This is Lannister-level economy--limited and unique but honestly, who cares? Absolutely amazing.

And it really helps to take the edge off effects like Pleasure Barge which I'm always just a little hesitant to play. 

I want to run this x3 in my Tyrell N/A or Fealty. But am concerned about removing the x3 Rose roads, as they are crucial for setup...plus they are free lol.

I want to run this x3 in my Tyrell N/A or Fealty. But am concerned about removing the x3 Rose roads, as they are crucial for setup...plus they are free lol.

I wonder if it's a card that IS worth replacing the Roseroads for (a simple 3-card swap).  The gold hurts on Setup, but it will make up for itself turn 1.  It's unique so can be duped to protect against location destruction.  A Tyrell deck using this and The Mander can think about running Political Diaster with no economy hit, only hurting their opponent.  

I really like this card.

As good as this card is once it gets in play, I'm not understanding how all the people praising it plan to get it in play consistently without giving up so much tempo that you just lose the board before you get an advantage from it.  I mean, a 5g Counting Coppers turn is obviously amazing, but how do you guarantee it?  A big factor that people seem to like is that it makes other low-gold plots more viable.  Naval isn't a gamble when it's a 5-7-1, Reinforcements is suddenly amazing, etc.... but HOW do you get this in play consistently if you are playing those fringe plots?  Or do you just slot it in a normal deck w/o adjusting plots for it? 

To me, this card demands consistency you can't guarantee.  I'm really interested to hear from others about where it belongs, how to build for it, etc....

Valar obviously changes everything, but for now how are you building for and playing this card?

^ what he said.

I'll happily spend 4 gold in setup for this. Outside of setup, it might consistently end up being more of a resource commitment in the short term than I can afford, no matter what the long-term benefits are. 

As good as this card is once it gets in play, I'm not understanding how all the people praising it plan to get it in play consistently without giving up so much tempo that you just lose the board before you get an advantage from it.  I mean, a 5g Counting Coppers turn is obviously amazing, but how do you guarantee it?  A big factor that people seem to like is that it makes other low-gold plots more viable.  Naval isn't a gamble when it's a 5-7-1, Reinforcements is suddenly amazing, etc.... but HOW do you get this in play consistently if you are playing those fringe plots?  Or do you just slot it in a normal deck w/o adjusting plots for it? 

 

To me, this card demands consistency you can't guarantee.  I'm really interested to hear from others about where it belongs, how to build for it, etc....

 

Valar obviously changes everything, but for now how are you building for and playing this card?

You're not wrong--absolutely this is a fantastic card to see in Setup but if you're having to Marshall it the math gets a bit fuzzier. And like most cards that you really want to see in your opening hand you want to run 3...which can make things even worse if they end up stuck clogging your hand. 

Still, I think that kind of econ boost is worth it--especially if you're running a more expensive deck. And it's not unplayable even outside of setup. 

If you're playing defensively (or at least, can play defensively for a turn) then dropping it on a Calm or Fortified Position turn can help to limit your losses based on board state. And Trading with the Pentoshi can get it in while still leaving you plenty of gold to spare and the downside of that plot is somewhat mitigated by the 3 gold your getting every turn from here on out. Even Calling the Banners might get it out with change to spare depending on board state. 

And remember, The Queen of Thorns might also help you get another Tyrell into play that turn (though obviously waiting until you can get her into play won't always be advisable). And Paxter can help you with paying for events. 

Also, it's a small thing but as First Snow of Winter becomes more common having this on the board is going to make it a whole lot easier to recover from. 

And remember, The Queen of Thorns might also help you get another Tyrell into play that turn (though obviously waiting until you can get her into play won't always be advisable). And Paxter can help you with paying for events. 

I think it's worth pointing out that this card makes the Queen of Thorns a much more enticing proposition.  Using the gold from this to pay 4 (or less) for QoT, then winning the Intrigue challenge and dropping Randy for free is definitely the ideal!

EDIT: Also, I look forward to this with the inevitable return of House of Dreams.

EDIT: Also, I look forward to this with the inevitable return of House of Dreams.

House of Dreams was non-limited. I expect the same condition will apply so you won't be able to play this. 

I think it's worth pointing out that this card makes the Queen of Thorns a much more enticing proposition.  Using the gold from this to pay 4 (or less) for QoT, then winning the Intrigue challenge and dropping Randy for free is definitely the ideal!

 

EDIT: Also, I look forward to this with the inevitable return of House of Dreams.

Sadly, House of Dreams wouldn't work with this as The Arbor is Limited. And it's 4-cost so Support of the People can't sneak it into play. We'll probably just have to suck it up and pay for it if we don't see it in Setup. 

Agreed on The Queen of Thorns. And sure, the dream is to drop somebody like Randyll but if you can just get out a Wardens of the Reach or one of the knights then you're already a long way towards closing any tempo gap you may have created playing The Arbor. 

I do wish this had the Reach trait, though. Wardens could use it and it's not like it would be overpowered that way. And...well, it's in The Reach. 

Assuming House of Dreams is written exactly the same as it was in 1.0...

Good card is good.  I love me some economy cards.  I will easily through away my first turn to building season for this if I don't find one in setup.  I look forward to using this card to banner into big out-of-house characters. 

