Card Game DB
Sign In
Create Account
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!
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!
2
ReCrafting the Theory: Deck Archetypes (Pt. 3)
Dec 03 2015 12:50 PM |
WWDrakey
in Articles
Recrafting the Theory WWDrakey Ire JCWamma Istaril AGoT2.0
Recrafting the Theory - Deck Archetypes (pt. 3)Foreword on Hybrid Theory (by WWDrakey)
In the previous two parts of Recrafting the Theory, we went over established ground in detailing the game’s four fundamental core deck archetypes. While those archetypes are founded in the game’s very core mechanics (challenge-types, board position, card effects), reality is always a lot more messy than theory would like it to be. While decks conforming directly to one of the core archetypes are not uncommon, a large portion of the competitive and casual metagame is actually formed by hybrid decks, which combine the core archetypes in various configurations.
Not all hybrid decks are built the same, but rather there is a huge variety of ways that f.ex. an Aggro deck (playing for board position) that splashes in Control elements (for turning the game state to it’s advantage using effects) can function. Additionally, there are a lot of other parameters that fundamentally change how a deck works not covered by the four core archetypes, be it cost distribution, card type distribution or a game-plan combining different core archetypes at different times. These further differentiate hybrids from each other, and give rise to new and distinctive decks.
If the core archetypes were the hard and idealized science that theorists love to deal in, actual deck construction with it’s hybrid decktypes tends to be more akin to practical engineering, which integrates the fundamental theories and makes them work. While the core archetypes are somewhat static, and will stay largely unchanging as the years pass, the practical reality of deck construction is constantly pushing into new boundaries, shedding old structures and reinventing itself.
Back when we were originally writing Crafting the Theory I purposefully shied on actually stepping into this ground, since I’m perfectly aware of what an endless maze it is. New concepts are constantly arising, existing structures are developing in new directions and the pathways and definitions to follow are near endless. This is the true beauty of AGoT deckbuilding, with myriad depths in which to immerse oneself... but also a theory-writer’s worst nightmare, as the ground is constantly shifting under your feet, and one will never be able to list everything under the sun.
Yet, here we are.
This time, be it because of senility or hubris, we’re going to take a stab at explaining the theory behind a selection of notable hybrid decktypes, some of which are new and relevant ground for A Game of Thrones 2nd Edition, and some of which have been so iconic in the game’s past that not mentioning them feels wrong. This list will by no means be exhaustive, but rather a hand-picked selection.Further down the line, as the 2nd Edition progresses, we can return to this topic and look at new ground covered, or old ones returning.
Oh, and one more thing. This article lumps up all the non-fundamental deck archetypes collectively as “Hybridsâ€, instead of trying to tackle the different layers and categories that they form. I guess we aren’t senile enough to walk down that path… just yet.
Hybrid Deck Archetypes
Mini-Curve
To celebrate the victory of such a deck in the inaugural War of the 5 Kings Tourney, we’ll start the ball rolling by a currently hot topic, and something that’s new terminology for 2nd Edition - Mini-curve decks.
The basic theory here is pretty simple: a Mini-Curve deck is one that caps it’s character cost-curve at 5-6 gold, and only runs a limited number of cards (fewer than 10) of 5-6 gold characters. The name arises from the deck contradicting the “Big Character Metaâ€â€™s approach of running your Factions 5-7 cost characters as the focal points of your deck, and instead a lot of the heavy lifting is instead done by mid- and low-cost characters.
From a historical point of view, it could be said that the first edition of AGoT LCG was dominated by Mini-Curve to such an extent that the whole term was never really relevant… a decktype like this, designating a very different cost-distribution is after all, only relevant when indicating a break from the prevalent standard, or when we have multiple competing deck structures. In that vein, it remains to be seen how the prevalent cost-curve, and thus the defined terminology, will develop as the cardpool expands.
While, the definition of a Mini-Curve deck does not by itself dictate the related core archetypes directly, the term is somewhat irrelevant for Combo decks (which run what they need for the combo, and care little about a cost curve). Similarly, the Core Set card distribution of renown and other hallmarks of good focal Rush characters being predominantly only found on 6-7 cost characters, does mean that it will take a while for any Mini-Curve Rush decks to become possible.
A related term called Micro-Curve has also been mentioned, and that would then likely indicate a deck actually capping itself at 4g with regard to characters.
Swarm
Swarm decks attempt to fill the board with a countless number of inter-changeable characters (usually but not always of of low-to-mid cost), without having any irreplaceable key/lynchpin characters, and using the brute force of having more characters to obtain board dominance. Following from that definition, Swarm decks are clearly a specific special example of an Aggro deck.
