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!
1
An Argument for More Frequent Use of the Restricted List
Apr 15 2012 04:00 AM |
Twn2dn
in Game of Thrones
A meta-mate recently asked me, “Why does House Lannister have so many ‘kill’ effects?” His Stark deck had just lost to a Lannister deck that ran Power Behind the Throne, Frey Hospitality and Terminal Schemes. On round two, his opponent killed four characters and discarded two cards from his hand. As “Nedly” as this Red Wedding-like round may have been—and I’m sure George R.R. Martin would have been proud—it made for an extremely one-sided game. A different meta-mate voiced frustration after a claim-2 military challenge, Die by the Sword, No Quarter, and Price of War killed four characters, discarded two locations, and ultimately established board and hand dominance on round one. In a third game, Ghaston Grey and the Scourge quickly gained board control and card advantage, leading to a slow but predictable loss for the Baratheon player.
These three matches reflect an increasingly common phenomenon in the competitive environment of A Game of Thrones the Card Game (AGOT). Powerful effects, rather than the fundamental challenge-phase mechanics of claim and unopposed, determine a game’s outcome. The problem is not the short duration of a game, but rather the non-interactive nature of a match decided almost completely on whether one player is able to trigger these effects early on. To paraphrase the first meta-mate’s sentiment, “I don’t mind losing, as long as I get to play. I could lose every game and still come back for more, so long as the game is interactive and fun.” As the card pool has expanded, competitive games have become less interactive. To reduce the number of powerful effects and get the game back to the game’s fundamentals, I suggest a more liberal use of the restricted list.
Flavor is important, but game mechanics should be fun too.
The mechanics of AGOT already mirror the flavor well. A misspoken word may end a character’s life, just as a lost intrigue challenge in AGOT may discard that character before the opponent ever has a chance to marshall it. The length of a life and the outcome of a battle are unpredictable—and the fates of each house often swing dramatically, or hinge on a single decision. Of course there are a few areas that could use better alignment—why a bird that consumes carrion is capable of killing an army in AGOT makes little sense—but generally speaking card effects capture the spirit of the novels.
This truth has one important exception. The Westeros story is defined not by a single character’s death or a house’s downfall, but rather by the interchange and continual challenges that persist even as protagonists come and go. Put simply, A Game of Thrones is a series of intrigues, military battles and power struggles; AGOT should be the same. When the fundamental game mechanics take a back seat to powerful removal effects, or when unnamed maesters provide resources that ultimately diminish the relevance of the challenge phase, AGOT loses the special connection it has with the novels and card effects undermine the mechanics that make this game unique.
The big question is: Can a card be designed that is fun and balanced? The answer, of course, is yes. Cards such as The Blackfish or Aggo are good examples. These are powerful cards when used strategically, but not so good that they are automatically included in every deck. When they perform well, they add depth and complexity to the challenge phase. They rarely outright eliminate an opponent’s ability to function or participate in a game, but often force the opponent to rethink tactics and further immerse both players in the game. These are the types of cards that make AGOT fun, and the more cards that emphasize the importance of the challenge phase, the more likely both the winner and the loser of the game will walk away with a positive play experience.
Not all challenge phase effects add depth and complexity to the challenge phase. In fact, most do not. When used sparingly, effects that kill an opponent’s character following a military challenge can be fun. When these effects become commonplace, as they are now, the challenge phase fundamentals become less important than the triggered effects. There is no real strategy involved when a 2-claim challenge combined with other triggered effects kills four of the opponent’s characters. The biggest factor is typically luck—that the winning player had the cards in hand, and the opponent failed to have the necessary counters. But even if one assumes that strategy plays a large role in a game-swinging effect such as this, the remainder of the game will often be less strategic and interactive. Effects that both speed up and dramatically turn the tides of the game tend to lead to a negative play experience (NPE). Hatchling Feast alone may not be an unbalanced card, but when combined with Threat from the North to discard a Baratheon player’s three best characters, each of which had power from renown, Hatchling Feast feels unbalanced.
