I love this game. I think it was designed beautifully and the universe that it resides in is one of my favorites. I in no way want this post to come across as disrespectful to FFG, but would like to make a few (hopefully constructive) criticisms of the game state. The below text is my opinion based solely on my own play experiences. I do not claim that this is the majority held opinion of the meta, nor do I claim that others are experiencing the same feelings. I only hope to start a discussion. (also everything here refers to competitive joust play).

Background: I started playing aGoT last summer (roughly one year ago), so as a disclaimer my experience in the game is not nearly as extensive as others. However, I think those who frequent the these boards and the fan sites see how passionate I am about aGoT via the sheer amount of time I spend here, and my lack of longevity can be compensated for by my passion for the game. As an additional disclaimer I will say that the only other PvP card game I have ever played is MtG, and that was non-competitively, well over a decade ago when I was but a wee lad.

As a frame of reference, when I started playing this game, QoD and the Maesters cycle had just been released. As I began learning all the rules of this game I marveled at how intricate the interactions between the cards were. Everything fit together like a tightly tied knot. I loved how every house had very specific strength, but relative to other houses, that strength wasn't leaps and bounds above any other house (example: Stark was strong in military, but not WAY stronger than Baratheon. Lannister was strong in intrigue, but not WAY stronger than Martell). I love how each house had weaknesses that could be exploited to counteract those strengths. Because of this, no matter which house/build I chose to play, I always felt that I had a chance to win regardless of what my opponent was playing. Sure some matchups were better than others, but rarely did I roll over my opponent, and rarely did I get run over. Many if not most games ended with both players above 10 power, and the outcome was always in question until the very last challenge of the very last round, and that made every game I played engaging and fun til the end.

I cannot pinpoint an exact cause or time, but it is my contention that aGoT is no longer balanced enough to be realistically competitive on a match to match level. I suspect that at the root of the problem is the sheer volume of cards available in the card pool (which I realize is bound to happen in an LCG). As time passes and new cards are released, each house/build gets new cards to support and augment their existing strengths, which only serves to magnifies their abilities to expose the weaknesses of the opposing houses'. Stark used to be strong in military challenges, now they are ridiculously strong in military challenges (2 claim military challenge with Winter is Coming, No Quarter and Die by the Sword anyone?). Lannister used to strong in intrigue challenges, now they are ridiculously strong in intrigue challenges (Power Behind the Throne with Frey Hospitality and Misinformation anyone?). Targaryen used to be strong with burn, now they are ridiculously strong in burn (Incinerate…..nuff said ). I could keep going but I'm sure you all understand this point. (I would like to point out here that with the nature of an LCG, I think a situation like this was always inevitable and unavoidable. So I don't think FFG has done anything wrong).

The end result of the above issue is that in my opinion the Global Joust Meta has become a complete Rock/Paper/Scissors game. Gone are the days of the 15-13 hard fought victory. Gone are the days when any house/build could beat any other house/build so long as a bit of luck was on their side. Most jousts now end in a complete landslide victory, with the winner generally being decided by who imposed their houses strengths best on Plot 1, leaving little to no room for the come from behind win (seriously when was the last time you were able win a match after losing your entire hand to a Lanni INT rush on Turn 1?). Where is the fun in this?

My beautiful game of balance that was once a tightly tied knot, seems to be getting looser and looser with the release of each new CP, and I am afraid that soon it will come untied completely. The question that I keep asking myself is "Is there a solution to this problem?". Many people seem to think that a form of Rotation could help, though with how the seasons and shadows mechanics work I am not sure how Rotation could be implemented.

I have no idea what the answer is, but I do know that as time passes and more cards are released, the problem is only going to get worse.

TLDR Cliff Notes:

Houses strengths are comparatively too strong.

Most jousts are essentially decided on Plot 1.

I agree with half and disagree with half.

I do think that often times it is pretty clear who is going to win after the first plot. This, however, is not 100%.

I really don't think rock paper scissors is out there, and I think the environment (at least from my point of view) is still competitive.

