I have been playing AGoT from the starter box and am hooked on how simple and fun the game is. Since I despise deck building I was wondering how balanced the starters are against each other.

I have no interest in starting the ever escalating nightmare that is building decks and collecting cards, am not concerned that the game will become repetitive will only the limited card choices, and very much enjoy the game especially with the multi-player mechanics.

My concern is that one house might be unbalanced against the others in a starters only environment, thoughts?

Just one word:

Lannister.

RAWR~!!!

Oops...that was two.

in the core set they are all pretty solid. Targ is built a little better because they seem to do everything well out of the box.

I've actually found lannister to be a bit harder from a core set only perspective as they play a little slow and in multiplayer you really have to manipulate the table to keep everyone from jumping on you early or taking out your one big gun you've gotten out in two rounds.

If you are playing with four players, all the houses are pretty balanced. If you are playing 1v1, Targ is probably the strongest, though Baratheon is decent and the other two can win with a little luck or if played well. In general, Targ is probably the strongest of the four "core set" decks, but their plot cards are very poor for 1v1 (so they can get smashed if they don't draw well) and anything can happen in multiplayer, so there's definitely still an element of luck no matter what happens.

It sounds like you are looking for a game that you can pick up and play out of the box. In all honesty, the core set is a lot of fun played that way, though as you pointed out, it could get a little repetitive and you miss the ability to customize your deck. (These two issues would apply to almost any board game you play though, so they probably aren't a huge downside.)

Deckbuilding has always been my favorite aspect of this game. I haven't played in...yeesh...forever. Since probably October. I'm considering getting back in, but I really don't know anybody who plays. So I don't know. I think looking at the core set decks, though, they should be fairly balanced...Baratheon should be good, I think...but not that good. A good number of the plots in the core set aren't very good for 1v1, though...

In my opinion the Core Set decks were made for 4 players. Because they have made it as a board game. So the best play is multiplayer. Of course you can play 1v1 but it is not so balanced.

I don't think the Lannister deck is veyr good in melee format. Like lars said - the only way for the Lannister palyer to ahng aorund in the melee is with solid diplomatic skills.

I have never tried the decks in a head to head matchup - multiplayer only.

There aren't enough kneels to go around during melee matchups for Lanni...and they are a very slow house, lacking power grab. In a head to head matchups they rock.

Ruvion said:

Well you have enough kneel effects to control the most important characters, and/or to create a very good base for nagotiations.

Also you have the advantage of a full hand PROBABLY with a lannister pays his debts, and often enough a cerceis handmaiden in play so that attacking you is usually a very bold move.

Furthermore, in melee compelled by the rock just .. rocks. (~ what a magnificent pun~) But seriously, it´s evil.