While Swarm decks in 2nd Edition are somewhat related to Mini-Curve decks, due to current economic realities, they are by no means the same thing. As there is no easy method for cheating out characters, or accelerating your economy, Swarm decks just happen to need to run with a Mini-Curve structure at the moment. For example, the first edition of the game saw some interesting Swarm decks with quite high cost-curves, usually based around accelerating the economy on those big characters or cheating characters into play. An example of a higher curve Swarm deck from 1.0 would be one running Gates of Winterfell in combination with House of Dreams, and the other 59 cards of the deck consisting solely of Stark characters of various costs.
As can be expected from the basic premise, Swarm decks tend to have one hallmark - an extremely high number of characters in the deck (which means a lower amount of other cards, of course), with Weenie swarms also combining this with a higher amount of draw / card gain, to be able to keep their flood of cheap bodies going.
There is an interesting fundamental theory behind why weenie swarms are particularly effective in AGoT, which bears discussing here. Unlike perhaps in other games, in a vacuum (without taking any additional card effects into account), having two 2 cost 2 STR blank bicons is always better than having one 4 cost 4 STR blank bicon. There are numerous reasons for this. Most obviously, we have the ability to withstand military claim better. On top of that, we have the ability to initiate two different challenges, the ability to initiate one while keeping the other character standing for dominance, the ability to oppose one challenge and then initiate one… suffice it to say that with just the game’s core mechanics, weenies would always dominate it, mechanically. It’s only when we start introducing effects that punish swarming (Wildfire Assault, Stannis Baratheon) and make sure more powerful abilities (not kneeling to attack etc.) and important keywords are only found on higher cost characters, that we start swinging the pendulum back towards those bigger key characters.
Some important repercussions of the construction of Swarm decks:
- Due to having more bodies on the board, they can choke opponent’s power-gain through not granting unopposed challenges. (NOTE: Having a plan for actually winning the game, and not just pummeling your opponent, is needed!)
- They are nigh-impossible to completely wipe off the board simply with claim and single-target removal events. (NOTE: This is of course a good thing, since if even Swarm decks could be wiped out easily, then the game would be very badly positioned for all non-Aggro decktypes.)
- They can utilize extra Challenges better than most other decks.
- They tend to be vulnerable to global or repeatable Control effects.
Char-Lite
The polar opposite to the Swarm approach, would be Char-Lite decks, which only run a maximum of around 20 characters, usually 10-15. Char-Lite decks tend to need to spend quite a bit of effort with incorporating elements that allow them to better withstand the ever-present Aggro decks and military attrition. The few characters that the decks run are not only high impact to offset the lower number, but also highly resilient/immune due to the fact that all the opponent’s character control will be drawn to them.
Due to their construction, Char-Lite usually tends to incorporate Control elements to some degree, since those are what allow them to mitigate the constant board attrition and go with an alternative deck structure. Due to their core approach Char-Lite decks are rarely Aggro, with one example of an exception being Aggro decks based around other cards that can turn into characters (f.ex. 1.0 had a host of GJ Warships capable of becoming characters during the Challenges phase).
The 2nd Edition Core does not seem to offer options or tools for the Char-Lite direction so far, as there are very few ways of mitigating the constant board attrition from Aggro-oriented decks, or the ever-present Marched to the Wall. Only time will tell whether suitable tools are introduced to facilitate its return.
Voltron
It’s hard to talk about Char-Lite decks without talking about Voltron decks (the term is old, here’s a reference from 2010 when it was already a well-established one). While the two decktypes often coincide, they aren’t strictly tied to each other. A Voltron deck is one based around getting one (sometimes 2) key characters on the board, then loading them up with piles of positive attachments (often protective) and supplementing them with events, other supporting cards and cheap support characters. From there, the connection between the two should be simple. While a Voltron deck may be Char-Lite, it doesn’t need to be… neither does a Char-Lite deck need to be a Voltron.
Voltron decks tend to often have some elements of Rush or Combo to them, since usually the best Voltron targets are the ones with a huge board presence combined with powergain abilities… or who can become nigh invincible when combined with the right attachments.
Looking at the early 2nd Edition cardpool, Voltron decks seem to be very relevant for the game right out of the Core. We have several good Voltron targets in at least Robert Baratheon, Balon Greyjoy and Daenerys Targaryen. Case in point, the Core Set Targaryen “Dany deck†itself is often referred to as a “Dany Voltronâ€. Similarly we seem to be getting even more Voltron support early on through plots like Here to Serve, which allow at-will tutoring of Maester Aemon & Maester Cressen.
