Everyone seems thrilled about the possibilities opened up by HoD, but I'm seeing very little negative feedback on it; personally I'm a little concerned about the way it changes the game. Some might say its OP, but it is a Champion card and they are meant to be very very strong so I'll leave that discussion alone for now… I don't want to start a TLS-style argument about a card that hasnt really even seen play yet.
Its an Agenda with no real drawback, the first Agenda without one. With a few exceptions such as GG, no one is going to be running HoD and finding a 1-cost Location, so the loss of 2 gold in setup is insignificant (as is the loss of one card obviously).
The problem is the part where it gains immunity and the lack of solutions for the opponent, because there are no real solutions . Lets look at Plot cards that get around the immunity and see how effective they are:

Snowed Under
Only useful against locations that kneel; won't help against non-kneelers and hurts you too, probably only a little bit when you have a reducer or Refugee to return, but could hurt more. Also, opponent can just choose not to use the location for a Round. Not a good solution,

Fleeing to the Wall
All but useless, opponent obviously wont be discarding their HoD Location. Not a solution

Attack from the Sea
Kneels everything.. so what, doesnt remove the problem Location, doesnt do anything against non-kneelers. Not a solution.

Burning Bridges
Useless against passive Locations, doesnt remove the problem Location, potentially hurts you as much as the opponent unless triggered effect cancel is a theme in your build, possibly slows them for a Round but thats all. Not a solution.

A City Besieged
Possibly an option, but requires Cities, and a lot of them if opponent is using an expensive HoD location. And getting all those Cities in your used pile will take a while. Not a good solution.

Looks like we're out of options unless your opponent has pulled a Treasury and you play Rains of Autumn (cause thats a likely scenario). So HoD effectively grants almost total immunity for the Location; this is a fundamental change to AGoT, a game where we expect cards to leave play. You don't expect Characters, Attachments and Locations to stick around forever, theres a reason they aren't called "permanents" in this game, and near-total immunity is, by definition, a bad thing imho.
I'm still undecided on immunity to only opponents cards as opposed to immunity to yours too: so your Favorable Ground will still discard the HoD, but you can trigger other effects to use it over and over… it'd probably be better to grant the HoD total immunity to keep it a bit more balanced?
I had hoped for a silver bullet Plot to be released along with HoD, even a bad silver bullet with crappy stats is better than none at all. So am I over-reacting, am I alone in being concerned about HoD and any other card that fundamentally changes an aspect of the game?

Oh no, you aren't the only one at all. That's why we spent our entire "Top 5" on 2C1C on this chapter pack review talking about the implications of House of Dreams rather than picking four more cards. I think that it's overall, a bad move.

Well, S&D is an option. You just have to dedicate your Restricted slot to it. And make sure you win Initiative.

~So, you know, solid.

I think we are destined for 6 months of TMP like whining. HoD will be slightly nerf'd, then restricted, and like TMP, people still won't be satisfied

dcdennis said:

Quoted for truth. This will be the new axe everyone will grind until the next thing that is perceived as overpowered comes out. That being said, I too dislike introducing a card into the environment without solutions for that card already being out there (or shortly incoming) and let's be honest, there is not currently a good solution and from talking to playtesters I do not believe there is one coming soon.

The big cost is the opportunity cost. You are unable to play any other agenda in the environment. Consider: how many decks int the top 16 of GenCon, or the top 25% of any tourney over the past year, ran no agenda AND no character agenda? This is a HUGE drawback. Despite the theoretical drawback that most agendas have, the reality is that many of the drawbacks typical don't matter much. (The maesters path is the best example, but Knights, seasons, and shadows all have "drawbacks" that do nothing most of the time.)

Also, I would not downplay the significance of Search and Detained. That remains one of the best plots in the game, and was the restricted card in the winning GenCon joust deck this year.

Kennon said:

Lol, I stopped listening last night right after you finished the bottom five, was going to finish it tonight. Glad others are concerned too.

Twn2dn said:

It is very strong, but I'd still pick FoW over it almost every time.

Skowza said:

Is not Fear of Winter strong against House of Dreams? You said there is not disadvantage to HoD but it increases the pool of cards that are non-setup cards. Comments on other forums from people who've been using HoD suggest that setups are more limited and this increases Fear of Winter's strength. Alternatively you could lay out First Snow of Winter since an HoD deck is more likely to use lower cost characters to beef up their initial setup.