I have clearly had some success in the 2 regionals I played in (Combined 11-3 record), but there were no easy matches. Here are some stats and comments to explain:

Deck - Record

vs Martell Maesters 2-0
Martell Maesters is clearly not a weak deck, and in my 2 matches, one win was due to a bad flop by my opponent, and the other was an EXTREMELY close match that was won on a challenge where the winner of that challenge would win the game, regardless of which one of us it was.

vs Targ Burn 4-2
To be honest, this matchup is a race. Can I win before they can get their combo in place? Clearly it works some of the time. In one of my losses, I got to 14 power before they shut me down. In one of my wins, they were literally one top deck flame kissed away from winning. There were also some blowouts on either side.

vs Martell GG 1-1
This is a pretty even matchup. They have the tools to beat me and I have the speed to beat them.

vs Wildlings 1-0
To be honest, my win here was pure luck. They have the advantage on matchup, and I still won.

vs Stark shadows 2-0
Its hard to win against me when my first turn threat from the east grabs 2 white ravens and a carrion bird out of your hand.

vs Greyjoy 1-0
A 4th turn 19-19 power challenge was the only thing that allowed me to win this one. Don't think it gets much closer.

More than half my games have been close. Going into the last turn where initiative winner = game winner has been prevalent.

I'm actually not sure how qualified I am to voice a view on this, but maybe a voice coming from a completely different place will contribute something.

My background is about as different from dcdennis' as can be. I have been playing this game since day one ( of the CCG). I signed up as a tournament organizer the day Westeros Edition hit the shelves in my local game store (which I work at), and swiftly began running events.
I should also mention that I have never been to a Regional/National/World event. I have never had the time or the resources to travel to one, and the closest ones have never been anywhere near my home. So I come from the perspective of someone who has read what the high-end meta is like, but has never actually seen it for himself.

As such, I have seen House strengths shift and flow, at least to some extent. In terms of Stark, claim 2 plots have been around since the beginning, so has Winter is coming, and before there was No Quarter or Die by the Sword there was Put to the Sword and Robb Stark. Stark has almost always been able to generate crazy Mil claim. Stark also used to be the Save kings, but that fell way to Greyjoy, who also seems to have lost a lot of that. I remember when 3/4 of the event cards in my friend's Greyjoy deck were save mechanics. The relative strength of house strengths and weaknesses has shifted so much over the years that I cannot help but see this as just another tide cycle in the ocean.

But that's not the point I'm trying to make here. The point I really strongly wanted to voice was about your concerns about Jousts being over too quickly, and the Rock/Paper/Scissors nature of it.

I think, to some extent, that is just unavoidable. Once a game becomes competitive, really competitive, those people participating in that high level of competition play each other find flaws, work them out, play each other, refine further, etc… until they find THE most efficient routes to victory. Problem is, there can't be too many of those, and they tend to be so narrow focused that they have some weak spot that someone else's route will steamroll over.

I think the other major contributor to the situation is netdecking. Once someone's really awesome deck is posted online, suddenly everyone has access to it's awesomeness. While I don't want to call this a bad thing, it means that more and more decks become more and more similar.

Rotation isn't a solution. It doesn't create balance, it limits deck types. And the fewer deck types are available, the more alike decks will become. That's a large part of why I opposed the phasing out of CCG cards in the first place, though now I see how brutally overpowered some of them were compared to their LCG descendants.

Sadly, I don't think there is a solution. The upper-tier is a certain environment, and I think it always will be, much as with any other game.

IMHO, the reason that a winner is often decided by the end of turn 1 is actually intrinsic to the game due to the fact that there is a setup. And all it requires to be "broken" is enough cheap overpowered cards (by overpowered I don't mean cards that are completely broken, but more like cards as Lost Spearman, Distinguished Boatswain, Bastard's Elite etc.) that a lot of decks have nowadays. And on top of that all the reducers that you can have one of and at the right flop they can propel you to victory in one turn.

Compared yo Fieras' experience, I'd say my experience in recent Regionals is quite opposite. Probably only 4 out of 15 games I've played were close.

I pretty much agree with Dennis here. I've been worried about the one-sided aspect a lot myself. I only had one game in each regionals I've been at so far that was close; against Nickler I had a really tight game of my Lanni vs his Targ, and was by far my most fun game of the tournament (after which I dropped, because all the others were not even remotely close). In NYC, approximately the same thing happened, where I got a timed win by just barely being able to hold the wildlings off, and every other game was lop-sided one way or the other.

