From the new announcement of the next CP cycle "A Song of the Sea":

"As an action during a challenge, a player may kneel a character with a naval enhancement on the appropriate icon to declare it as an attacker or defender and add it to the challenge."

It certainly adds a world of difference to challenges when you have or are against characters with this Naval icon. Part of me thinks it will make challenges feel like it has an added flexibility. The other part of me worries it's just another thing you need to keep an eye out for. I already suck at keeping track of certain things and triggering effects sometimes. :-)

What do you guys think of this?

PS: Looks like this cycle will have lots of Captains to use with Longship Grief. :-)

I love how they say Martell does not have much of a navy however they have orphans and pole boats LOL …Looks like this will finally even out the power scheme and balance Martell with the other houses.

I doubt it. Those orphans are a vicious and angry lot. Probably, blank out all of your Naval Icons.

It seems like a good way to have a new mechanic without adding much text to the game, or any thing convoluted to timing or other game mechanics. I'm always worried that a mechanic will make an older set of cards completely obsolete (No point in playing the OLD Red Viper, he doesn't have a challenge enhancement!), but this seems to be handled in such a way that doesn't greatly reduce the value of those who lack it. A new mechanic is only as good as it's support, so I suppose I'd *rather* see some old mechanics looked at again and supported rather than introducing a new one (eg, Bannermen, Night's Watch, Reinforcements) to bring some things on par with, for instance, Winter/Summer, Shadows and Wildlings.

I suspect this naval challenge enhancement will make the keyword "Joust" a lot weaker, although we'll need exact wording to make sure. Doesn't bother me, I never liked "Joust".

My initial reaction is that I like this mechanic & the way they are implementing it. Of course, I will have to nit pick a bit and say that from a Ned perspective, I would like to have seen a Redwyne sub-theme for Bara (or maybe dual-house Lanni/Bara since there isn't a separate House Tyrell) instead of more smugglers. I have a hard time getting enthused about building a smuggler deck.

if they just give us 1 cycle for naval mechanic,I think some char like V.Greyjoy will more powerful

I think it's kind of cool, but I also feel like it will make the Challenges phase even more convoluted. It's hard keeping up with everything!

Not a fan. I agree with some of you above that it will make challenges more convoluted. New mechanics are always confusing to new players, especially because FFG doesn't always word things in the most intuitive way. I also agree that existing mechanics need more support, and we don't need new and shiny that will get limited support.

And for the love of God, I hope Naval Superiority doesn't say "claim value is raised by 2"… That's the easiest 3 claim trigger ever with no drawback. I hope all these cards aren't as broken as some of the ones from BtNS.

I'm not in favor of introducing yet another mechanic to the game. I think there's plenty to keep track of as is. This will increase the complexity for new players as well, which will make entry more challenging for some.

I'd rather the team fleshed out existing mechanics rather than add more new ones.

There's more than enough to keep track of already. Don't need yet another variable. Ugh.

I'm not saying no new mechanics should be introduced. In fact, I like new mechanics….I feel that it helps keep the game fresh.

I'm a little concerned (actually, a lot concerned) that using the enhancement to jump a character into the challenge is termed "declare." Does that mean the Joust keyword stops you from using the enhancement to add defenders? Can Meereen Tourney Grounds respond to a character joining the challenge through the enhancement? Can kneeling military-enhanced clansmen be jumped in as defenders if Shagga is out? Or kneeling enhanced Stark characters be jumped if Bound by Duty was played? Or what about the Crown Regent title? Can that be used after the attacking player "declares" an enhanced attacker?

It's Meera/Hidden Chambers all over again….

As long as the buffs supporting the new enhancement sub-icon aren't too crazy, and that the language isn't a conflicting mess (re:shadows actions vs response action from shadows, et all) the mechanic should be fine.

In fact, enhancement icons are a reasonable solution for 'too much card text' and having to errata multiple cards (sometimes in different ways). Bad example: If Sorrowful Man and Shield Island Dromon had a "no choice" enhancement sub icon and Penny didn't, there wouldn't be any question as to why Penny was forgotten in the most recent FAQ/errata.

