Sometimes I struggle to see someone attacking someone for those added incentives offered via the attachments, but I guess it depends on the players and their decks.

I have. They become a target of opportunity. If you have a challenge that you can throw out and have no specific reason to attack one player more than another everyone goes after the guy with one of these... and that is never me. When it is on a rush deck, I have to do a lot less convincing of people to be sending extra challenges that way.

Of course because it only helps the first person to win the challenge against that person it isn't a strong incentive for multiple challenges being directed at them, but in a four player game if you know the other three players are absolutely looking at hitting you with a specific challenge, every single turn, then you play a little differently, a little more defensively. It is harder for them to make alliances that they trust in because there is essentially a bounty on them, and always a reason for said ally to stab them in the back for profit.

Bomb said:

Melee game between Greyjoy, Stark, Targaryen and Baratheon, The Baratheon Player put Enemy of the Crown on the Greyjoy, the Greyjoy put 2 Iron Prices on the Targareyn. Stark then attacked Greyjoy for power, Stood Robb stark and atacked Targareyn for military, used winter is coming and ended up claiming 2 for Robbs renown, 1 power from the greyjoy, 2 power from military with a siege deck and 4 from the iron prices being knelt. the Baratheon player barely had any military out on the board but it was the Targaryen who Stark went after.

When 2 players put enough attachments on a house card like that, it puts the winners of those challenge types in a great position to claim multiple power because of those attachments. Now, did Stark Siege win that game? That scenario specifically sounded like it back fired a little.

Yup. . . completely backfired, but second game siege got stuck at 14 and greyjoy won because of corpse lake, out of the 3 games Greyjoy won 2 Stark won 1 and Bara and Targ were never really in it

really like these cards a lot they change the interplay of melee IMO, except im surprised so many people like In the Name of the King because my playgroup thinks it is easily the worst attachment

jack merridew said:

I put 3x In the Name of the King on a player of a Siege of Winterfell deck last Friday. He reached 13 or 14 power while I had 12 or 13. Him winning a MIL challenge automatically made me the winner because I passively collect 3 power before him. I basically trapped him.

The other idea is to purposely attack someone with 1 or 2 characters of very minimal STR you put In the Name of the King attachments on. Give them an easy win so they must decide to either give you free power or kill a character. It makes MIL attacks against those players a win-win situation for you.

Maybe you can put 1 or 2 of those attachments on a player that is weak in MIL to help them against the stronger player.

Each of these attachments can backfire for sure, but as long as you play them(or don't play them!) smart it should be okay. Everyone hates me when I play them, but I gain power by doing nothing. :-)

jack merridew said:

I don't see why. Stark has access to Feigned Retreat, Lethal Counterattack and a host of other useful defensive cards if you don't feel like losing.

If you don't mind taking the hit you have excellent claim soakers in the form of Lucas Blackwood, Arya Stark and Kyle Condon. Further, you can control their challenge effects via text blanking.

Right... but do you have access to those cards when you need them? That is always the question. And this is melee... where the strength of your deck is only a piece of what it takes to win. Your ability to manipulate the choices available by your opponents really determines whether the cards you have are going to be effective in winning you the game. The melee attachments manipulate those choices, the cards you are talking about attempt to compensate for such manipulations, but outside of discarding the attachments, those solutions you mentioned will affect a single challenge... but those attachments keep you a target for at least two other players. Do you have enough answers to do this three times a turn every turn?

Of course, I am not slamming your suggestions, especially since if you can make people start to question the payout being worth the risk, you can threaten and cajole your opponents into not attacking you.

2 games Saturday (3p), 4 Monday (4p), different groups of guys. I played melee Myrcella myself 3 times in that span, and saw her twice by opponents, one time when I had her out. I think in-house she is a no-brainer and basically free, and out of house worth consideration so long as you plan on grabbing the +2G before she gets erased.

She is a big deal on paper I'm sure everyone can see, and in practice, I think it is fairly BS. When playing from behind, it is too powerful of a catch up mechanic. If she were 3G instead I think there would be more risk vs. reward but the way she is now I mean it doesn't hurt to put her in play at all in-house.

Not hating but people I have played with think she has changed the landscape of Melee a bit too much.