It's true that the card pool grows and changes and cards in general have to get stronger, but the rate at which those cards get stronger can be more controlled, I think. It feels like with Incinerate and potentially the new Illyrio (does it even make any sense thematically for him to be burning people? I don't see how, but could probably be persuaded), things just got out of control. I would argue that maesters were at that level too, and the fact that they're still insanely popular and winning many tournaments is a testament to that fact (in my opinion), not to mention a lot of the opinions of people at the time they came out.

My opinion is that we need more longer-term solutions that can be put into place. I think I support Twn2dn's more prevalent use of the restricted list for that reason. I also support a reprint of hard-to-get-cards in a single pack that are not on the restricted list, or rather which are still legal after rotating things out, and in that way we can keep rotations but also not screw everyone who bought the packs originally. This is just my two cents though.

I think it's good to focus on what can be done going forward, rather than what is wrong with the current metagame. This could be me as "Consultant-Kyle" talking though. In my opinion, it just seems like so much has probably hit the printers already (I don't know this, I just suspect it) that making large-ish changes now would be prohibitive to the profit margins, and therefore are not likely to be implementable from the business standpoint, and is therefore not going to be implemented.

Regarding what Kristoff said. I think there is alot of merit to that. There is definitely a correlation between the level of competition I am facing now versus what I was facing in the beginning, so it is certainly possible that my experiences are more "Jamie" than "Shagga" now, resulting in the quick blowouts.

dcdennis said:

This is perhaps the wisest approach

Hmmm… i see what you are saying, Dennis. And I agree to an extent. If you aren't prepared for a house's strength, yeah, it has the potential to ruin you first turn.

I find myself patching my houses big weaknesses with my plot choices, and honestly when I do that, it doesn't feel like RPS to me.

Stag Lord said:

Ummm…What thoughts did I express that captured yours so succinctly? Color me confused.

WolfgangSenff said:

Random aside on maesters: I'm still not convinced that maesters and their chains are terribly unbalanced. They're actually pretty fun without the agenda, and most chains feel useful enough to consider spending the gold/card slot in the *right* build. I used dislike the idea of making *any* changes to the maesters…after all, the Oldtown cycle leveled the playing field for Targ, and arguably did more for house balance than any other set. On the other hand, it sort of did that by amping up the power level of all houses, leaving previous builds (shadows, Lanni hyperkneel, etc.) in the dust. Increasingly, the meta has been evolving to take further advantage of powerful maester effects, not less. (I could be wrong, but strongly suspect if we track the use of maesters over the past year, we've seen a rise in popularity, despite the fact that a full cycle has passed since Oldtown was completed.)

I'm still completely uncertain how Incinerate + Illyrio are going to affect maesters. To be sure, it will render many existing maester decks competitively unviable, and possibly quite a few non-maester decks as well. Given the effect maesters have had in terms of equalizing the playing field, it'll be interesting to see if we'll go back to an environment where 2-3 houses dominate (likely Targ will be one of them, but I doubt it will come out on top…likely Stark winter/wildlings will be better in that metagame).

While work has kept me from paying much attention to the game as of late. I actually think the game has a few flaws:

1.) In order to get most decks together you must draw 3 cards per turn at a minimum.

2.) The neutral "flavor" of the month tends to dominate the metagame, unless it really, really sucks.

3.) Too many neutrals.

If we want to have a varied environment, and I know some people will disagree with me I think we should have minor houses, rather than introduce a new agenda and a neutral faction, we have a new house card and the neutrals for that faction belong to that house. This would allow for strong tribal decks like Wildlings, Night's Watch, Brotherhood and Maesters, but allow for an ease of balance. And the Alliance Agenda would allow the use of them with other houses.

I also think increasing the draw from 2 to 3 per turn, and restricting Golden Tooth Mines and some of the other draw would also help the environment, since then certain decks would not require slots just to garuntee draw.