Further, competition and penalties are forthcoming. New agenda's have been announced for the soon to be released Rise of the Kraken and Pirates of Lys CP's. RotK also contains the new Fleet characters who receive discounts when your opponent controls an agenda. Stark can already put out some solid anti-agenda characters. More cards can still be released.

fhornmikey said:

So do you guys disagree that TMP was too powerful prenerfs? D:

What would a silver bullet for HoD look like? A plot that can choose and discard any location first turn? I think S&D and City Besieged are good enough answers given that an agenda shouldn't be trivially countered.

Currently, I am not too concerned about the strength, and hope it doesn't become a problem.

However, I am concerned about the design space this shuts down for future cards. HoD will hover over the design process of every in-house, unique, non-limited location from now on.

…and silver bullets suck.

Alando said:

No, I think TMP in it's current form is about right power level (some complain, but I think the environment has plenty of solutions to maesters at this point). I think that if you're going to call Search and Detained a solution to House of Dreams then it doesn't belong on the restricted list (forcing these decks to be careful with initiative in both plot selection and deck build).

playgroundpsychotic said:

+1

Adding to this post, good decks will setup 5 cards around 2/3 of the time. That makes the average gold cost per card 1. Requiring the location chosen to be a 2 cost card does slow down the number of cards you get out on setup. There is a drawback for your setup in order to start with the in house location. Yes, there's the math of potentially getting more than 5 gold, but that assumes the locations were costed appropriately to begin with. Since most of the locations people want to start with don't see competitive play, they probably weren't the right cost.

I encourage people to find the locations they always wanted to play and build a deck around it. Test your setups, and test out a few games too. Starting the game 1-2 cards behind can make a big difference. That's the drawback for effectively turning an in house unique location into your agenda.

Deathjester26 said:

3-2-1
When revealed, choose and discard a Location from play (cannot be saved).

I'd play it.

how about

PLOT

United Front 3 3 1

All Agendas are treated as blank

thats my player card

Deathjester26 said:

Kennon said:

Yes, to both.

Is it a cool idea? Yes. Its a great idea. Is this the best implementation of the idea? I am not convinced. I prefer an Eyrie like implementation where you put dupe copies of it in play and it doesn't gain some uber--immunity.

That said I think we should play with this agenda before it sees restriction. We have months before any major Regional where it will be legal (it wont be legal at Worlds), so it can see some play. It does potentially open up a few more deck possibilities that could be very cool but at the same time it presents a long lasting concern which includes power creep.

This is why im so pumped about blackfriday. It will be a great glimpse of things to come. Im almost more excited for that than worlds. I really hope anyone within a few hundred miles can make the trip and bring in some wacky HoDor decks. I personally cant wait to see what people come up with!

Twn2dn said:

That's exactly the point I was making over at agotcards.org. A lot of folks only focus on the setup math, and completely ignore the agenda's opportunity cost, nor take into account the relatively low number of actually eligible and attractive cards for which to use this agenda. I think few existing decks stand to gain anything from it. Will it provide opportunities for new deck types to become strong(er) -- absolutely, it's a very solid agenda that's opening up interesting possibilities (and the thought of Bear Island fills me with dread, but then again, it already has before the agenda). But I don't think it's the supernova people are making it out to be. It's certainly not an auto-include for currently agenda-less decks. I have an agenda-less Bara rush deck, and I won't include HoD. I need to have the flexibility on setup to put down a 4-cost char with a bunch of 0-cost cards, something I couldn't do if I played HoD. And I'm sure there's plenty of other decks whose setup texture stands to suffer if the deck is not adjusted for the agenda's setup restrictions.

And yes, the immunity is strong. But generally, I find there's plenty more 1- or 2-cost locations I would want to utilize with HoD (as opposed to 3-cost or higher locations), and the threat of A City Besieged is very real.

There's benefits to be had from running this agenda, but they are neither universal nor overwhelming, in my opinion.