Power creep drives the increase in powerful card effects.
New cards are balanced against the existing competitive environment, at least to an extent. If powerful effects appear commonly in competitive decks, a “balanced card” will need a similarly powerful effect to be useable. Competitive play is surely not the only factor in card design, but it is clearly one of the factors. At the very least, how a card will perform during competitive play is a key consideration among the many competitive players who help design and play test each set prior to release. More likely, card designers also closely consider the repercussions of each card on the competitive environment.
Card design is not perfect, however. Not all cards are created equal. Moreover, competitive players will replace old weak cards with new, better cards in their decks. The quality of decks at the competitive level thus tends to gradually increase over time. To illustrate, let’s assume that in each chapter pack, there are a small number of relatively powerful cards, an equally small number of weak cards, and a majority of cards that are about where they should be relative to the current competitive environment. When the card pool is small, competitive players may not be able to exclude all mediocre or weaker cards from their decks. As the card pool expands, so do the options. Weak cards are replaced by better cards: Venomous Blade replaces Field Spikes, the Of Snakes and Sand version of Jhogo replaces the Core Set version, City of Secrets Tyrion replaces the Core Set version. This inevitably improves a deck’s ability to do what it does best, whether that is kill the opponent’s characters, discard the opponent’s cards from hand, or rush to victory on round 2.
Over time, the power level of newer cards increases because they are balanced—at least in part—against an increasingly efficient competitive environment. The Laughing Storm is a good example of this type of “power creep.” The passive ability, which essentially allows its owner to disregard the consequences of intrigue claim, is “balanced” against the increasing amount of character removal in the environment. The Laughing Storm is balanced because opponents are likely to have natural counters in their decks. Had this character been included in the Core Set, however, it would have easily led to numerous NPE moments among casual gamers.
Power creep is avoidable, but game balanced must be pursued correctly.
To some extent, balancing against the competitive environment makes sense. Competitive play provides a clear baseline by which a card can be measured: Is the card good enough to compete with other top cards or not? In addition, because competitive players tend to be intimately familiar with the game, they tend to make better play testers than casual gamers. It is no coincidence that the current game designers were competitive players before they joined FFG, and it is likely that many play testers come from competitive backgrounds. Competitive play considerations will unavoidably factor into play test decisions and influence design.
As long as competitive decks continue to become more efficient and place greater emphasis on powerful effects, there will be power creep. Using increasingly powerful cards as the baseline for card design will inevitably lead to the introduction of more powerful cards. The solution? Remove the powerful cards from the environment.
One way to remove powerful cards from the environment is through rotation, or rotating a fraction of the card pool out of competitive play, typically by excluding cards released before a certain date. Most card games operate this way. Rotation is extremely effective at limiting the card pool so that competitive players are forced to play with less powerful cards to fill out their 60-card deck. As a method for limiting power creep, rotation can be effective, but it also leaves a lot to be desired. The main problem arises when the newest cards are the most problematic. In this case, rotation excludes the oldest cards, while the most problematic cards remain in circulation.
A second way to limit power creep is to build restrictions into card interactions. For example, Die by the Sword may be used only in combination with characters that contain a war-crest. It is also an event, and thus vulnerable to the many event-cancel options that exist in the environment. Ghaston Grey is similarly limited, as it can be fueled only by a small number of Martell nobles. Both of these powerful effects are limited by their inability to be played with most other cards. As with both examples, however, the introduction of new cards—numerous war-crest characters and new Martell nobles—significantly reduces how situational these effects are. The problem is not that designers carelessly produce more war-crests and nobles. Rather, the root of the problem is that a card with a significant limitation must yield a very powerful effect to be worthwhile. When war-crests and nobles are few and far between, the effect feels situational but balanced. When the costs and conditions become easier to meet, these and other cards—such as The Hatchling’s Feast, The Prince’s Plans, and The Viper’s Bannermen—no longer feel balanced. Producing powerful cards with steep costs may prevent power creep in the short term, but it can exacerbate the problem in the long run.
