Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Greyjoy Fealty Deck Thread

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1
sparrowhawk

sparrowhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2038 posts

I learnt 1.0 deck-building from the excellent Deck Threads that developed in that forum - truly educational for someone wanting to build optimal decks.

 

Those deck threads serve as excellent repositories of knowledge. They really do make the competitive game easier to enter for late comers and serve as a really interesting commentary on the evolution of a deck build. The problem is we start with 72 unique agenda combinations unless we cull them into options available!

 

I suggest we start with a maximum of 24 Deck Threads that various people will start and the community will add to them, creating the same collected wisdom (and failed musings/jank ideas) that the original deck threads collected, all in one source (and eventually collated together by scantrell in a single hyperlinked pinned thread).

 

8 House X Banner deck thread (where all 7 options are explored based on the same major card pool)

8 House X Fealty deck thread (these I imagine will be far shorter than that House's banner thread)

8 House X No Agenda deck threads (these I imagine are initially unpopular until the Neutral pool expands)

 

I don't profess to be great at this game (though I'm pretty good at card games) and most of us don't really know how to build a 2.0 deck at the moment with these momentous changes such as

 

> new economy scales (inflationary vs. 1.0 hence slower game)

> the 8 gold set up (early high cost vs. weenie card advantage)

> duplicates being so much stronger (can set up, not cancelled)

> positive attachments so much stronger (set-up, bounce back)

> no full character reset (Valar, Bleeds) but reset to 3 (like draft)

> reserve (no Rule by Decree hand reset)

> seas are Limited (no Fleeing to the Wall location reset)

 

All of the above (and more) have rewritten 1.0 conventional wisdom when building 2.0 decks.

 

So apologies if my first attempt (at what is a very builds-itself Faction + Agenda) turns out to be absolute rubbish. But someone has got to start these Deck Threads. I hope that people will start other Deck Threads so that we can start discussing what we all enjoy discussing on these forums: our deck-building choices.

 

So here it is, opening myself to ridicule, a first attempt at a "Default" deck...

 

 

GREYJOY FEALTY v1

Archetype: Aggro (minor Rush)

Pool: Core x3

* = unique, # = neutral, ~ = loyal, @ = limited

 

Faction: Greyjoy

Agenda: Fealty

 

Plots (7)

1 Calm over Westeros (5-3-1-6) summer

1 Filthy Accusations (4-4-1-6) scheme

2 Heads on Pikes (4-6-1-6) edict war

1 Winds of Winter (3-4-2-5) winter

1 Calling the Banners (3-7-1-6) kingdom

1 Confiscation (4-5-1-6) edict

 

Characters (30) = 29 Greyjoy, 24 Ironborn, 17 Lord/Lady

3 Iron Island Fishmongers (1)

3 Lordsport Shipwright (2)

3 Salty Navigator (2)

1 Maester Wendamyr* (2)

3 Black Wind Crew (3)

3 Aeron Damphair* (3)

1 Alannys Greyjoy* (3)

3 Theon Greyjoy* (4)

1 Littlefinger* (5#)

3 Asha Greyjoy* (5)

3 Balon Greyjoy* (6~)

3 Euron Greyjoy* (7~)

 

Attachments (13)

3 Throwing Axe (1)

3 Little Bird (1#)

3 Bodyguard (1#)

3 Milk of the Poppy (1#)

1 Seal of the Hand* (3#)

 

Events (6)

3 The Kraken's Grasp (0~)

3 We Do Not Sow (1~)

 

Locations (11)

3 Sea Tower (0@)

3 Iron Fleet Scout (0)

3 The Kingsroad (1#@)

1 The Iron Throne*(2#)

1 Great Kraken* (3~)

 

 

So a quick explanation of some card choices...

 

One of the key considerations I had was a good set-up. This 1.0 consideration still applies and those cheap positive attachments as well as a pretty low curve for a Fealty deck hopefully helps with good set ups relative to the current pool.

