Crevic said:

That was what I was referring to earlier. IF FFg decides that Sorrowful Man should not have the "easy out" of choosing to pay gold that you don't have (not a guarantee that they will, you know), they can achieve that with either a card specific errata (taking the word "choose" off of the Sorrowful Man), or with a blanket ruling that effectively makes the "Choose A or B. Do what you choose." template equivalent to the "Do A or B" template. If they do a blanket ruling, it'll automatically change Penny, for whom it is much harder to argue the "easy out" is a mistake.

They should also see into the Killer of the Wounded, Shadows Robert etc. constant standing issue. A poster in agotcards.org exploited a loop centering around KotW's ability and created a deck that dominated everything that stood against him. Here's the link: http://www.agotcards.org/deck/v/10812. He suggested making a blanket ruling concerning such effects and not just "errataing" each card and I believe he is right.

KL Robert and Killer of the Wounded are the only characters who can stand again and again while doing something meanful each time (Marya can stand herself repeatedly, but does nothing besides, and the new Bran can only do something meaningful a limited number of times, provided he gains the Direwold trait first). So I don't think a blanket ruling is necessary, provided no further cards are designed that way and Killer of the Wounded gets errated.

I'm also for The Conclave to become unique ("the" implies there is only one, like the sun or the moon). It would make more fluff sense than Lannisport Brothel having the King's Landing trait (and also being unique).

Serazu said:

ktom said:

Nothing fancy. Maximum standing 3 times per phase and such. What the DT did to Robert expanded into all similar cards. And for precision's sake, it was another poster who suggested this, not the deck's creator.

Serazu said:

This is what I mean about using blanket rulings to solve card-specific problems.

ktom said:

+infinity

I would personally like to see the TLS cheese nerfed some. seal of the crown, threat from the east, val.

the maesters might also need a little nerfing too. the conclave being unique was a cool idea.

some more anti-burn in the style of morqorro would be also a great.

also whole heartedly agree with taking compelled by the rock off the ban list

personally i dont think any one of theses issues and or cards mathlete brought up are gamebreakers. sure some are annoying but the game at this point and time is at a great place. there is no one deck thats dominating and no one clear favorite house . i mean i took a break after gencon last year for about 8 months and come back and win the tennessee regional with a deck i built last year . all im saying is take a step back and look at the overall picture of the game right now before getting emotional and start crying for restrict this and restrict that. there is nothing wrong with laughing storm either or search and detain. if it was me i wiuld take the fury plots off the restricted list. with there being so many competitive decks out there it may never even trigger. but those are just my opinions about everything atm. i love were the game is now.

Xrishadowchaser said:

exactly what i think. there will always be strong cards and card combinations. but as long as there are in-game solutions available, there is no need to do anything.

restricting several cards now will eventually lead to different strong deck archetypes with diffrent shiny cards - but in the end its the same: there are strong cards and combos that will see a lot of play and pull off more win that not.

i see 2 criteria for restricting/errating a card:

- it causes a negative play experience to the opponent (and saying "oh i forgot to add anything against attachments so i will certainly loose after a boring game" doesnt count)

- there is no serious in-game counter

keep the restricted list as small as possible!

I have a problem with the second part of your criteria for the restricted list. I haven't seen a single card without an in game counter. Fear of Winter has Forgotten Plans, Narrow Escape has its built in counter and a plethora of cancels available, Burning on the Sand has Paper Shield, etc etc

Honestly, Thorondor's first and second parts are connected. If there's some counter available for everything, and forgetting to include a counter in your deck isn't a viable definition of NPE, then nothing is justified in being Restricted.

Of course, he may actually have been intending to say that in a round about way.

@kennon: you got it quite right!

just for clarification: with "serious" counter i mean something i am adding to a deck just because of a single card that is too strong. it should be a card that is worth being in the deck for more than just one eventuality.

i can understand that some cards are on the restricted list. even though martell is my favourite i think this house got (too?) many excellent cards in the recent past. i dont think that a card like Burning on the Sand, Vipers Bannermen or Venomous Blade is too strong on its own. but levelling down martell a little bit is fine for me at the moment. there are still enough other excellent cards anyway.

I think FFG probably does restrict cards based on whether they are "NPE," but there are multiple views on what constitutes NPE.

Some consider a card NPE if there is a large number, perhaps even a majority, of players who consistently have negative play experiences with or against this card. In short, a card is NPE because a lot of people think it's NPE. If only a few people think it's NPE, then it doesn't qualify by this standard. This may feel highly subjective, and it is, but then so are ratings in general.

A second view on NPE is that these are cards that significantly restrict the environment (that is, cut down on variety) because competitive players must build their decks with that particular card in mind. Cards are thus NPE if they place unfair or seemingly arbitrary constraints on the competitive environment…even if only a minority of players are frustrated by this. This is not as subjective as it sounds. Most cards that meet this criterion impact not just a particular card type, but the vast majority of decks. For example, Fear of Winter (pre-restriction) caused all competitive players to build decks with extremely fast start-ups, resulting in the favoring of low-cost characters. Venomous Blade caused many players to avoid 2-STR characters whenever possible. Tin Link continues to distort the environment, even though it seems to me it's not particularly popular these days. All of these cards have been called "NPE" on these forums, because of both the depth and breadth of their effects on the environment. In contrast, a card like Brienne is extremely good against GJ (and devout GJ players may consider her NPE), but she's not always particularly good.

