Kennon said:

Kennon said:

Might be, but you are still down from using 4 or 5 gold card in a setup (with Greyjoy I'm having fairly often 5-6 card setups where I placed one high cost character on the table.) and you are also down from having as heavy character begining as you could. Control & combo sure it is powerful as hell. Aggro and tempo? unless you are building on very specific trait theme that isn't knights then I don't see this having as much power in those. Haven't played with this card enough to have an opinion on it yet, but for me it is the same as TMP was when it was released, easily splashable for any non-agenda deck, maybe too easily and we'll just have to see where this goes from here.

Also what I would like to test is that do you really need to "setup profit" with this agenda. I currently think that the players just want to come on the top in the whole setup thing, but there really are some powerful 1 cost locations that can be used to great effect with this. (Again speaks well for the powerlevel of this agenda.)

Saying that there has not been drawbackless agenda. After playing this game for many years I can count with one hand fingers on how many times I have activated the Kings of Winter drawback, it just does not exist. If I have lost the season war then the summer deck does have more cards in his hands. This all coming from a mostly Greyjoy player

This card is more complicated than just setup math like every other agenda and it needs more testing in the environment. Two things are sure, its powerful and it will shape meta in new ways rest is to be seen.

(Note: Tried to quote OrangeDragon, but forms conspired against me….)

This is an example of what I mean in my above post. You have to look at the "net" advantage you gain from each agenda, and compare HoD against that. Here's my personal comparison (some may disagree)…

HoD: Assuming the most expensive card in the game, The Ten Towers, you gain 1x search, 3gold, and immunity of your location of choice the whole game. Against decks without much non-plot location control (most Targ, Lanni, Martell and Bara builds), the immunity means very little, but against Stark and GJ the immunity is potentially very strong, assuming the opponent draws into their location control. The immunity is also ignored by plot effects, so while I feel the immunity is important, I personally feel it will only be a factor in about 20% of games.

TMP: Average of 5-6x search effects for non-Martell; average 7-9x links in Martell maesters. The big downside is that you have an auto-loss if you take too long to win (no modified wins/losses), AND you get an auto-loss if your maesters all die before you can win enough challenges.

KoW: Most games your deck will discard a card at random each turn from the opponent's hand. In my experience, this usually means 4-6 cards at random throughout the game. Against an opponent running the summer agenda, this agenda's drawback is only a consideration of you have more cards than the opponent, which I find is rare in Greyjoy/Stark winter. The really big drawback is that Wintertime Mauraders/choke/Meera's blanking/etc. are all worse when it is summer. In other words, the big drawback is less the agenda and more loss of card effects.

KoS: Most games, the agenda effect will net you 4-6 cards throughout the course of the game. In the infrequent cases that your opponent plays winter (let's say 1 in 5 games at most?), there is a hugely crippling effect if you allow for winter to stay out. Assuming you have a 50-50 chance to prevent this, we're talking about an overall 1 out of 10 chance that you suffer the drawback. I feel summer Targ actually has much better odds to keep it summer against a winter deck (b/c attachment recursion, character control, etc.) , so the real downside for them is probably closer to 1 of 15, with the vast majority of cases Targ simply drawing off the summer agenda.

KotHH: You miss out on 5 gold for setup, plus an average of 4 card setup. You gain 8g - 14 gold (assuming a game lasts on average 4-7 rounds), as well as 2 influence. While you are particularly vulnerable to Fear of Winter and early rush, you are uniquely positioned to leverage the powerful effects of First Snow of Winter and a couple other plots. This agenda has a very high return on investment, so long as you can make it through rounds 1-2 without losing too much board advantage.

I believe that reasonable people will disagree with some of the estimates on numbers I present above, but these are a starting point, and my purpose is merely to show that the vast majority of the popular agendas have more of an "upside" (offer a net advantage) than a downside. Of course, the risks/drawbacks matter, but in the vast majority of games are insignificant. The biggest drawback is not the 1 in 5 chance that you will face an opponent running the opposite season, but rather that you picked a season deck when you should have picked a TMP deck or vice versa.

All other agendas have drawbacks. Those drawbacks can be mitigated - to the point of being meaningless in many cases - but the drawbacks are there. There are "worse case scenarios," no matter how unlikely they may be, created solely by having the agenda.

House of dreams, on the other hand, is "self mitigating." The only real "worst case scenario" (a "bad drop" - which includes the unique location) is something that you can't really say is created solely by having the agenda. You can always have a "bad drop," with or without the agenda. In fact, when your "bad drop" includes a 3-4 cost unique location that is pretty well going to stay there all game, your "bad drop" with the agenda is probably almost always going to be better than the "bad drop" you might have unluckily drawn into without it.