Assuming House of Dreams is written exactly the same as it was in 1.0...

True--they could tweak the wording. But aren't the Champ cards all being reprinted as-is (wherever possible within the new rules, of course)?

Either way, this is solid in any Tyrell deck looking for some economy. I don't know that I would play it in Fealty but in Crossing or Banner Agendas I think it will be a big help. 

But aren't the Champ cards all being reprinted as-is (wherever possible within the new rules, of course)?

That's kind of the point for HoD, though. The new rules for Setup and the difference in the economy curve probably don't make it possible to reprint it as-is.

That's kind of the point for HoD, though. The new rules for Setup and the difference in the economy curve probably don't make it possible to reprint it as-is.

I guess we'll see. I never played 1.0 so the nuances of the changes aren't as apparent to me. I'll deffer to you guys on this

I just hope they don't re-word HoD to say "cost 3 or less."

That would totally kill my NW HoD deck...

OK so I like this card now!!

I played several games last night with a Tyrell Fealty deck built in a toolbox fashion, including:

PLOTS

-  Building Orders (Turn 1 play, if I already have the Arbor it lets me grab one of a handful of 1x attachments)

-  Rebuilding (since swapped for Calling the Banners, but great w/ 3x Cunning and lots of 1x cards)

-  First Snow (all-star)

-  Reinforcements (Swapped for Pentoshi, although it is great as a 4-0-1 if you have the Arbor out, and it lets you play KoF early even if you may need to Varys later on.  This may fit back in depending on where the build goes)

-  3x Arbor (2x Goldroad, 3x Kingsroad, 3x Rose Garden)

-  3x Olenna's Cunning (SO strong!)

-  1x LSR, PttS, Tears, Growing Strong, 2x Support of the People (critical)

-  3x KoF, 3x Randyll, 3x Marg, 3x Queen of Thorns

-  2x Mander, 2x Highgarden

The deck wants Arbor out ASAP, then it just starts spewing bigs out with all the draw/search (SO MUCH DRAW but you play everything!).  First Snow is crazy strong in this deck, but I really think Valar will be much better once it releases (assuming it is something like 2-0-0-4/5) 

Olenna's Cunning is incredible, there are cards of each type that you absolutely want in every matchup, and with Fealty and The Arbor it is very playable.

I can't believe how differently this plays, and look forward to seeing what people that can build 2nd Ed decks better than me can come up with!

I should say, it failed MISERABLY in the game on the stream last night, against a Bara Fealty deck that I built and lent to a meta-mate.  I made a stupid mistake and played Arbor Turn 1 without using Fealty to reduce it, and without a real plan for the first few turns so I just lost quickly.  I won 3 more games with it, all of which had me drawing about 2/3 of my deck and playing most of it out.

...

 

-  Reinforcements (Swapped for Pentoshi, although it is great as a 4-0-1 if you have the Arbor out, and it lets you play KoF early even if you may need to Varys later on.  This may fit back in depending on where the build goes)

 

...

Never liked Trading with the Pentoshi before--it just gives a little too much help to my opponent. But in Tyrell-Prime with this I almost feel like it's an auto-include until we get a better guaranteed high-gold plot. The fact that the downside gets mitigated in 1 turn by The Arbor is just amazing. 

Is the duping of this card considered the limited action for the round?

The question was under debate most of today in the discord chat. The current ruling (although we don't have the exact wording of the question or the answer) from the designers is "yes". Expect this to wind up in the unofficial FAQ fairly shortly.

It *clearly* cannot be setup as a dupe. It clearly cannot be played as a duplicate if you have already played a limited that round. The current argument is whether it can be played as a duplicate then followed up with a limited card, and that one still requires the exact wording from the designers to confirm.

But this makes no sense. Why duplicating a limited card is considered a limited action? The duplicate itself has nothing on it except for the interrupt save text, as per rules themselves.

The question was under debate most of today in the discord chat. The current ruling (although we don't have the exact wording of the question or the answer) from the designers is "yes". Expect this to wind up in the unofficial FAQ fairly shortly.

 

It *clearly* cannot be setup as a dupe. It clearly cannot be played as a duplicate if you have already played a limited that round. The current argument is whether it can be played as a duplicate then followed up with a limited card, and that one still requires the exact wording from the designers to confirm.

The only response we have gotten from FFG so far said that you are not allowed to play a duplicate of the arbor is you have already played a limited location. I sent an inquiry asking whether the reverse is true, hopefully they'll get back to me tomorrow.

The question was under debate most of today in the discord chat. The current ruling (although we don't have the exact wording of the question or the answer) from the designers is "yes". Expect this to wind up in the unofficial FAQ fairly shortly.

 

It *clearly* cannot be setup as a dupe. It clearly cannot be played as a duplicate if you have already played a limited that round. The current argument is whether it can be played as a duplicate then followed up with a limited card, and that one still requires the exact wording from the designers to confirm.

SURELY this can't be right... the rules clearly say "Duplicates have no text, titles, characteristics, type, or traits. A duplicate is only considered a blank 'duplicate card' while it is in play."

And "limited" must be considered one of those if not a couple. I don't see how Limited could possibly be exempt form both card "text", and "considered a blank".

No?