The third way to add balance to the environment is to address the problem directly through restrictions. For the most part, The Hatchling’s Feast, Die by the Sword, Terminal Schemes, and the like are not unbalanced on their own. Nor do they necessarily lead to negative play experiences. It is only when combined with other effects that the game begins to feel extremely one-sided. A more liberal use of the restricted list might identify and restrict the top 10 cards from each house—or possibly more from some houses and less from others.
A few examples of the types of cards that should be restricted.
The goal of a more liberal use of the restricted list would be to identify and restrict those cards that are fueling power creep, so that future cards can be designed and balanced against an overall less efficient competitive environment. Special attention would be given to card effects that consistently create non-interactive moments in play—the Ghaston Grey’s and Hatchling’s Feasts of the game. The following is not meant to be a complete list…just a few examples from popular Targaryen and Martell builds.
· A Maester's Path
· Tin Link
· Valyrian Steel Link
· The Red Viper (Princes of the Sun)
· Ellaria
· Game of Cyvasse
· Ghaston Grey
· The Scourge
· Lost Spearman
· Flame-Kissed
· Hatchling Feast
· Dragon Thief
· Meraxes
· Meereen Tourney Grounds
· Meereenese Brothel
· (The list goes on for each house)
An added bonus for a larger restricted list
Most of the above-listed cards appear in a variety of deck builds within those houses. Flame-Kissed and Dragon Thief are likely to be in a Targaryen deck, whether or not that player runs a lot of influence to take advantage of ambush. Other removal options exist in House Targaryen, but why consider thematic options that require dragons, shadow cards, or even winning challenges when easier forms of character and attachment removal are available? The result is not only an over-reliance on powerful effects, but a homogenization of deck lists in general. Depending on the build, most deck lists run anywhere from 50-75 percent of the same cards as another build within the same house, with only about 25-50 percent of the deck list representing true innovation.
Tragically, the most thematic and flavorful cards often get left behind. Decks built around Riverrun, Starfall, The Wall, and a myriad other trait-based mechanics frequently have trouble keeping up with competitors. New players buy the game to play with dragons, Tullys, dothraki and Night’s Watch, but quickly find that a motley assortment of unfamiliar characters from the books is stronger. Refugees are a particularly good example of a card type that has fueled power creep.
Restricting the top X cards from each house would not only reduce the power level of each house, it would suddenly make many trait-based decks much more competitive.
Concluding Thoughts: What happens in the competitive environment has implications for casual play.
Casual gamers are not as insulated against the competitive scene as many players allege. Any game ruling or shift in competitive play transcends the competitive environment to affect many casual players. This happens for two reasons. First, many casual players have friends and meta-mates that play competitively. These players typically do not want to build “casual decks” with different rules. Second, the "official" ruling is often assumed to be the "right way" of doing things. So if FFG announces that a particular card is legal, casual players can elect to exclude it from their card pool, but frequently do not. The result is that a casual gamer who plays with competitive friends or even other casual gamers can grow discouraged when facing repeated losses, especially when those losses are seen as unavoidable.
In the end, overly powerful effects and homogenous deck lists are problematic not because they somehow distort competitive play results or house standings. The problem is more fundamental—the increasingly non-interactive aspect of the cards themselves leads to increasingly negative play experiences. There have already been some rumblings of frustration within the New York City meta about the direction of this game. We have not lost any players quite yet, but we are teetering on the edge, and concern is significant enough to give me unease about the future of this game as a whole.
These three matches reflect an increasingly common phenomenon in the competitive environment of A Game of Thrones the Card Game (AGOT). Powerful effects, rather than the fundamental challenge-phase mechanics of claim and unopposed, determine a game’s outcome. The problem is not the short duration of a game, but rather the non-interactive nature of a match decided almost completely on whether one player is able to trigger these effects early on. To paraphrase the first meta-mate’s sentiment, “I don’t mind losing, as long as I get to play. I could lose every game and still come back for more, so long as the game is interactive and fun.” As the card pool has expanded, competitive games have become less interactive. To reduce the number of powerful effects and get the game back to the game’s fundamentals, I suggest a more liberal use of the restricted list.
