So this is an odd new mechanic. Lanni has a reason to use Infamous now, and I really hope there is no way to give Prized to opponents cards.

And actually it looks like the Traitor Attachment probably does just that.

So this is an odd new mechanic. Lanni has a reason to use Infamous now, and I really hope there is no way to give Prized to opponents cards.

New blackfish gives prized to all characters killed for claim.

I assume that if an Event gets cancelled then so does the Prized power?

I'm assuming so. I mean, if you cancel Forever Burning, then Deathbound doesn't work.

Actually, according to the explanation, Prized is tied to the event being played (while Deathbound is tied to the event resolving successfully). So if a Prized event is cancelled, the power is still claimed (like it still counts for usage limits).

Prized. I've been in two minds about whether this was smart or lazy design on the part of the game designers, and whether extra-powerful cards like this are good or bad for the game/players, but have finally landed on the following side of the coin...

I like it. I think this is a clever concept by, and particularly for, the card designers. It frees them to introduce power creep, by also including an offset. Now instead of having to come up with new weird and wonderful mechanics in an effort to keep things fresh, they can basically go back and reproduce any card in a more powerful and/or cheaper form with the prized keyword. This is pretty much what they've done tweaking Wildfire Assault in to the new-and-improved Wildfire Assault 2.0: The Aftermath . There's a huge existing card pool for them to draw on, to produce more 'A Game of Thrones 2.0' cards like this, which is good for the designers and ultimately good for us I feel, because it strengthens what we already have (as opposed to taking the game in wacky new directions). I also think that, by releasing similar (albeit more powerful) cards in 2.0 prized versions, this will allow players to create more consistent decks - able to run 6 cards with much the same effect (2 similar cards in 3x copies), instead of just one set of 3; or 2 cards for plots (e.g. running both Wildfire Assault and The Aftermath), instead of just 1. Not to forget, this will be good for FFG too, as it'll keep us buying packs, because we're going to see these beefed-up 2.0 cards and won't be able to resist wanting them!

What worries me is the amount of 'Un-Nedly' decks that will be showing up with that new agenda.

... yep, I'm one of those players. Sorry

I think that the prized keyword has great potential also. Like you said, it lets them address power creep, and it looks like it will lead to less cards being restricted or banned.

I like the potential for abuse...play some event first turn with prized, and then you actually have some power to steal on that first big power challenge...

As it is now, when someone goes first and does a power challenge against me first turn, I just let it through, given no other obvious awful consequences for having done so. That way, when I swing back, I can grab it back, netting 2 power instead of just one for unopposed. Purposely giving your opponent power sometimes has its benefits!

I think that the prized keyword has great potential also. Like you said, it lets them address power creep, and it looks like it will lead to less cards being restricted or banned.

I like the potential for abuse...play some event first turn with prized, and then you actually have some power to steal on that first big power challenge...

As it is now, when someone goes first and does a power challenge against me first turn, I just let it through, given no other obvious awful consequences for having done so. That way, when I swing back, I can grab it back, netting 2 power instead of just one for unopposed. Purposely giving your opponent power sometimes has its benefits!

I used to think that, til TMP, BlackSails, seductive promise...... Thinking any challenge is meaningless just because the claim won't affect you is a dangerous precedent to set for yourself.

Str 4 power challenge on turn 1? Sure! Unopp..... NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! NOT MY CAVALRY FLANK!!!!!

I think that the prized keyword has great potential also. Like you said, it lets them address power creep, and it looks like it will lead to less cards being restricted or banned.

I like the potential for abuse...play some event first turn with prized, and then you actually have some power to steal on that first big power challenge...

As it is now, when someone goes first and does a power challenge against me first turn, I just let it through, given no other obvious awful consequences for having done so. That way, when I swing back, I can grab it back, netting 2 power instead of just one for unopposed. Purposely giving your opponent power sometimes has its benefits!

don't forget, using an event or losing a character/location with the "prized" keyword gives your opponent x power, not you

What worries me is the amount of 'Un-Nedly' decks that will be showing up with that new agenda.

... yep, I'm one of those players. Sorry

I'm quite Nedly too, but I like "out-of-house" agendas because they give players a way to field more than one faction during Joust. One of the reasons I generally dislike Joust is because it's a binary conflict, which doesn't reflect the events in the books all that well IMO (not to mention that most other LCGs and CCGs are 1v1). But with agendas like Conquest, players can at least represent the inter-house allying that shapes those events, whether or not they're deliberately emulating them.

Oh, I don't mind agendas being out of house at all! That gets a pass for me. What worries me is the tourney player who goes, "with this new agenda I can finally make Arya Stark and Joffrey Baratheon team up like 2 back-to-back besties!". The example is extreme perhaps but this is what the new agenda sort of promotes and _that's_ the part that worries me.

Keep in mind I am picking up the first pack that contains Tycho Nestoris.

Don't think I won't go out-of-house though! I'll do it if it's nedly. For ex: using the kill-power Quentyn Martell in my Targ deck to make good use of the 'Blood Magic Ritual'.