 

I went with minimal events because of set-up and also Intrigue vulnerability, even preferring Bodyguard (now stackable) over Risen by the Sea. I also feel that stacking attachments on 3 key duplicated characters (there are 3 with renown here) is a good strategy in a format defined by Wildfire reset (this "tentpole" approach certainly was the case in the first 1.0 Draft packs). Little Bird covers a deficiency and protects against Tears of Lys which I suspect could be meta-defining. Hence even Bodyguards.

 

Like Targ, Greyjoy have an "out" with dead characters in Aeron so I am less uncomfortable with the triplicate uniques (as duplicates are stronger now). Obviously whilst the card pool is so small, Heads on Pikes will be a prevalent Plot in Intrigue-weak builds. But that vulnerability applies to any Fealty deck at the moment (as the Wildlings are for no agenda builds, using the faction card kneel there).

 

The few events here are based on going first and either create unopposed or benefit from unopposed. The only Greyjoy character not played is Drowned because if paying 4+, I'd rather have a unique (that can't Take the Black). Greyjoy are also unusual in that they have a non-unique attachment (to deter unstealthed good characters from defending) and a non-unique location), both of which require high % of Ironborn or Greyjoy characters hence Fealty.

 

Likewise, the need to go first to get most out of your Iron Fleet Scout, to trigger Kraken's Grasp to force an unopposed and even Alannys has limited the choice of plots but there is a mix of aggression, disruption and utility in the deck (with 6 cards raising initiative, do not use Kingsroad vs Control until they reset). But I think discussing what is the optimal plot deck for this build is a good place to start. The strategy I have adopted with my Plot choices is to go for an aggressive approach on military that clears out the chuds for stealth unopposed power attacks to steal back the unopposed Intrigue power against you). But a more racing Rush variant with a different Plot deck (Clash of Kings, Feast of Crows) is perfectly plausible.

 

Finally, why Fealty? There is so much Greyjoy only synergy that Banner felt diluting that synergy, though you gain other benefits. The 2 most expensive characters become more affordable, helping the economy curve, and I suspect Supporting The Faith will be a common plot (rejected because of its low initiative) to combat the event/ambush builds, so it's useful to be able to play We Do Not Sow in such a turn. But really, Fealty is better than No Agenda in this case so might as well have it.

 

So apologies for the length of this first Opening Post of this Deck Thread. I am not saying this is a great build and many parts of it (especially Plots) are subjective. But hopefully, by starting this thread, the floodgates of other Deck Threads may soon start too.

 

Any feedback (no matter how negative - like all the triplicates...) gratefully received. Most of us are fumbling trying to get our bearings on the new 2.0 paradigm. I am sure there will be a huge number of embarrassing build errors in this post when looking back on it. Still, any feedback welcome.

 

And please people, post your own variants. As the pool evolves, so will each of the Deck Threads.


  • TheGriffinReborn likes this

#2
scantrell24

scantrell24

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 3041 posts

IMO there's not much point to continuing the "deck threads" until the card pool is larger. Right now any given House/Agenda combo has maybe 10-15 flexible main deck slots

 

Instead, how about our community creates a collection of generally useful knowledge. Something like:

 

1. ALL DECKS

Cover plot deck construction, 5-7 limited economy cards, 30-36 characters, decide on a strategy and whether you want to be proactive, reactive, etc. 

 

2. STARK DECKS

3x Bran is a must, but you can live without the Vanguard

 

2a. Stark Banner with Lanni decks

3x Tyrion makes it easy to trigger Put to the Sword, and Treachery cancels Bodyguard 

 

3. TARGARYEN DECKS

3x Jorah makes sense because he's discarded, not sent to the dead pile

 

3a. Targaryen Fealty

Great agenda for Targ because you can play a surprise Dracarys! without any gold

 

etc.

 

This could become a pinned post that someone constantly updates, or maybe even an open google doc.


  • TheGriffinReborn, agktmte, VonWibble and 1 other like this

#3
RobbyStark

RobbyStark

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 900 posts

confirm that treachery cancels dupes?