Flavor is important, but game mechanics should be fun too.
The mechanics of AGOT already mirror the flavor well. A misspoken word may end a character’s life, just as a lost intrigue challenge in AGOT may discard that character before the opponent ever has a chance to marshall it. The length of a life and the outcome of a battle are unpredictable—and the fates of each house often swing dramatically, or hinge on a single decision. Of course there are a few areas that could use better alignment—why a bird that consumes carrion is capable of killing an army in AGOT makes little sense—but generally speaking card effects capture the spirit of the novels.
This truth has one important exception. The Westeros story is defined not by a single character’s death or a house’s downfall, but rather by the interchange and continual challenges that persist even as protagonists come and go. Put simply, A Game of Thrones is a series of intrigues, military battles and power struggles; AGOT should be the same. When the fundamental game mechanics take a back seat to powerful removal effects, or when unnamed maesters provide resources that ultimately diminish the relevance of the challenge phase, AGOT loses the special connection it has with the novels and card effects undermine the mechanics that make this game unique.
The big question is: Can a card be designed that is fun and balanced? The answer, of course, is yes. Cards such as The Blackfish or Aggo are good examples. These are powerful cards when used strategically, but not so good that they are automatically included in every deck. When they perform well, they add depth and complexity to the challenge phase. They rarely outright eliminate an opponent’s ability to function or participate in a game, but often force the opponent to rethink tactics and further immerse both players in the game. These are the types of cards that make AGOT fun, and the more cards that emphasize the importance of the challenge phase, the more likely both the winner and the loser of the game will walk away with a positive play experience.
Not all challenge phase effects add depth and complexity to the challenge phase. In fact, most do not. When used sparingly, effects that kill an opponent’s character following a military challenge can be fun. When these effects become commonplace, as they are now, the challenge phase fundamentals become less important than the triggered effects. There is no real strategy involved when a 2-claim challenge combined with other triggered effects kills four of the opponent’s characters. The biggest factor is typically luck—that the winning player had the cards in hand, and the opponent failed to have the necessary counters. But even if one assumes that strategy plays a large role in a game-swinging effect such as this, the remainder of the game will often be less strategic and interactive. Effects that both speed up and dramatically turn the tides of the game tend to lead to a negative play experience (NPE). Hatchling Feast alone may not be an unbalanced card, but when combined with Threat from the North to discard a Baratheon player’s three best characters, each of which had power from renown, Hatchling Feast feels unbalanced.
Power creep drives the increase in powerful card effects.
New cards are balanced against the existing competitive environment, at least to an extent. If powerful effects appear commonly in competitive decks, a “balanced card” will need a similarly powerful effect to be useable. Competitive play is surely not the only factor in card design, but it is clearly one of the factors. At the very least, how a card will perform during competitive play is a key consideration among the many competitive players who help design and play test each set prior to release. More likely, card designers also closely consider the repercussions of each card on the competitive environment.
Card design is not perfect, however. Not all cards are created equal. Moreover, competitive players will replace old weak cards with new, better cards in their decks. The quality of decks at the competitive level thus tends to gradually increase over time. To illustrate, let’s assume that in each chapter pack, there are a small number of relatively powerful cards, an equally small number of weak cards, and a majority of cards that are about where they should be relative to the current competitive environment. When the card pool is small, competitive players may not be able to exclude all mediocre or weaker cards from their decks. As the card pool expands, so do the options. Weak cards are replaced by better cards: Venomous Blade replaces Field Spikes, the Of Snakes and Sand version of Jhogo replaces the Core Set version, City of Secrets Tyrion replaces the Core Set version. This inevitably improves a deck’s ability to do what it does best, whether that is kill the opponent’s characters, discard the opponent’s cards from hand, or rush to victory on round 2.