As a solution, it could provide the frame work for many new and interesting interactions that have long been missing from the game. Want to add a way to take prisoners from your opponent without wordy, individual and inconsistent cards? Create a capture enhancement icon. Want something akin to Trample in MtG? Enhancement icon. Heck, it even creates a class of effects that (currently) are not effected by card blanking and may not be considered triggered effects.

That said, the downsides are obvious. Power creep and disproportionate support for each house aside, AGoT has a long tradition of half finished ideas and half-dead cards in the card pool due to lack of support. Take the current CP's Character Agendas: will we see more in the future or will these cards only hang around for decks of fancy? (For goodness sakes, Stalwart is still 90% a joke)

ASoIaFfan said:

Actually, I have to disagree with you. Introducing a whole new mechanic puts both new and old players on the same line, whereas supporting older mechanics from old CPs (like Clash of Arms, that hasn't even been reprinted) gives old players (who have those old cards) a clear advantage.

Naturally the 'keeping track of' portion is pretty much true, but for new players making Bannermen really viable would give just as much 'new' stuff to learn… And in this case the fact that there isn't a huge pile of text on the cards, just a new icon, which should help out a bit. For comparison, have a look at all the text on the Bannermen, especially with the Targ Bannerman that works differently than the others.

The more real issue here is what Ktom voiced out: "How does this mechanic work, exactly, and how does it interact with old ones (like Joust)".

Yeah I don't think new mechanics will make an disadvantage for the new players. Fleshing old ones would leave them more unless the fleshing means straight up power creep where the newer ones are better.

For the mechanic itself I cannot comment before we have more information it seems interesting. Interesting note, would it be possible that each house is getting only one specific naval crest? Then again the spoiled Manderly doesn't support this well as it would leave Stark with I.

As for what is said about houses:

Greyjoy: Would guess to get some strong support from this cycle, hopefully enough to steer them more away from choke/winter builds. Maybe more of core functions perhaps some raiding?

Lannister: Love the gold matters theme and I am hoping it gets nice amount of support.

Targaryen: I'm slightly scared actually, if the other warships are on the same level with Meraxes then… ugh. Hmm that spoiled fleet has the word "running" in its lowering cost part. This usually connects to agendas. Hopefully it is "not running agenda" and not "for each "set of new agendas" you are running".

Stark: great to finally have Manderly here, the question is are they going to have a lot of traitor keywords or not. Might add even more intrigue to house Stark, oh well hopefully not too much.

Baratheon: Salladhor saan might make an appearance again with his fleet. The thing I'm mostly looking forward in this set is the smugglers now. They can do a lot with smugglers that will either end up as a strong subtheme or failed gimmick.

Martell: Doesn't sound like it will have a lot of support, but… who knows maybe their war canoes are more powerful than any warships

On the one hand, I can understand the designer's desire to give themselves more design space. After creating 1500+ cards, they probably felt there's only so much they can do with the mechanics they have. Obviously the naval enhancement is only one of several challenge enhancements to come, giving them a lot more options with the mere addition of an icon to a card.

Will newer players struggle with this even more? I can't say. I do feel, though, that it will make the challenges phase more messy. I feel the definitiveness of which characters you want to bring to a challenge is a core part of the game play, and the naval enhancement makes the jumping-in/out-of-challenges abilities of certain cards less extraordinary.

Another worry is that this will add 1 or 2 more pages of needed clarifications to the FAQ. There has already been quite a bit of frustration about the way some of the cards are worded (ranging from unintuitive to muddy to downright erratic), and I feel this has a lot of potential for wonky card interactions if they are not careful.

Overall, I'm not particularly looking forward to his, but then again, chapter pack cycles I was excited about turned out to be not so great, so maybe this will surprise me.

The key to good design is breathing life into old cards without requiring them to enjoy the new cards. So, I'm with others who'd like to see Banner and other failed mechanics developed.

@ Lord of Brewtown: Form a nedly perspective the Redwynes should be Lannisters, so I guess they'll show up as Lannister only cards (for which gold will matter).

Do you think there'll be a new "fleet" keyword? Until now, ships have been only represented as locations. I guess that'll still be the case for singular ships (maybe there'll be a Shy Maid?), so maybe the fleets'll have "Army. Fleet"

I'm also looking forward to harbor-locations like White Harbor, the Arbor,… maybe they'll be able to give a character the naval symbol?

i like anything that cant add some depth to the greyjoys lore

What do people think about the "bluffing" aspect?