Usually these two points align pretty well. When VB was first released, nobody had a problem with it. There were very few Martell decks, and VB just wasn't very popular. As Martell became more powerful, VB's impact on deckbuilding became more potent and more people began to object.

Applying these two criteria to Mathlete's lists, I think we can form more agreement rather than relying on the arbitrary "X is balanced/unbalanced because…." For example, with regard to TLS, I personally think this was a terrible card to print, with terrible design, and I'm really disappointed that it was printed. I certainly don't think the mechanic plays out the way it was (I'm speculating) intended…for example, it is used more offensively to abuse the opponent with plot effects than defensively to protect against intrigue. When TLS was first restricted, I was a strong proponent for the restriction, and I will lose no sleep if it is added to the list again. (There are few things as "NPE" as round 1 TLS + RBD + Threat from the East, using plot-manipulation shenanigans.) All that said, I don't think the competitive community is largely in favor of restricting this card; in fact, I think there's general acknowledgement that TLS is perhaps needed to keep Bara competitive. So as problematic as I think it is, it probably shouldn't be on the restricted list for now. Same is true of Illyrio, who is likely to have a HUGE impact on how people view non-uniques vs. non-uniques if he/Targ becomes much more popular.

Twn2dn said:

you gotta start writing articles again. i love reading your posts.

Thanks Dennis I'm actually working on something that should be up in the next few weeks (not on CardGameDB though). Will link to it here when it is.

What I've noticed in terms of what's lacking online is the deck stats from various regionals, etc. I know the Two Champs and a Chump podcast has explored some of these numbers, but sometimes it just helps to visualize the data. My schedule has become MUCH busier in the last 9 months or so, so I haven't done anything. We'll see what happens in the next six months or so though. There's a possibility that I'll do the GenCon numbers as a 1 or 2-pager similar to the "By the Numbers" sections in the newsletter I worked on last year.

I hope you'll still get to come to Gencon, even though your schedule is busy…

Twn2dn said:

Assuming Jaffer cooperates, I'll be happy to work up the raw data again…

I'd like to expand on one of your sub-points:

Some consider a card NPE if there is a large number, perhaps even a majority, of players who consistently have negative play experiences with or against this card. In short, a card is NPE because a lot of people think it's NPE. If only a few people think it's NPE, then it doesn't qualify by this standard. This may feel highly subjective, and it is, but then so are ratings in general.

Toward the end of the CCG era, (I think this coincided with Nate getting more confident in his creative abilities) there were two mechanics that started seeing greater play that many people harangued against: Lasting "take control" effects and looking at your opponent's hand. Both of these had existed from the games beginning (Persuasion/Conquer and Interrogate/Westeros Vary), but hadn't been dominant. Bother were areas that people felt comfortable with… they're areas that they expect to be safe. I really think the arrival of thinks like Seductive Promise/Direct Assault and ITE Varys/Tyrion (Spidercraft in character form) was there to push people past the stage of upset into acceptance of a new paradigm.

I'm not suggesting that any of the cards mentioned are in that category, but I do know that sometimes we have to grow as a "population" when it comes to effects. (Does anyone remember the screaming over You Murdered Her Children ?) And I'd rather see the "offensive" TLS errata'd away effectiveness during the plot phase (To paraphrase Luke Homen, "Threat from the East" is his personal plot), and I have no problem with a "richer" restricted list. (I'd like to agree with Thorondor, but playtesting has given us too many cards that are statistical out-liers when it comes power level) I just want the game to be fun, non-degenerate, and with a variety of competitive builds in all houses.

<whiny voice> Is that so wrooonnggg? </>

And a ditto to Dennis' hope that you'll make it to GenCon, Dan.

Good thoughts Luke.

Yes, it looks like I'm able to make it this year. This is despite the following hurdles…

- Two LARGE work events that were scheduled at exactly the same time that were to my surprise canceled

- Financial issues (recently received a promotion…not huge, but gives me a tiny bit of flexibility in terms of travel this year)

- Limits from spouse (recently went to another NYC agot player's home, where my wife really hit it off with his wife. Now, they are going on a trip together DURING GenCon, freeing up that potential constraint)

- Having a first kid (recently discovered that my wife is pregnant, but due to the above bullet, she's still OK with me being out of town for 4 days while she has fun)

In short, there have been some BIG road blocks to me attending. In the end, it really seems like someone *up there* wants me to attend GenCon

Twn2dn said:

Now that the cat's out of the bag, a big CONGRATULATIONS on your baby!

AGoT DC Meta said:

herehere. welcome to the club. now me you and other.dan can make sure our kids are friends and let them play sponge bob while we play w/ shadow bob

Only one month to go and still no updated FAQ 8(

waiting for new FAQ

i think Maesters make game boring

Tin Link & Copper Link is so strong

snowfrost said:

Its not maesters themselves that are boring. Its The Maester's Path.

I stopped making decks because nothing I make can beat Martell Maesters. True story. So sad.