Over time, the power level of newer cards increases because they are balanced—at least in part—against an increasingly efficient competitive environment. The Laughing Storm is a good example of this type of “power creep.” The passive ability, which essentially allows its owner to disregard the consequences of intrigue claim, is “balanced” against the increasing amount of character removal in the environment. The Laughing Storm is balanced because opponents are likely to have natural counters in their decks. Had this character been included in the Core Set, however, it would have easily led to numerous NPE moments among casual gamers.
Power creep is avoidable, but game balanced must be pursued correctly.
To some extent, balancing against the competitive environment makes sense. Competitive play provides a clear baseline by which a card can be measured: Is the card good enough to compete with other top cards or not? In addition, because competitive players tend to be intimately familiar with the game, they tend to make better play testers than casual gamers. It is no coincidence that the current game designers were competitive players before they joined FFG, and it is likely that many play testers come from competitive backgrounds. Competitive play considerations will unavoidably factor into play test decisions and influence design.
As long as competitive decks continue to become more efficient and place greater emphasis on powerful effects, there will be power creep. Using increasingly powerful cards as the baseline for card design will inevitably lead to the introduction of more powerful cards. The solution? Remove the powerful cards from the environment.
One way to remove powerful cards from the environment is through rotation, or rotating a fraction of the card pool out of competitive play, typically by excluding cards released before a certain date. Most card games operate this way. Rotation is extremely effective at limiting the card pool so that competitive players are forced to play with less powerful cards to fill out their 60-card deck. As a method for limiting power creep, rotation can be effective, but it also leaves a lot to be desired. The main problem arises when the newest cards are the most problematic. In this case, rotation excludes the oldest cards, while the most problematic cards remain in circulation.
A second way to limit power creep is to build restrictions into card interactions. For example, Die by the Sword may be used only in combination with characters that contain a war-crest. It is also an event, and thus vulnerable to the many event-cancel options that exist in the environment. Ghaston Grey is similarly limited, as it can be fueled only by a small number of Martell nobles. Both of these powerful effects are limited by their inability to be played with most other cards. As with both examples, however, the introduction of new cards—numerous war-crest characters and new Martell nobles—significantly reduces how situational these effects are. The problem is not that designers carelessly produce more war-crests and nobles. Rather, the root of the problem is that a card with a significant limitation must yield a very powerful effect to be worthwhile. When war-crests and nobles are few and far between, the effect feels situational but balanced. When the costs and conditions become easier to meet, these and other cards—such as The Hatchling’s Feast, The Prince’s Plans, and The Viper’s Bannermen—no longer feel balanced. Producing powerful cards with steep costs may prevent power creep in the short term, but it can exacerbate the problem in the long run.
The third way to add balance to the environment is to address the problem directly through restrictions. For the most part, The Hatchling’s Feast, Die by the Sword, Terminal Schemes, and the like are not unbalanced on their own. Nor do they necessarily lead to negative play experiences. It is only when combined with other effects that the game begins to feel extremely one-sided. A more liberal use of the restricted list might identify and restrict the top 10 cards from each house—or possibly more from some houses and less from others.
A few examples of the types of cards that should be restricted.
The goal of a more liberal use of the restricted list would be to identify and restrict those cards that are fueling power creep, so that future cards can be designed and balanced against an overall less efficient competitive environment. Special attention would be given to card effects that consistently create non-interactive moments in play—the Ghaston Grey’s and Hatchling’s Feasts of the game. The following is not meant to be a complete list…just a few examples from popular Targaryen and Martell builds.