That is not a judgment on the actual function of the card one way or another. It's just a comment that even in comparison to other "no practical drawbacks" agendas, this one is better.

A cost is only a cost when it is truly a cost

Got it?

On a more serious side, if ALL agendas have the same opportunity cost, then when it comes time to evaluate an agenda against another agenda, opportunity cost is a moot point. Its like evaluating a grouping of 3-cost characters against one another. They all have the same cost, so in the vacuum of that specific analysis, the 3 cost is MOOT.

The only time opportunity cost is relevant with HoD is the opportunity cost of NOT running an agenda and comparing HoD to a non-agenda deck.

And HoD is an improvement over a non-agenda deck in 99% of the cases. Until there exists in the metagame diverse and plentiful drawbacks to running an agenda (like Northern Calvary Flank), you will NEVER be able to convince me that there is a true "opportunity" cost with HoD.

Twn2dn said:

ktom said:

Yes. Yes it is

@Ktom, Dobbler: Guys, I think we may just disagree on how we evaluate opportunity costs. My below response is in part due to my stubbornness, but also because I feel this is a worthwhile discussion and appreciate your insights in helping represent player views.

First, the opportunity cost of all agendas is NOT the same. That's like saying the opportunity cost of running restricted card X rather than restricted card Y is the same. If I choose to run The White Book or the Night's Watch agendas, then I am giving up the ability to run The Maester's Path or Knights of the Hollow Hill. Whereas I'm not totally convinced that The White Book provides a net advantage over "no agenda," I'm fairly certain that in most cases TMP is better than no agenda. In short, the measure of opportunity cost is a measure of the MAXIMUM benefit that one gives up…otherwise it wouldn't be called a "cost." If you accept that the power level of agendas varies, then I don't understand how you can conclude that the opportunity cost is equal. But if you see all agendas as equals, or if despite their differences you remain unpersuaded that opportunity costs differ, then there's probably not a lot I can do to convince you. We just adhere to a different logic.

Second, regarding HoD not having a (sufficient) cost, let me separate out two threads of argument here:

1) There's an assumption by some that HoD has no cost, which is factually inaccurate. However small or insignificant one might feel the cost is, the reality is that HoD has a cost, as others have stated above. Moreover, the card was (presumably) playtested significantly with the existing cardpool and the costs were presumably deemed relevant. Had FFG wanted to add an additional cost, they would have. As it stands, the existing cost was considered sufficient.

2) I think the argument you make, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding, is that having a drawback inherently adds some type of balance, even if that drawback is extremely unlikely to factor into the outcome of the game. I have heard this argument elsewhere, and this in my opinion is a BIG reason why we have many unbalanced/overpowered cards. Event X is balanced simply because someone can cancel it by discarding their hand; location Y is balanced because one can't have neutrals in play at the same time. Such cards are allegedly balanced just because there is a downside printed on the card.

I find this argument unpersuasive. As card pools expand, the "downsides" are significantly mitigated…for example, more in-house character options become available so that the "downside" of Bear Island is significantly mitigated. The much better, and in my opinion only, approach to design is to balance a card against how it will most likely to be played and thus how it will impact players and games, NOT how effectively the downside deters someone from playing the card. If a drawback is likely to be relevant only 10% of the time, and the benefit is significant, then the overall environmental impact the card has will ultimately be MUCH bigger than another effect that bestows only a slight advantage and has no downside.

In the end, I view HoD as a card that offers an advantage over no agenda but NOT an advantage over running another agenda. In fact, excluding a handful of options, such as Tunnels in Lanni or Dragonpit in Targ, other agenda options will probably make a deck MUCH better. Even if one assumes that new locations may be released that improve the power level of HoD, keep in mind that as more locations are added to the card pool, more plots may be added that remove/impact those locations as well.

(TLDR for a certain someone at the end.)

~ Um… By that definition of drawback (i.e. HoD not having one), we already have at least 6 Agendas without drawbacks (when compared to not having an agenda) in the game, right? So what's the big deal with HoD? ; ) [Think about running 1x of Shireen in a non-agenda deck vs. not running her 1x…]

I think Twn2dn is on the right track with saying that we cannot separate the Agendas drawback (or almost complete lack thereof) from the effect we're getting, when assessing the power of said Agenda. All we can really look at is the net effect the Agenda will have on your deck, the restrictions it will place on deck construction (for example, HoD pretty much rules out running Favorable Ground in your deck) and try to form some kind of analysis on overall powerlevel. If the impact of the drawback was the only thing that mattered, then Summer would be one of the worst Agendas ever - anybody really believe that?