On some level, the whole initial “Big Guy†Meta we’ve seen in the 2.0 Core, could be seen as the game being somewhat dominated by Voltron decks.
CharLess
So, we’ve got “cheap charsâ€, “loads of charsâ€, “few chars†and “big chars†covered with the previous entries. Whatever could we be referring to with CharLess... Indeed. CharLess decks function as advertised, by not having a single character in their deck. The game’s previous iterations have seen a few of these emerge, usually to a very mixed reception.
The theory behind these is quite simple. If you want to run a deck that builds around effects, locations and events, then you often end up evolving towards a Char-Lite deck. However, Char-Lite decks simply mean that the opposing player’s character-hate and board attrition pressure will be concentrated even more on the few characters you do have. So, the solution is pretty straightforward - instead of making your opponent’s character removals even better by going down to a low character count, just make them useless by not running a single target for them. As you can expect, this has never been received happily by players building their gameplan solely around kneeling, killing or discarding an opponent’s characters…
In order to make a CharLess deck work, you need an alternative method for reaching your win condition, as you will not be accruing power through unopposed challenges (see Char-Lite for exception with regard to cards transforming into characters). With these types of decks milling (sometimes also referred to as “Raiding†in 1.0, and “Pillaging†in 2.0), now that it’s an actual win condition, will likely be as viable an option as actual power-gain. On top of your win condition, you also need methods for stalling your opponent from reaching theirs, which usually tends to be some kind of challenge negation and perhaps methods of stopping Challenges from being unopposed.
While CharLess decks usually require quite a large cardpool to find all the elements that they need, the second edition Core Set does already offer some elements that could be employed in their construction. Highgarden & Jousting Contest are a natural fit as a stall engine, as would be either The Wall or Iron Throne + The Painted Table as win conditions. For now, all of the mill seems to be centered around challenges through the Pillage keyword, so power seems like the more likely route for these decks to develop.
Defense
Moving back to talking about decktypes generally relevant through the Core Set, we come back to something that actually had cards printed for it in 1.0, but never quite became particularly relevant - Defense decks. With the Core Set Night’s Watch cards building strongly around The Wall, Defense decks seem to be positioned to become an integral part of the game with 2nd Edition.
The core premise of Defense decks is again quite straightforward - to be able to win or oppose each Challenge your opponent declares against you. As defending Challenges does not inherently take you towards gaining 15 power or even help you attrition your foe through claim, almost any successful Defense deck has to have an element of Combo in it, to actually turn your strong defensive position into advancement towards the win condition, and that’s pretty much exactly what The Wall does. Similarly Defense decks tend to require a strong board presence in order to be able to successfully oppose/defend all of the opponent’s challenges, and this tie-in to board dominance tends to also make them somewhat related to Aggro decks. Creation of an efficient Defense deck is not helped by the fact that AGoT as a game is naturally built to advantage the aggressor, be it through attackers winning on tied STR or the existence of aggressive keywords like stealth
Interestingly, there is another game that has previously had decks similar to what AGoT defense decks seem to want to be - Legend of the 5 Rings (L5R), which is coincidentally getting the LCG treatment in 2016. One thing that L5R defense decks offer to us in the form of understanding, is that a functional and engaging Defense deck requires several types of cards - including those that create incentives for your opponent to attack you, those that benefit from defending successfully and those that allow you to surprise win on defense.
While The Wall forms a win condition for Defensive decks, it does little to actually encourage your opponent to attack in cases where they cannot push an unopposed or successful Challenge through, possibly leading to a stalled game state with few Challenges being declared. Similarly, NWs selection of surprise defense win cards is still quite limited in the Core Set, as is their ability to actually benefit from those successful defenses. So, while the groundwork here has been laid down in the Core Set, it will likely take a while for Defense decks not only to reach a competitive-level of efficiency, but also to offer a dynamic and engaging game even when functioning correctly.
Jumper
Traditionally jumper decks are based around characters entering play from the hand during the Challenges phase, often to return back there for safety when their work is done. This allows for almost endless bluffing with your board presence, as well as lessening the risk of over-committing only to be caught unawares by a Reset (like Wildfire Assault or Varys). Due to their mid-Challenge deployment, Jumper decks tend to be a natural predator for marshalling-phase centric Control decks (like Baratheon kneel in 2.0), and conversely suffer most when faced with decks specifically aimed at hand destruction.