 

also you made me realise how upset I am that Like warm rain is not loyal



#4
agktmte

agktmte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1294 posts

For future forum discussion I think that a single thread could be used for faction combinations, for example Stark Banner of the Watch and Night's Watch Banner of the Wolf could be discussed together. Obviously the loyal cards make the decks different, but the discussion of which is better for which strategy, etc. makes the two very much related.



#5
agktmte

agktmte

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1294 posts

confirm that treachery cancels dupes?

 

also you made me realise how upset I am that Like warm rain is not loyal

 

Duplicates cannot be cancelled (in the RRG).


  • KruppSteel likes this

#6
Gamaran

Gamaran

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts

Shouldnt we just make a thread for each faction and discuss things there? We then can add the highlights to a pinned subject like Scrantell24 suggested.

 

I think each individual faction has a lot of things to discuss, and one big thread for 8 factions will just get chaotic. Trying to get a pinned bible of statements that most people agree with from the start of the game doesnt seem realistic since most of those "bible statements" come from extensive discussion, different people giving their points of views and arguing for or against it and lots of play testing.



#7
scantrell24

scantrell24

    Advanced Member

  • Small Council
  • 3041 posts

Duplicates cannot be cancelled (in the RRG).

 

Yeah, that was my mistake. Treachery does not cancel dupes.



#8
ingsve

ingsve

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Looking at the card list you have proposed, I would say that you have way too many attachments. Eventhough attachments are safer and easier to play now it still feels wrong to play so many. I would remove 2 Little Bird, 2 Bodyguard and 1 Milk of the Poppy. For saves I would rather go with Risen from the Sea since it gives more flexibility rather than having to preemptively give someone the save.

 

I would also remove a lot of the duplicates on unique characters. I think it's better to draw a character you can play next to your unique character rather than simply drawing a dupe which doesn't give you any further offensive abilities. I would choose a couple of characters that are your most important ones and keep the dupes on them. I would remove the dupes from Euron and Aeron I think and possibly take Asha and Theon down to 2 depending on how it playtests. Instead I would add Drowned Men who are likely to be fairly undercosted even with the limited amount of Warships.

 

Since I would remove a lot of the neutral attachments I would instead add a couple of Put to the Sword since that is a crucial card in a deck like this to clear the way for future challenges or to remove potential troublesome characters. I would remove one or two We Do Not Sow if the amount of events feels to much.

 

I would also add Varys just in case. If the initial aggro/rush is unsuccessful then it's good to have a second chance by clearing the board since this type of deck would also have an advantage after a reset just like it has in the start because of the stealth etc.


  • sparrowhawk likes this

#9
sparrowhawk

sparrowhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2038 posts

Looking at the card list you have proposed, I would say that you have way too many attachments. Eventhough attachments are safer and easier to play now it still feels wrong to play so many. I would remove 2 Little Bird, 2 Bodyguard and 1 Milk of the Poppy. For saves I would rather go with Risen from the Sea since it gives more flexibility rather than having to preemptively give someone the save.

 

I would also remove a lot of the duplicates on unique characters. I think it's better to draw a character you can play next to your unique character rather than simply drawing a dupe which doesn't give you any further offensive abilities. I would choose a couple of characters that are your most important ones and keep the dupes on them. I would remove the dupes from Euron and Aeron I think and possibly take Asha and Theon down to 2 depending on how it playtests. Instead I would add Drowned Men who are likely to be fairly undercosted even with the limited amount of Warships.

 

Since I would remove a lot of the neutral attachments I would instead add a couple of Put to the Sword since that is a crucial card in a deck like this to clear the way for future challenges or to remove potential troublesome characters. I would remove one or two We Do Not Sow if the amount of events feels to much.

 

I would also add Varys just in case. If the initial aggro/rush is unsuccessful then it's good to have a second chance by clearing the board since this type of deck would also have an advantage after a reset just like it has in the start because of the stealth etc.