Saturnine said:

Opportunity cost means nothing! Absolutely nothing. EVERY SINGLE AGENDA has the exact same opportunity cost. Once you choose that agenda, you don't get to play any other agenda. So trying to ascribe any sense of balance to HoD by stating it has an "opportunity" cost is a game of folly. KotHH has the same opportunity cost. As does Kings of Winter. As does Knights of the Realm, etc, etc.

I'm not going to get into my issues with House of Dreams. But I couldn't keep my mouth shut when people starting talking about "opportunity" costs.

Dobbler said:

I agree, and would've pointed out the same thing. All other Agendas in the game have a real drawback. This one doesn't.

The drawback on Kings of Summer is real. It might not matter in most games, but you know that, if you run into a Winter deck and lose the Seasons game, you're screwed, and when you're planning to take a KoS deck to an tournament, you have to take the possibility into consideration.

The drawback on TMP is real. Sure, the benefits outweigh the drawback by far (as well they should, or you end up with Heir to the Iron Throne), but if you don't include enough Maesters, or if you don't play well enough, you might end up having complete board control and still being unable to win the game.

With this agenda, if we leave opportunity costs aside (and I concur with dobbler on why we should) all we have left is "it might not fit into every deck". Well, duh.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not hating on HoD. I don't call for nerfing or restriction before it has been sufficiently played with (learned that lesson with TLS). Actually, I'm looking forward to playing around with it. But I don't like the precedent it sets from a design viewpoint.

Dobbler said:

Oh, please do! I'd love to hear them. Do it by E-Mail if you must!

I have not heard one compelling argument against this agenda. Mostly because I am not convinced it is so over powered as a lot of people seem to think. I am still waiting for a deck that is over powered because they are using this agenda. Which competitive agendas have easy solutions to them? The decks that have such solutions have a chunk of their deck to counter them(like Summer versus Winter for example). Or Knights of the Realm needs a lot of opponent's knights to counter the goodness of the agenda bonus.

I not only don't see it happening, but I want to see it happen before I believe this agenda is bad for the game.

Dobbler said:

That's true. But, then for this debate you would need to line up your apples and oranges differently. What HoD in effect does is make that location your agenda, nothing else on the positive side. So, if that is the case, the opportunity cost is no different than any agenda. But, then we need to look at the drawbacks. The drawbacks would then be back to: one card less, two gold less setup, plus the possibilty to negate the agenda for the rest of the game.

*sigh*

You aren't down a card or down gold as long as you choose a location that is at least 2 gold.

@Dobbler: I'm really confused about why you say opportunity cost means nothing. You are correct that this argument holds true for every agenda, but that isn't an argument against my point. When I look at a Martell, Stark, Targ or Greyjoy deck, I usually am NOT considering a no-agenda build. I think you, of all people, would understand the inherent advantages of the existing builds that run agendas. Every game that you and I have played and that I have seen you play has involved a build with an agenda. It may be that you frequently run agenda-less decks in your games with local metamates, but based on your competitive track record, I would assume that you understand agendas typically add more to your deck (positive benefit) than risks (drawbacks).

I very much respect your opinions, but frankly I don't understand what that opinion is. So far, I think we agree 100% that every agenda has an opportunity cost, but I'm at a loss for words as to why you think this is unimportant.

This is a matter of opinion, of course, but I think it makes very little sense to focus on this agenda in a vacuum, as it does with any other card in the environment. I do, however, think there are valid arguments to be made against the agenda, but those should factor in the context of the environment and the game. Simply put: Does the "net advantage" (perceived benefits of the effect minus the risks/drawbacks) of this agenda exceed the "net advantage" of other popular agendas?

Kennon said:

*sigh*

My point is if you treat the location AS your agenda [because that is all it does] then it should not be considered in the setup calc.

If you say, nah, let's not do that - fine. Then your plus is you have one extra gold setup with a 3-cost location, protected and searched. But, then your agenda is nothing and the opportunity cost argument can be made.

Whichever way you look at it there IS a drawback.

My opinion is it a mild drawback, akin to the TMP; KotHH is a much. much steeper drawback

Would it be balanced if
A) HoD was restricted, or

B) if it were errata'd to say "you may only spend 5-X gold on setup, where X is the printed gold cost of your location."

(and +1 to DCDennis for dubbing them HoDor decks, SO MAY THEY EVER BE ;-)