Due to their smaller permanent board position and emphasis on dynamic deployment of characters, Jumper decks are quite rarely applicable for Rush. However, they tend to seamlessly blend together both Control (ambushing characters with comes into play effects, like the Queen’s Assassin, mid-challenge) and Aggro (just look at the sheer dynamic board presence offered by a single copy of The Hound found in the first CP of the game). The end result is a type of Aggro/Control hybrid that emphasizes a flexible board position and a strong hand over absolute board dominance.
With the Ambush keyword returning for second edition, largely in the hands of the ruthless Lannisters, Jumper decks seem poised to take a strong position in the game early on.
Tempo
Tempo is likely one of the most used, and least clearly defined terms being thrown around in AGoT. Instinctively, it feels like it should be easy to define Tempo in the scope of the game, but the overall structure and game flow, on top of the de-coupling between Aggro & Rush make this a much more challenging prospect. Of course, this is not solely an issue in AGoT, but rather the term also has a somewhat similar “catch all†history of usage in other card games. Everybody thinks they know what Tempo means, but those opinions are rarely the same.
Hence, offering any kind of definition for a Tempo deck is pretty much a wasted exercise, or as one particularly insightful player once pointed out when discussing Tempo in AGoT:
“I’d say applying magic terms to agot can get confusingâ€
- livingend
So, if we had to tackle this, how would we go about it? If anything can be said as a definition of Tempo, is that it’s “the most hybrid of hybridsâ€. Essentially, Tempo utilizes a mixture of at least two non-Combo core archetypes, quite often all three, to create temporary states of board advantage, which it will then leverage to either run with the game (Rush) or turn to longer-term board advantage (Aggro). Often both, for good measure. It’s important to note, that the primary goal for Tempo is by default always either Rush or Aggro, and the Control elements are mostly utilized for creating those temporal board advantages.
A decent example of a good “tempo†play would be blanking a character’s icons with a Confinement in order to push through an unopposed military challenge with a big renown character - Soft Control utilized as a tool to further both Aggro and Rush objectives.
As much as a “catch all†term Tempo is, it’s very much something that’s ascendant in the Second Edition Core game. Creating those slight tempo shifts and gaining temporary board advantage... can easily be twisted into long-term domination of the game, by almost any Faction.
“Good Stuffâ€
If Tempo is one of the hardest hybrid decktypes to pin down, “Good Stuff†is the easiest. Essentially, a Good Stuff decks consists of a Faction’s (or in the case of a Banner, Faction pairs’) cards with the highest individual power levels in a vacuum. A kill here, a non-kneel there, a renown here and a high STR Insight there. Good Stuff doesn’t care about core archetypes, but rather is the most Jaime of all Jaime’s, only running cards with the highest perceived efficiency.
By virtue of their construction philosophy, Good Stuff decks often tend to be complete hybrids of all the core archetypes. Unless of course a Faction only has a selection of, f.ex., good Control cards... in which case a Good Stuff deck will simply become Control deck that mashes together all the various forms of Control available! Hence, the primary decktype for a Good Stuff deck is very much Faction-dependent, as well as completely dictated by the available card pool.
For 1.0 veterans, as well as listeners of AGoT podcasts, the “Take out the bad cards, and put in good ones†philosophy behind Good Stuff decks might ring familiar…
Feel slighted by us leaving out your personal favorite decktype? Bothered by Drakey categorizing all non-Core deck archetypes as “Hybrids†instead of tackling the intricate and complex levels and categories they form? Let us know in the comments below!
Antti Korventausta (WWDrakey) is a self-proclaimed Finnish AGoT philosopher and doomsayer hermit, who used to practice Quantum Mechanics, but found that it paled to AGoT in both interest and complexity. Having played and judged for more years than he would like to admit, he has found himself on the winning side of rules arguments more than he would expect. In any game he plays, he has a tendency of playing anything he considers to be off the beaten path, whether it makes sense to others or not.
Helmut Hohberger (Ratatoskr) started playing AGoT in September 2010 and has never looked back (although his wife has, longingly). As a German, he loves rules - and I mean *loves* 'em. He is the quintessential rules board morlock. While the others played and frolicked about outside, he sat by candlelight in a remote corner of the library and tried to get a grasp on the intricacies of the 1st edition rules. He even thought he did not do too bad at it, but then the Call of the Three-Eyed Crow drove him into the darkest depths of madness and despair. But he’s all better now, honest, and looking forward to new challenges.
Iiro Jalonen (Ire) Started AGoT in 2009, got pulled under the waves by Krakens years ago, and has never looked back. While not an Oldtown local, he has often been spotted in the Quill & Tankard Inn making sure that the rules of sportsmanship are maintained with the traditional finger dance games. A self-inflicted Shagga and active member of the global AGoT community, he has always strived to know the rules of the game, in order to make them do ridiculous things.