 

Thank you. Really late here and I'm in such a state that I can't type without mistyping but...

 

If you legislate for how bad you think things could be, it becomes more than a self-fulfilling prophecy

 

I'm really NOT saying you gotta think things my way but...

 

You gotta accept the meta as a consideration, So, as there is a lot of the meta that loves Greyjoy (1.0 Martell poker player, I hated its chess style), you really have to compensate for this (and thank the 7 Gods that nobody has realised your weakness).

 

I'm sorry. I just wish people realise that we have an uneven card pool and so, just like Diplomacy, this uneveness creates a metagame in its own right. So strangely, because Greyjoy pool is so strong, control options like Lannister become de rigeur.

 

Why do you think I started a thread on a faction that I hate because (just like Kith in Conquest), it focuses on denial? I just wonder why FFG make the simplest strategy to play the strongest strategy in their recent LCGs.

 

I love Thrones. All the time in Conquest, I used to say "why can't Conquest have the precise control of Thrones plots instead of this random planets improvise nonsense?" But we shouldn't ask "why?" just because we are loyal to a game. It's not doing a game any favours by hiding things that are wrong with it.

 

Still, from what I've  seen, apart from a few TINY mis-steps, FFG have done a brilliant job in relaunching the game. And as someone who faced the whole 1.0 hobby when I first said, over a year ago, " we should have a reboot", I'm so happy to see a new version that does all that I dreamed of - and more. It's justified everything I said about "letting go" and accepting a rebirth.

 

But I can't help but be annoyed by Greyjoy's supremacy in the Core Set. Just like I was ANGRY that Targaryen Core Set in 1.0 was sh1t. How can so many amazing players who were playtesters still get it so wrong? I don't get it.

 

I've already expressed that apart from Night's Watch (with its raven nonsense), I can't understand why Fealty exists. So I decided to post on an archetype that I don't really believe in. There are better builds than Greyjoy Fealty because, apart from a few edge cases, there are better options available. But I still posted here because I wanted people to say "this is a crap build" instead of polite no comment. I would love to see a "Dislike" button because I would bet I wouid have seen more Dislikes than Likes. Let's realise that we are talking about a subverting an archaic game system that should have been aborted at its moribund birth.

 

I love the Thrones background. I appreciate good mechanics. I just wish I can discuss whether a reboot of Thrones has been done well without being attacked as being disloyal to a game that I truly love.



#10
Gamaran

Gamaran

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts

 

But I can't help but be annoyed by Greyjoy's supremacy in the Core Set. Just like I was ANGRY that Targaryen Core Set in 1.0 was sh1t. How can so many amazing players who were playtesters still get it so wrong? I don't get it.

 

 

Well, its only logical Fealty Greyjoy decks are really strong from the start of the game, you could say they might start a rebellion at any time. You just have to play a Baratheon Banner Stark deck. You will surely crush those petty Greyjoy decks.

 

;)


  • Meromero likes this

#11
sparrowhawk

sparrowhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2038 posts
@insgve

Sober post this time! Sorry about that. Can't remember posting it, must have been bored in the taxi...

I think you make a very good point with The Drowned. And having too many duplicates, not increasing your board strength etc. They haven't got the +5 potential of The Reach or Westerlands versions but they are still ok. I think I avoided them as they lacked Ironborn.

+3 The Drowned
-2 Aeron
-1 Theon

This also reduces the vulnerability to Heads on Pikes which will be common in a small card pool of duplicates. Though what happens when I draw a duplicate of a character in play from Great Kraken then my opponent "kills" it with Heads on Pikes?

I kept the 2 loyal characters as triplicate to protect investment (at -1 cost) and renown. And Asha over Theon who can collect power because she looks so good, especially in a smaller board of a post-Wildfire reset. These 3 most expensive characters are the ones you will definitely keep in a Wildfire. I wonder if this is a mistake in build principles.