In my original example, running 1x of Shireen has no drawback (at least in a similar manner as HoD), but it will have a very minimal effect on the game as well. It evens out at being almost the same as not running her at all. The net result for several of the competitively played Agendas is way over zero, that's pretty much clear from looking at result statistics from Tourneys since the whole history of the LCG. Either that, or there's a conspiracy between competitive players to make non-agenda decks look bad. I'd bet on the former.

Now, HoD definately has a larger positive effect than Shireen, without a doubt. But how does its net effect relate to Summer and Winter? I'd hazard to guess that it's still somewhere below them. Although there are a few locations that I can see being problematic. Actually, there's something pretty similar in HoD and the Season agendas. Both require a very specific (and rare) kind of card for even disabling them (for Seasons this is a Raven, for HoD it's a location control plot), which I believe is not really a good place to go with design.

TLDR (for Dennis): It's not the drawback, it's the combination of effect and drawback that matters. Running 1x of a charagenda has "no drawback", but that doesn't make it competitive.

EDIT: Looks like Twn2dn ninja'd me…

Twn2dn said:

What you are trying to say, if I understand you correctly, is that all agendas are not created equally. Of that I agree.

But HoD is not balanced. And assigning it an "opportunity" cost because I now can't play one of two other overpowered agendas (Maesters and Winter), is like saying a Mercedes Benz has an opportunity cost because it isn't a Ferrari or Lamborghini. On the surface level its true, but in light of the fact that most of the other agendas are sliding-door minivans, there is a bigger picture issue at hand.

There is no aspect of "balance" to HoD. Every other agenda has a notion of introducing a cost or possible drawback within gameplay or deck construction.

In concept, HoD is a wonderfully inventive idea that I'm sure was intended to open up the metagame for new and inventive decktypes. In design, it ended up as an agenda that will often be used as a "slap" on because 99% of no-agenda decks can add it without thought or modification and it only enhances the deck without a single pretense of drawback.

WWDrakey said:

Umm, wrong. Shireen still has to be drawn, played and killed. There is clearly an in-game cost. All of the Character agendas have real costs and a VERY real drawback in the sense that it may NEVER get turned into an agenda.

Dobbler said:

Second, why is slapping on an agenda always a bad thing. In the first sentence, you suggest that this may open up deck building and make decktypes more inventive. If more options are created by "slapping" an agenda onto a no-agenda build, I vote for the approach that leads to more creative, dynamic and interesting decktypes.

Dobbler said:

That's not a drawbak. Not compared to running no agenda at all (which I thought you were comparing to, not other Agendas). Worst case scenario: you end up with no agenda, right? How's that worse than not running an Agenda in the first place?

Twn2dn said:

That doesn't mean HoD will end up creating the best decks. Quite honestly, I doubt that HoD will produce the best decks any time soon (at least until the MO meta makes a few for everyone else to net-deck) because, as you say, there aren't a whole bunch of unique locations that are worth building an entire deck around in the current environment - given the current play and deckbuilding style of the community-at-large.

My prediction is that the first thing you'll see is a resurgence of Bear Island decks because that's a tweak build that could take advantage of this agenda. Other than that, my guess is that HoD's first major impact will be as the agenda of choice for "fun decks."

Twn2dn said:

Slapping an agenda onto an existing deck without having to modify that deck in any way is a thoughtless approach that isn't creative, dynamic or interesting. Slapping on an agenda doesn't create new options, it actually encourages the environment to keep using stale, old archtypes.

Rebuilding a whole new Baratheon NW deck from the ground up because I now can essentially have a Baratheon Wall agenda is an example of opening up the metagame in a fresh and interesting way. Unfortunately, HoD wasn't balanced properly, and until Damon Dance for Me and NCF get 20 more friends just like them, it will continue to not be balanced properly relative to non-agenda decks.

ktom said:

I certainly hope so, and I expect that was the intention. I'm just afraid that once the Munchkins start making it scream that things like The Wall or The Iron Throne will be creating NPE effects on the meta.

-

Mathias Fricot said:

I can also say, "Dang, I can't run HoD with my existing KotHH deck". So saying "I can't run KotHH with my HoD deck" is a silly argument. It goes round and round with all of the agendas. The opportunity cost of running an agenda relative to choosing any other agenda only has value in the inherent power level of ranking agendas. EVERY SINGLE AGENDA HAS AN OPPORTUNITY COST!!

When you add in the fact that I believe that the Maester, Summer and Winter agendas are overpowered and need to be banned to refresh the metagame, then yes, HoD is a problem because it has a power level comparable with those three.

Grimwalker said:

And that will probably be the second major impact the agenda has. I just don't think it's going to happen out of the gate. Remember, most people thought of Stark Knights and Ghaston Grey at the level of "fun decks" - until someone proved those builds could be "competitive." Then, suddenly, they were everywhere.

The question is how long between "major impact #1" and "major impact #2".