I think people lose a little bit of the vision of "alternate universe" that AGoT truly is. AGoT LCG isn't "Nedly" at all. It's almost impossible for it to be so just by the nature of the game. The game is more about the variability of the characters and how, under different circumstances, Joffrey and Arya COULD be "besties." There is no inherent reason that what happened in the book was the only viable course of events. Joffrey could've been raised differently and that whole sequence of events never happens. So I think giving more ability to mashup and be less restrictive is far more appropro for the AGoT LCG than trying to pidgeon hole every character into a given role.

I feel it'd be far more approrpiate for most characters to be playable in other factions with minimal difficulty unless there is some major underlying reason it wouldn't happen (like pre-Game of Thrones history). So the whole "faction penalty" thing has always irked me.

I think people lose a little bit of the vision of "alternate universe" that AGoT truly is. Competitive AGoT LCG isn't "Nedly" at all.

There, I just fixed that for you. :-)

Nah, the card game in general isn't Nedly. Rhaegar is a card. Balerion the Black is a card. Balerion can be out when Tommen is out. Not that Nedly.

You can most certainly build a deck that has direct connections to the book. I don't think that there is a single game that is considered to be realistic enough that it follows all the exact time lines and connections to it's story. Otherwise we'd have all currently living characters with the text "cannot be killed" because they are still alive in the story. We'd also have to go outside and bury dead character cards in a shallow grave in order for it to be truly Nedly/realistic.

Now instead of having to come up with new weird and wonderful mechanics in an effort to keep things fresh, they can basically go back and reproduce any card in a more powerful and/or cheaper form with the prized keyword. This is pretty much what they've done tweaking Wildfire Assault in to the new-and-improved Wildfire Assault 2.0: The Aftermath .

I think the "well" they are more likely to be going to is out-of-print CCG cards that are too powerful for the LCG environment. In fact, The Aftermath is more like the CCG plot card Winter Storm - updated for a post-Shadows environment. The spoiled Catelyn is a essentially the Winter Edition Catelyn. Heck, Wheels Within Wheels is a card from the Westeros edition (the very first CCG set) that was too powerful for the CCG environment!

"Prized" actually reminds me of what they tried to do with the "Doomed" mechanic as a balance for considerable power-creep (although I think it will be more successful since you cannot ignore the consequences of putting a crap-load of Prized cards in your deck). Since Wheels is one of the cards they are using Prized to bring back, I'm going to be very interested to see what other CCG monsters end up with an LCG/Prized make-over.

I think it's going to be a good mechanic, affecting both deck building and in-game decisions. It has a good chance of being a reasonable balance - so long as they don't go nuts with what they use it to balance.

The only way they'll bring back Prince's Loyalist and have it balanced is to make it house stark only.

Prized will be fun

Or like doomed, the only cards used would be the handful of OP ones (Massing At Twilight for example).

Or like doomed, the only cards used would be the handful of OP ones (Massing At Twilight for example).

I don't think that's going to be as much of an issue with Prized - at least no more the meta-at-large already favoring OP cards to the point of making other cards obscure.

The main difference is that, as the game goes on, using Prized cards will get more and more risky regardless of how many you have played to that point. "Prized 2" will always carry the question of whether or not the effect is worth giving your opponent 2 power for. Obviously, the answer to that question will be different if the score is 0-2 or 10-12 (no matter which side of that score you are on). Doomed was never like that; early or late game was never a consideration and you effectively never thought about the "drawback" for the first 1-3 Doomed cards you played.

Prized keeps the risk front-and-center, and can never be ignored. While I think the two mechanics try to do the same thing, create a built-in drawback and/or balance to very powerful cards, I think Prized succeeds in a way Doomed never could. So I don't think there can be a whole lot of "like Doomed" comparisons between the two mechanics, and I don't think past experiences with Doomed in the CCG will be a good predictor for the experiences with Prized in the LCG.

What I meant was, if similar to the meta around "Doomed", a handful of OP cards will be used because they are really worth the drawback, but as a whole the Prized mechanic could be ignored (because most cards will not be worth giving the opponent 1-2 power).

Not saying that will happen, its just a risk, like any card that has a built-in drawback. I do agree that Prized is a much better drawback mechanic then Doomed. However, if you look at Winter block and replaced doomed with prized, I think less of those cards would have seen active play. (Though Massing would still be in every deck).

I think people lose a little bit of the vision of "alternate universe" that AGoT truly is. AGoT LCG isn't "Nedly" at all. It's almost impossible for it to be so just by the nature of the game. The game is more about the variability of the characters and how, under different circumstances, Joffrey and Arya COULD be "besties." There is no inherent reason that what happened in the book was the only viable course of events. Joffrey could've been raised differently and that whole sequence of events never happens. So I think giving more ability to mashup and be less restrictive is far more appropro for the AGoT LCG than trying to pidgeon hole every character into a given role.

I feel it'd be far more approrpiate for most characters to be playable in other factions with minimal difficulty unless there is some major underlying reason it wouldn't happen (like pre-Game of Thrones history). So the whole "faction penalty" thing has always irked me.

I share the same vision that you describe, for all the CCGs and LCGs I play. I don't think it's un-Nedly, so long as the deck is built with the story in mind. When I build that Targaryen deck that explores what might have happened if Viserys hadn't been a jerk, I'll want to consider all the story implications of that one change. What if King Robert had said the correct name at his bedding? What if Jon had agreed to the new king's offer? This is just a different kind of Nedliness that requires a different kind of imagination.