Also seriously: Ban the Maester's Path, as Dan said the maester's are still fun without the agenda, if we really need that sort of reliability, reprint Benjen's Cache.

bloodycelt said:

1) I agree on the draw being exceptionally key in Tournament decks but your solution of restricting GTM is really closing the barn door after horses have bolted.

2) Additionally you really have been out of the game if you think that neutrals (other than maesters) are dominating the game as of right now. So yeah maesters remain strong but that's really just about maesters path being insane card advantage and not about nuetrals as AGOT concept.

3) Damon as done an excellent job of redirecting the game towards house loyalty. In the 3 completed products he's been lead designer (QoD, LoTR and Tales CP cycle) have seen every house get cards that both fill their gaps but also reinforce their strengths. The spoilers for Beyond the Narrow Sea continue to demonstrate this.

I actually think 'filling their gaps' is another huge part of the problem with the meta. Every house SHOULD have holes and weaknesses to exploit. Homogenizing the houses only serves to make the house choice less significant.

dcdennis said:

I agree with this. I don't want all the houses to do the same thing, just in different ways. I want houses to do different things in different ways. When each house in and of itself, or by cherry-picking neutral cards, has all the answers in the most efficient way, there is no risk/reward for going out of house.

Metaphorically speaking, I think it should be like a variety of a half-dozen donuts; and the neutral faction should be a bunch of donut holes.

dcdennis said:

But wouldn't not trying to fill part of the gaps make it more "rock, paper, scissors"?

I don't think having no way to fend off certain house strengths is the way to go. Some houses should just do it much, much better than others.

For example, Lannister has some of the worst in-house attachment control in the game. They now have a way to handle it with Bought and Paid For. It's cost is a Lannister strength(gold), and it's limited to Dominance phase, so it's not that great still. It being possible to at least do something with them is still a house weakness, but I don't think they should have no options outside of something neutral.

That may be a lame example, but I think it is a reasonable one that portrays one in-house weakness filler, but doesn't necessarily make them strong in that way either.

Greyjoy is another example with the same weakness, but just recently had an Event released that COULD handle attachments. They are still pretty weak in attachment handling in-house, but just the same it is something that should be available under limited situations.

This is a great topic.

AGoT DC Meta said:

Now I definitely agree with this. I just think that being weak in certain areas doesn't mean it should not be available to them at all. I don't think addressing any of the in-house weaknesses should be nearly as efficient as the other houses are strong in them. If I want Baratheon to have good draw, I think I should have to pay for that ability more so than Lannister for example.

This is exactly the type of discussion, agree or disagree, that I was hoping to start with this thread. So thank you all for relaying your thoughts.

My opinion is that it still better to have Houses with same abilities in each House and flavor should be added through different triggers (what is essentially happening right now: all Houses have draw - some through Military, some through Mill, some through in-House attachments, but all have an extra draw.)

Otherwise it becomes too hard too balance. And that's why cards like No Quarter or Incinerate tend to shift things so much - because they give something to specific Houses that other Houses don't have (which in this case is too easy way to direct kill). Now imagine if all Houses had in-House events for direct kill through in-House effect. Let's say Lannister had an event that would kill a target character after Lannis win intrigue with Unique Lanni character or Baratheon had a card that would direct kill after winning power with Unique Bara character. And I'm not talking about things like Terminal Schemes or Seductive Promise, which require much more effort than No Quarter/Incinerate.

I think Terminal Schemes requires much less effort than No Quarter based on the quantity of non unique strong int chars that Lannister has.

If all houses are able to do the same thing (even if off different flavors of triggers), then why even have houses? Why not make the entire cardpool neutral. Yes balancing the different houses' strengths and weaknesses is very difficult, but that is FFGs job. Can you imagine if all of a sudden Stark got strong in Intrigue, Martell had a plethora of save mechanics and Baratheon added cancels? Each houses would lose its charm and personality and people could just chose which one they want to play based on what their favorite color is Green for me.

BBSB12 said:

BBSB12 said:

But GJ and Martell have cancel and everyone has Paper Shield and Hand's Judgement.

If everyone had targeted kill, the game would lose it's flavor. Then it would just be a game of "whoever gets their kill first establishes board control and then Valar happens". Little houses made of ticky-tacky; just a red one, and a yellow one, and a green one, and a orange one, but they all look just the same. That's something I think Dennis is arguing against.