Kennon said:

Exactly! You don't need to be a math professor to figure this out…

ktom said:

You should check out some of the Greyjoy Seastone Chair decks that are out there. I haven't played against one yet, but from everything I am hearing, they are very very strong. Also there is some synergy there with Greyjoy and the + initiative warship that can help make sure S & D doesn't ever touch it.

Overall, I think there is the chance this agenda will be strong, but I think it is silly at best to be screaming about an agenda before it has even been around long enough for people to have played it in some tournaments.

@Ktom: I typed out a post in response to your most recent response, but the forum software ate it. The basic point, since "TL,DR" are popular these days, was that I agree the environment will evolve the way you described. The one addition I would add though is that I suspect as "NPE builds" emerge, there will be responses to those builds as well. Whether that's new ways to play old cards (S&D, etc.) or future designs that interact with opponents' locations (discard/bounce being the main one). It may even be the case that some HoD decks emerge to combat HoD decks…Tunnels of the Red Keep to combat a Dragonpit-centric deck, for example.

Separately, but related, the nice thing about this agenda is that even if certain builds become very strong, they will likely have a significant in-house flavor. Unlike Wildlings/NW, Brotherhood or other neutral builds, this forces an emphasis on in-house mechanics.

Dobbler said:

I agree. Just like every card in a deck has an opportunity cost; it just happens to be more significant in the agenda slot (and House Card slot and restricted card choice). It isn't a silly argument, it is part of deckbuilding that limits what you can do with your deck. The rules embodiment of opportunity cost is in the restricted list.

I agree with the overpowered nature of some agendas (and themes), but I don't think HoD is comparable to those agendas you mention. The simple reason is that you can still have that powerful location in those other decks, while you cannot have those agendas in your HoD deck. It is very good, but until we see play how do we really know. I personally do not consider it on par with TMP, Kings of Summer or Kings of Winter, but I might be wrong.

My expectation is that you will see it in a ton of decks that previously ran no agenda (or chargenda). I think it will also do a lot to flesh out the field - I'm looking forward to rebuilding my Stannis nedly winter Wall deck that I stopped playing because I couldn't play a 4 gold location consistently. Yes, people will find out the best locations to run with it - those Bear Island decks will be losing Siege of Winterfell and those Aegon's Hill decks will lose Kings of Summer - and we will see optimal HoD decks for every house. What I expect from FFG is a bunch more agenda related cards (like Daemon/NCF/etc.) to balance the use of agendas. At least I hope.

Dobbler is 100% correct.

"Opportunity cost" is not a drawback to House of Dreams any more than "opportunity cost" is a drawback to any deck (agenda or not). The opportunity cost of playing an agenda does not count as a drawback of the agenda that is supposed to balance out the fact that the agenda has no inherent drawbacks at all in certain builds. Opportunity cost is simply not a valid argument for the drawback to HoD.

Neither is it a valid argument to claim that "some locations are overcosted". Again this is something that, even if true, still affects every other build as well. So that's not valid as a drawback either.

In a handful of builds House of Titties, err HoD, provides pure positive advantage with no inherent drawback. Every other agenda has drawbacks inherent to balance out their advantage. The House of Titties does not have an inherent built-in drawback in most cases where it will be played. Yes, if someone built a Ghaston Grey Martell with it, it would technically be a 4 gold flop which *could* be a drawback but that is more than balanced by the immunity that Ghaston Grey would obtain. Take the obvious Bear Island example that everyone has thought about. Using HoD is pure advantage with no inherent drawbacks. Some might call that pure, adulterated power creep. That said, there might be some fun builds out there because of this agenda. Just don't think those fun builds will see much playing time come Regionals.

This thread is hilarious.

TLDR for the thread:

"This agenda is broken and has no drawbacks" and "It will create a lot of fun decks that won't be competitive."

Dobbler said:

Not sure what the dismissive "only" is doing in that sentence. That difference is kind of the point. Now I'd understand if your argument was that opportunity cost is very difficult to account for in the design process of a card, and thus it probably didn't factor in too heavily in the balancing aspects of this card. But from a deckbuilding perspective the opportunity cost is very real (you evaluate the opportunity cost of cards in your podcast card reviews all the time, everytime you ask "is this worth a slot in my deck").

Yes, the drawback mechanic printed on the card is probably on the minor side, and can be mitigated with some deckbuilding adjustments. You calculate the cost of the card against the drawback, sure, it's nullifying it to some degree. But the gains aren't huge either. Say you pick a 3-cost location as your House of Dreams. What have you gained? One search, one gold for one round, and an immunity that probably in a majority of the games won't matter.

I'm not saying HoD is a sh*tty agenda, because it's obviously not. But I have yet to be convinced that it is unbalanced relative to the other agendas.