I also take under consideration the Put to the Sword instead of so many attachments. But I suspect win by 5 is going to be very hard, nobody is going to risk you getting it. I also suspect that any Intrigue weak builds will go for attachments instead. The problem now that players face in 2.0 is "do I save 2 and hope I can get my Put to the Sword through?". Especially marshalling first. This is similar to why I chose Bodyguard over Risen by the Sea, also because of Control Varys resets. You can perhaps expect to go first quite often with those plots and 6 initiative upgrades. So the 6 free events (with Fealty) are no tempo loss in Marshall and can be played before the opponent Intrigues going second

So good call on The Drowned, sir. But I think as an Intrigue weak house, I will stick with attachments instead of gambling unspent gold on events that are just Intrigue fodder. And also hurt set-up. One of the reasons why I like The Red Keep so much is because its card draw is after challenges.

Anyway, Greyjoy Fealty is (I suspect) not as good as Greyjoy Banner builds. Fealty decks are easier to "build" - you don't really build, you just chuck it all in then cull cards, not really customising in such a small pool. Please don't think this build is competitively optimal because I fear it's very vulnerable to control.

What I really wanted to do was

(A) provoke a conversation on what are the new 2.0 small pool build parameters? 50% characters? 6 Limited? Cost curve like this? It's all so hard now! I feel clueless building at the moment.

(B] provoke a conversation on how we are going to sort all the deck-building chat (the main reason I visit a card game forum, to improve my skills) into Deck Threads. They were really good in 1.0 and I 'ported them into Conquest. But there are so many now. Maybe up to 28x 2-house combinations? Not that all 28 work optimally. And then 8 threads that are Fealty or No Agenda? And a pinned Deck Thread that details accepted parameters to build (once we understand what they are in this Brave New World!) and has the hyperlinks to these threads?

I'm also sort of annoyed Greyjoy has such a strong pool (it's like Princes of the Sun being so good that Martell was forever being restricted and being given poorer cards) but in the cold light of day, I suspect there will be a few paper-scissors-rock optimal builds in the Core pool. Luckily there will be new cards to change the meta!

I for one am really happy with this reboot, despite a few tiny minor annoyances. And I can't wait to play this brand new shiny game and get all my gaming friends to buy into it. Well done, FFG, for taking the brave decision and creating a brand new puzzle for us.

#12
ingsve

ingsve

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

With the Stealth Greyjoy has along with Balon not allowing low STR characters to count STR in challenges I don't think it would be any problem forcing a 5 STR win through most of the time. If that is the fear then having 3 We Do Not Sow should be even more worrysome because winning unopposed is probably harder than winning by 5.

 

My biggest worry with GJ Fealty is lack of card draw though. I wish there had been some decent neutral draw right out of the core set but I guess that decent draw went the way of the Dodo with the end of CCG. Even a Court Archivist would have been nice.



#13
Gamaran

Gamaran

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts

With the Stealth Greyjoy has along with Balon not allowing low STR characters to count STR in challenges I don't think it would be any problem forcing a 5 STR win through most of the time. If that is the fear then having 3 We Do Not Sow should be even more worrysome because winning unopposed is probably harder than winning by 5.

 

My biggest worry with GJ Fealty is lack of card draw though. I wish there had been some decent neutral draw right out of the core set but I guess that decent draw went the way of the Dodo with the end of CCG. Even a Court Archivist would have been nice.

 

is this real life? are people actually asking to give Greyjoys more tools?



#14
sparrowhawk

sparrowhawk

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2038 posts
Thanks again for the great input, insgve.

I focused on Military Aggro that seagues into unopposed Rush to "make the game smaller", a standard Greyjoy strategy (that they 'ported to Kith in Conquest, another dominant negative anti-play strategy). A smaller board means more benefit of Stealth etc. I'm assuming those 1.0 principles still apply (I so dislike Greyjoy/Kith strategy, being naturally an expansive Martell/Lannister tricksy poker player to Greyjoy cards-on-the-table chess game). Perhaps I should commit to a military strategy with Sneak Attack? Instead of Heads on Pikes disruption? Duplicate Winds of Winter instead?

