HoyaLawya said:
Penfold said:
HoyaLawya said:
tofubones said:
Response to Agendas: In a world without agendas you might actually see more tier 1 deck types. Rather than getting the decks main effects from the agenda you would get them from the cards themselves, possisibly making deck building and tactical play more important As it currently stands, cards that cannot slot into an agenda deck are automatically rendered tier 2, which I feel limits the variaty of tier 1 decks. There have been many discussions in the past about agendas, and I always felt agendas should be rare and have strong negatives. Since that is not how it's worked out, I think there probably needs to be more just to increase the number of tier 1 decks. Anyway those are my quick thoughts.
You think there would be more tier 1 deck types without agendas? If the only effects are coming from the cards themselves, each house will have a single build using the most efficient in-house cards and possibly a few neutrals to fill in gaps. If a card is not good enough to slot into an agenda deck, it's probably not good enough to slot into a T1 agendaless deck. Instead of thinking of agendas as reducing the number of playable cards, I say it's the exact opposite. Agendas make cards that are otherwise not as good to be much better because of their synergies with the specific effects of the agendas. Take seasons as an example, do you really think people would be playing summer and winter decks without the agendas?
We all want a greater variety of tier 1 decks. Without agendas there would actually be fewer than what we have right now.
Prove it.
No seriously, prove it. You are stating your opinion as a fact, I'd like to see you prove that in a world without agendas each House would be reduced to a single build of the most efficient cards. There is too much linear and non-linear design purposefully done in this game in my mind to be able to build a deck that is created purely around a matrix of strict values.
Now you could make a claim that each House would end up with a couple of builds based on the linear and non-linear designed cards which act as the core but the chassis of the deck would still be its most efficient cards… but that is exactly the situation we have right now, but the agenda is being used in place of the linear and non-linear cards, or occasionally in conjunction with them.
THe simplistic argument for no agendas equals more choices for T1 is that all other cards are still available, you just lose out on the agendas that people are using to provide an additional advantage.
And the idea that there is some mystical agenda that will bring diversity and numerous deck builds to each faction is ridiculous. Any such agenda would see a bunch of various designs, just like the Maesters Path did, and then each faction will settle on what is believed to be the most efficient use of it… boom and suddenly we have a single agenda knocking all the others out and each faction putting forward a single perceived top deck. Boooring.
That the Agendas are not perfect, and that they have varying abilities and strengths depending on which faction you try to use it with, and each faction can field decks with multiple agendas is a strength, that you apparently believe is a design flaw. Munchkins in rpg's say very similar things about everything being optimized and the system designed for min-maxing. They don't understand that weaknesses and discovering how to compensate for them spur creativity. That simple answers are more likely to kill it, and anything perceived as being very strong will warp the field as players gravitate towards it, but cards that people disagree on or even argue over whether it is good or bad or simply okay are what drives the creative process.
There's been quite a bit of discussion since I last visited. I did attempt a response over the weekend until losing it all when I clicked publish (it just took me back to this page with a blank box). I've chosen Penfold's post as the one to respond to directly since in responding to it I believe I'll answer ktom's comments.
Penfold, you ask for proof that without agendas we would have lower deck diversity. We wouldn't have any seasons decks, no maester decks, no stark siege, dragons wouldn't be viable in melee withouth the agenda, wildlings wouldn't be viable (i will give you that maybe a night's watch implementation that didn't require those agendas could be viable since it's not competitive as is), multi house builds like the Bara/Martell treaty deck that did well in CA during regionals wouldn't be possible, and there would be no dedicated shadows decks. Those are all separate builds and diversity we lose without agendas. I just remembered knights decks. Without the knights agenda a themed deck built around knights wouldn't be competitive having to give up other better characters for knights.
What do you mean by linear and non-linear builds? Are you commenting on the way FFG makes some generic cards (non-linear) tries to force specific decks onto the players (linear) like House Dayne? Guess what, House Dayne isn't competitive. I would love to be able to play a House Dayne deck at a tournament and know I wouldn't struggle just to break even. There are many subthemes in all the houses, but they aren't equal. They also don't have drastically different feel to the way they play. This goes back to ktom discussing different strategies. Agendas provide different strategies through the way their advantages and drawbacks work. They also make otherwise competitively unplayable cards worth putting into decks. Maybe Bolton or Dayne decks could be viable if they were given agendas to work off their themes. People really do try to make those decks competitive. More than any other game, AGOT is full of players wanting to create something new and find a new deck type. AGOT players don't like "the flavor of the week." We experiment all the time here in DC. Even Corey was trying to find a viable Raider deck the other week. It's just not possible.