I think perhaps all houses should have thematic options of protecting against dominant tech, but that's different than saying that all houses should have targeted kill, draw, location hate, cancel, attachment hate, and discard and deadpile recursion. The game would be even more focused on setups and turn 1 board position then.

Every house (except Martell) has access to good targeted kill. GJ's is neutral with Die by the Sword, but GJ has plenty good war crests. Stark has No Quarter, Targ has burn, Lanni and Bara both have Terminal Schemes.

As to a general reply to the first post, here are my thoughts. I think a lot of the differences in play experience is a result of growing in competitiveness. The reality is there will always be a bell curve of deck strengths. At the very top, there can only be a few decks. Both as you as a player grow in competitiveness and the community fills with newer players looking to compete at the top level there necessarily will be a limited number of viable Tier 1 decks. There are lots of Tier 2 decks.

Part of what makes a Tier 1 deck Tier 1 is that it is able to assert itself quickly and keeps control. When two Tier 1 or even Tier 1.5 decks face off, the deck that asserts itself first gets a lot of momentum going in its favor. Usually that means rolling the other player. This doesn't mean decks can't come back after a bad start, but it makes it less frequent.

Have you started playing Valar yet? Without a reset, you're only going to continue to get further behind once you're down. We've played games where I came back to win after playing Valar. You would get dominant board position with military challenges, but I would damage your hand enough before the reset that I came back stronger and turned the tide of the game. If a game is going to switch back and forth, a reset is key to make that happen.

AGoT DC Meta said:

Au contraire. People will still have their favorite styles open to them. You want to win a lot of Military and draw/save/etc. through it - you go one House, you want to draw/save/etc. through Intrigue - you go the other House. So flavor stays, it's just that everyone gets same quality things like intrigue and power versions of Guard at Riverrun (something along those lines). And people will be able to stick to their favorite game play - going all Military, all Power, all Intrigue, mixture, etc., etc., but get similar benifits allowing to balance game more (if we are talking about possible direction of the game).

I think it is clear there is at least a big enough difference in the targeted kills though. Some of it is specific to a type of build. In Lannister, if you ever use Clansman or make an attempt some kind of Army deck, it is unlikely there will be a lot of INT going around(although it is available). So you may not fear much of that targeted kill from being against those builds.

With Stark there are so many choices that they clearly have numerous ways to use it. It's also their strongest means of controlling the board where Lannister's strength is mostly recursive targeted kneel.

With Targ, the targeted kill is part of the burn theme and at times it is a developed effort.

If Terminal Schemes is all that Baratheon has, then that is all you are worrying about being up against. In addition to the fact that the deck must use INT challenges as part of its theme.

Lannister has additional kill effects, but most of them are limited to conditions(participating character, losing challenge, strength 2 or lower). Terminal Schemes is as easy to them most of the time as No Quarter is for Stark.

Martell needs to build up to their targeted kill effects by creating targets(Poison Spear and The Scourge combo for example). Otherwise they must meet certain conditions that are more in control by the opponent(Areo Hotah's lose a challenge by 4 or more strength targeted kill effect).

Sure, Greyjoy has Die by the Sword, but so do all the Houses. Martell could use it if they wanted to use their War crest characters. Albeit that would not be ideal I'm sure.

Generally, Stark is still the targeted kill machine compared to the other houses. When you think No Quarter is going to kill your character, instead it may be Die by the Sword or Robb Stark(core).

Basically, I have no problem with having a few cards that do something that another house is very strong in.

If I see Baratheon start to get some icon removal like the way Martell has it, I will concede. I don't necessarily mean the ability to remove just an INT icon or something. I'm talking about icon choice or all 3 icons removed for example.

If I start to see Greyjoy find ways to trigger kneeling effects, I will also start to worry.

If I see Lannister start to be able to blank opponents characters any time the opponent farts, then I will shudder.

If Targ begins to claim power for milling opponents decks, then it's a big "uh oh".

If I see Stark find a way to begin claiming additional power for renown, then perhaps that will be the day I figure out how to dance.

There are still a lot of things that make a house different than others, but that doesn't mean everything has to be different.