James Waumsley (JCWamma) is a first edition veteran who has judged at multiple large tournaments including the European championship of Stahleck. A renowned loudmouth and pedant, he will shout about the rules loud enough that he can be heard by those north of the wall.
Alex Hynes (Istaril) co-hosts Beyond the Wall, writes articles for FFG, created and curates the Annals - and even tried to fill in ktom’s shoes in the big ktom drought of 2013. When the Regulars asked him to be an honorary member, he, of course, refused and said he didn’t have the time. Or should have, anyway. Still, how much work can being an “Honorary†member be?
- JCWamma, OKTarg, kizerman86 and 2 others like this
8 Comments
In MTG, tempo is typically trading cards for time (eg, I Unsummon your creature, you re-play it. I'm down a card, but I got an extra attack step in).
Applied to AGOT, that would be what you called "soft control" - spending gold/cards/plots to kneel or icon-strip characters for one turn to win some challenges and get a permanent advantage.
I like the tempo as soft-control definition for tempo, it feels the most natural and also emphasizes the differences between hard- and soft-control in agot, A big difference between Consolidation of Power and Dracarys!
Yeah, I did not want to go too deep into that as it's more of a personal POV (although it's evident from the example I picked), but for me the "Classic" Tempo approach is also an Aggro/Rush (or Aggro or Rush) supported by Soft Control elements. However, as there are competing Tempo definitions even in other games (see the link), I did want to highlight how the term tends to easily mean whatever people want it to mean.
Also, I find it somewhat important to note that the end game plan is still either an Aggro or Rush one, the Soft Control elements are there just to facilitate getting there... you're never trying to actually completely Control your opponent's board.
As is said in the article tempo is very tricky to define, but for me its almost just a step down from aggro. Aggro wants to pound your face in, tempo wants to stay 1 or 2 steps ahead until it wins.
The only other decktype i think could be relevant is toolbox. I know it exists as an archetype in other card games (specifically vtes in which i dabble). The basic theory is to run lots of answers, and search to get those answers while being a little more flexible with your own main strategy. I guess it would sit somewhere in the goodstuff/tempo range, but with more silver bullets and search.
ToolBox is definitely one that we left out, but not the only one... I intentionally did not include at least: Toolbox, Choke, Delayed Rush, Hand Destruction and Tribal decks simply due to lack of space (what we have now is already pushing the boundaries on a viable length for an article!).
Additionally there are a few popular concepts that have existed over the years, that have never been properly named, even though they would be deserving of attention. The Old Way -style "Location Wall" decks (also seen out of Lanni earlier) from 1.0, which just flooded the board with location-based STR pumps until they could paralize their opponent completely, would be one, at least. Heavily Cancel oriented "Permission" decks might be another one.
Anyway, all of that is ground we can come back to, at some point!
Who thought mini-curve was a new concept. Efficiency and options are what drive all competitive deck types, and investing that much coin in a single card is never wise. That is what the game will inevitably become once enough cards are released. The entire initial design around 2.0 is extremely silly and effectively will remove big name characters from competitive play in the long-run. FFG took a massive property, dumbed it down for a larger audience and is trying to bank on it. This game is a shadow of its former self.
Thoroughly enjoyed 1st edition and still disappointed in this end-product. I can at least thank FFG for releasing Warhammer 40k, the design behind that game is the best I have played in CCG or LCG form.
Great series of articles. Really enjoyed them.
Though acknowledging the difficulty in defining tempo, it seems like the article slides to play-style in its definition here. Every deck wants to take temporary advantages and 'bank' them into permanent ones. Not sure what this would mean for deck construction. That's why the phrase 'play tempo' has so far baffled me - it seems to mean 'play well', take advantages of opportunities, capitalized on your board position and so forth.
The MtG definition referenced above makes more sense to me personally - giving up card advantage for challenges advantage. Ghaston Gray, Things I do for love, Confinement - all these cards do exactly that. Not sure if you consider bouncing back to hand soft or hard control (it's kind of in between) but the idea seems to be not just exploiting of temporary advantages but rather deliberately coming second on one race (the card race) to get ahead on another. This is most effective when it's unexpected or it frustrates the opponent's plan. If you bounce my Targereyan Loyalist back to hand, it might not seem like a big deal - unless I needed him to Marshall my Daneaerys next time (true story).
Thanks for the articles - very helpful overview for a non 1st edition player.