"THe simplistic argument for no agendas equals more choices for T1 is that all other cards are still available, you just lose out on the agendas that people are using to provide an additional advantage." How is this even an argument that no agendas give you more T1 choices? [sarcasm] Hey, you can still play all those average cards in place of the good cards, except you no longer have an agenda to make bump the average cards to the good card category. Now you have more competitive choices. [/sarcasm] Just because I can still play cards that benefit from an agenda without the agenda does not mean it is worth the card slot over other cards when the agenda is not available. Example, without summer or possibly wildling agendas increasing her use, Gilly wouldn't see play.
I never mentioned a mystical agenda, but I will say wait for the next chapter pack.
Actually, if you read my post I say that the fact that agendas have varying strengths and some can be played by multiple factions is a strength of not only design but of the agenda card type itself. I never said it was a design flaw, and to the contrary hang my argument for agendas pretty centrally on that hook. What exactly does min-maxing in rpgs have to do with AGOT? RPGs are cooperative story telling adventures. AGOT is a strictly competitive card game. In an RPG I pick abilities based on what matches my character's personality. In AGOT I pick cards based on their utility and ability to win me the game. Are you saying I should pick cards based on theme and take that deck to a tournament and can expect it to win? Or are you saying I should be given an award for bringing a non-competitive deck to a tournament because I had to be more "creative" in finding ways to make the subpar cards win games for me? Deckbuilding isn't a story of overcoming adversity. It's looking through the cardpool for good cards that synergize together. A strong element that brings synergy to cards is the agenda.
HoyaLawya said:
"THe simplistic argument for no agendas equals more choices for T1 is that all other cards are still available, you just lose out on the agendas that people are using to provide an additional advantage." How is this even an argument that no agendas give you more T1 choices? [sarcasm] Hey, you can still play all those average cards in place of the good cards, except you no longer have an agenda to make bump the average cards to the good card category. Now you have more competitive choices. [/sarcasm] Just because I can still play cards that benefit from an agenda without the agenda does not mean it is worth the card slot over other cards when the agenda is not available. Example, without summer or possibly wildling agendas increasing her use, Gilly wouldn't see play.
I never mentioned a mystical agenda, but I will say wait for the next chapter pack.
Wow that is an utter failure of logic right there.
You have a balanced breakfas that includes orange juice. There is no orange juice in the world. Your breakfast may infact still be balanced, or it may require the addition of something else to your breakfast, but the ability to balance your breakfast is not impacted by the lack of orange juice. In fact given the amount of sugar in orange juice your breakfast may actually be healthier now without.
Removing all agendas changes what the definition of a T1 deck is as long as T1 is viewed as requiring an agenda. Suddenly T1.5 is suddenly the new T1 and all those decks that were before considered to not be viable because they couldn't beat Agenda Deck X are back in the mix.
This is no different than talking about the balance of the environment during the CCG days. Certain decks and Houses were on top and others were on the bottom. Rotation would come along and remove a swath of cards and the resultant change in the card pool caused a shift in the rankings. We see this today when new cards are added to the environment, I'm pointing out it works both ways. You seem to be implying that it doesn't. That the removal of all Agendas would not cause new decks and deck types to rise and cause a shift in power balance.
I don't know if that is what you are in fact trying to say but it certainly seems like it.
And no you weren't the first person to mention the impending monstrosity coming down the pike. but you are not the only one who is aware of the card. It'll shake things up for sure, but I am willing to bet money that what we'll see will replicate what we saw with TMP, that lots of people will try all sorts of stuff with it, we'll get a huge influx of new decks for a number of different houses and then most of them will go away and each House will end up with just one or two builds that really get centered upon. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see it as the first of its kind banned or errata'd, or one of the ones starting or ending up on the restricted list.
Wanna be besties?