My theory for We Do Not Sow is that you will often get unopposed Power challenges. Say you stealth a power chud when declaring power. They weaken themselves for the military by using the big military power unit so let you through unopposed. Also Kraken's Grasp helps unopposed reducing it to 0. And there's also synergy with Euron when discarding their Locations. Most decks will have significant military presence so whilst Kraken's Grasp helps to get Military wins at +5, it's that keep 2 gold for an event marshalling first not knowing the board that makes me nervous. You could well be right and I need to change some of the set-up friendly neutral attachments for Put to the Sword. It's certainly a viable alternative.

You make a very good point about Greyjoy faction draw being the shakiest (and will be intrigued away if hand denuded). Does this mean a regenerative Counting Coppers is better than the "Make the Game Smaller" Heads on Pikes? I always like disrupting game plans, making Intrigue factions feel unsafe in their plans. And also the worth of Pikes is maximised with a small pool running so many duplicates. But I can also envisage a "sustainable pressure" build that runs 9 Limited, Taxation and 2x Counting Coppers. Hmmm...

Maybe in the end, Greyjoy with 5 loyal cards is best as a Banner to a faction that has a solid draw location. I'm thinking Baratheon Banner Greyjoy perhaps. But that's a different build and a different thread.

#15
ingsve

ingsve

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Well, the main reason I advocate Put to the Sword is that is directly benefits the aim of the deck whereas We Do Not Sow more benefits a slower decktype since most of the time there will only be income locations to discard and that is more useful if you expect a longer game.



#16
ingsve

ingsve

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

is this real life? are people actually asking to give Greyjoys more tools?

 

Well, I won't be satisfied until I get Crown of Suns Longship Iron Victory, Drowned Zealots, No Prisoners and Storm Raiders back...



#17
Skelton

Skelton

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2090 posts

My Greyjoy Fealty deck is currently running the following. 15 Locations (More than I would like but given the cardpool is still fairly small, options are fairly limited), 7 Events (pretty much what I was running towards the end of V1), 8 Attachments ( I will probably drop to 7 or even 6 after todays testing, The rest is made up of characters. 

 

I am at 15 neutral cards at present.



#18
sidefor

sidefor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

With the Stealth Greyjoy has along with Balon not allowing low STR characters to count STR in challenges I don't think it would be any problem forcing a 5 STR win through most of the time. If that is the fear then having 3 We Do Not Sow should be even more worrysome because winning unopposed is probably harder than winning by 5.

 

My biggest worry with GJ Fealty is lack of card draw though. I wish there had been some decent neutral draw right out of the core set but I guess that decent draw went the way of the Dodo with the end of CCG. Even a Court Archivist would have been nice.

If you're really strapped for cards, you can run two counting coppers. It's not great but it's what you get when your faction is weak in draw I guess. And don't forget Littlefinger; that guy is probably going to be in a lot of decks for the forseeable future.



#19
ingsve

ingsve

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

If you're really strapped for cards, you can run two counting coppers. It's not great but it's what you get when your faction is weak in draw I guess. And don't forget Littlefinger; that guy is probably going to be in a lot of decks for the forseeable future.

Ya, but giving up plot space like that is not something I would recommend. I think I'm just spoiled since I'm used to an environment with Massing at Twilight, Watching the Heavens, Wildling Messenger, Defender of the North Agenda etc. and that was before Massing and Watching the Heavens got erratad to draw so I'm used to a lot of neutral draw. I know teh LCG era brought an overall lack of card draw so I just have to get used to that too I guess.



#20
Gamaran

Gamaran

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 365 posts

Well, I won't be satisfied until I get Crown of Suns Longship Iron Victory, Drowned Zealots, No Prisoners and Storm Raiders back...

 

so you are planning to run the same Greyjoy decks that have been running for years? and keep running them for years to come? isnt the point of this reboot a sort of fresh start with new decks?