To me, it doesn't seem like there will be any more "challenge STR bluffing" than there already is with characters and other in-play effects that increase the STR of other characters, etc. I mean, aren't The Bastard of Godsgrace and CS-Greatjon Umber (who seems to be the "model" for the mechanic) seen more as "buffs" than "bluffs"? I suppose it could be a little different in that the number of participating characters will change more often, but "will he use it?", rather than "does he have it?", doesn't seem to be "bluffing" to me.

Thoughts?

ktom said:

When I look at most cards like you describe, for some reason I think it will be alright. Specifically because of the current definition of the Naval mechanic(which I think will be more strictly defined some point soon).

I can see the following:

The ability to trigger Responses to declaring characters as attackers/defenders via the Naval mechanic.
Stealth would still keep them from being declared as defenders.
The ability to declare characters as participants with a card effect(like Shagga and Bound by Duty for examples) if they have the Naval challenge enhancement.
Orell the Eagle would have a bonus because you must declare at least 2 characters at the same time if you want them to participate via the Naval challenge icon.
Joust would apply to regular declaration of defenders AND Naval declaration of defenders. Once you declare one defender by any means(Naval or normal defender) you cannot include any additional characters unless it is through a card effect that specifically does not call it "declare as a defender".
Crown Regent and Varys(TGM) would NOT be able to be "triggered" to declaring attackers via the Naval mechanic. There are too many problems with this because of timing and the chance that defenders have been declared by any means. I think it's going to work this way the same reason that Myrcella Lannister cannot be used mid-challenge to exchange titles.

I think that without the ability to have additional tricks up your sleeves(like say with Double Bluff, Catelyn Stark(Core), The Smalljon), this mechanic would not be as fun. I can see where cards like Overwhelming Support may need a clarification, however with that as an example, I'd think that if you happen to have 2 Dothraki characters with the Naval mechanic and choose to declare them with mid-challenge, you should be able to play the event in Response to that… perhaps to have a stronger hold on your attempt to win it(from that point forward, non-Army characters wouldn't be able to be declared).

So, here's to hope that it will be a simple transition!

ktom said:

There won't really be any downside to not just throwing it in, other than perhaps the flexibility of using it in another challenge as a regular attacker/defender. You're going to have to have naval characters to draw out naval characters, but it won't be any more effective at doing so than just plain old declaring. I think it might be used more effectively to trigger the "win by 4 STR" triggers.

Bomb said:

But what if the naval guy can be declared before that framework action of declaring defenders? That would allow them to get past stealth…

Bomb said:

Joust would only work then if the attacker doesn't add a naval attacker, otherwise joust would switch off. I wonder if he could add the naval attacker after defenders are declared…

This just adds more complexity and not necessarily more good choices. I predict that challenges will become more convoluted the more naval characters are added to the mix.

ktom said:

I am not entirely sure yet. It certainly makes the opponent think harder as to what the best course of action is. I mean, if the opponent thinks I am willing to use my Naval characters to win that challenge, they may just oppose it and lose. However, if they think I am bluffing, they will defend the challenge with just enough strength and hope I don't decide to use the Naval characters. It's certainly a good reason to attack with a less than ideal amount of STR and have your Naval characters as backup.

I mean, see Osha as an example. She is great for a magnitude of reasons similar to the Naval mechanic because you will only keep her in the challenge as long as she is needed to win it or trigger a Response to winning by X strength. Imagine giving her the Naval mechanic. She can pop in and out of a challenge when needed. She will be the best character to have it. Assuming the Naval mechanic is along the lines of "Any Phase: Declare this character as a participant on your side of the current challenge.", with "Any Phase: Stand Osha to remove her from the current challenge.", she will be the most dynamic character to have in challenges because you can determine her necessity.

AGoT DC Meta said:

Yeah for sure. But IF stealth happens to be declared on any Naval character at some point, then they cannot be declared as a defender afterword. I mean, I guess it goes without saying.

AGoT DC Meta said:

Absolutely. If they declare a Naval character as an additional attacker in a challenge to join the original attacking Joust character(say after stealth/defenders are declared), this opens the doors to declaring any additional characters as defenders via the Naval mechanic.