· A Maester's Path
· Tin Link
· Valyrian Steel Link
· The Red Viper (Princes of the Sun)
· Ellaria
· Game of Cyvasse
· Ghaston Grey
· The Scourge
· Lost Spearman
· Flame-Kissed
· Hatchling Feast
· Dragon Thief
· Meraxes
· Meereen Tourney Grounds
· Meereenese Brothel
· (The list goes on for each house)
An added bonus for a larger restricted list
Most of the above-listed cards appear in a variety of deck builds within those houses. Flame-Kissed and Dragon Thief are likely to be in a Targaryen deck, whether or not that player runs a lot of influence to take advantage of ambush. Other removal options exist in House Targaryen, but why consider thematic options that require dragons, shadow cards, or even winning challenges when easier forms of character and attachment removal are available? The result is not only an over-reliance on powerful effects, but a homogenization of deck lists in general. Depending on the build, most deck lists run anywhere from 50-75 percent of the same cards as another build within the same house, with only about 25-50 percent of the deck list representing true innovation.
Tragically, the most thematic and flavorful cards often get left behind. Decks built around Riverrun, Starfall, The Wall, and a myriad other trait-based mechanics frequently have trouble keeping up with competitors. New players buy the game to play with dragons, Tullys, dothraki and Night’s Watch, but quickly find that a motley assortment of unfamiliar characters from the books is stronger. Refugees are a particularly good example of a card type that has fueled power creep.
Restricting the top X cards from each house would not only reduce the power level of each house, it would suddenly make many trait-based decks much more competitive.
Concluding Thoughts: What happens in the competitive environment has implications for casual play.
Casual gamers are not as insulated against the competitive scene as many players allege. Any game ruling or shift in competitive play transcends the competitive environment to affect many casual players. This happens for two reasons. First, many casual players have friends and meta-mates that play competitively. These players typically do not want to build “casual decks” with different rules. Second, the "official" ruling is often assumed to be the "right way" of doing things. So if FFG announces that a particular card is legal, casual players can elect to exclude it from their card pool, but frequently do not. The result is that a casual gamer who plays with competitive friends or even other casual gamers can grow discouraged when facing repeated losses, especially when those losses are seen as unavoidable.
In the end, overly powerful effects and homogenous deck lists are problematic not because they somehow distort competitive play results or house standings. The problem is more fundamental—the increasingly non-interactive aspect of the cards themselves leads to increasingly negative play experiences. There have already been some rumblings of frustration within the New York City meta about the direction of this game. We have not lost any players quite yet, but we are teetering on the edge, and concern is significant enough to give me unease about the future of this game as a whole.
- Jaqen and DubiousYak like this
25 Comments
What would you think of having an legendary pool of cards that players could use no more then 2 of in their deck?
This legendary pool would be in addition to the restricted list, so a player could build a deck using 1 restricted card and 2 legendary cards. The legendary pool would be larger then the restricted list. While the restricted list would likely remain static, the legendary pool could be more malleable and could see adjustments every couple of months.
Some cards that are currently restricted would better fit into to the legendary pool (such at the Fury plots) and it would give a middle path for dealing with cards like Val+TLS. Rather then just ban the combo outright, as was the case, Bara players would have to choose between standing Robert and another legendary over Val and TLS.
Yes, it would be another list to keep track of when building decks, but implementing such a mechanism would be a rather elegant way of making the games many 2nd tier cards and decks much more viable, leading to a much greater diversity in deck types.
I'm no pro player, so I claim no authority on that front, but wouldn't another "solution" to "under-powered" themes
(Dragons, Dothraki,etc.) be simply giving them interesting alternatives and counters to the various problematic cards?
Don't get me wrong, I want any theme to be competitive.
But nerfing any combo that's doing well seems to be a knee-jerk reaction.
One of the things that is appealing about this game is the level of customization we can employ to make cool things happen.
Some things that can be abused right now are subject to the fact that the deck is shuffled. Painted table, Brienne of Tarth, Eddard Stark and various other effect cancels and character saves are still very powerful.
Some more characters that are immune to card effects might go a long way to limiting the power of events and plot effects. (So an opponent can't just kill everything you have in one move.)
Still, as rough as it is being on the receiving end of it, it sure is sweet when you pull it off. On the first or second turn? Sure, its a crap game, but then you just play another.
Certain themes are going to just be bad. I played MtG for many years, and during that time Zombies was never a competitive build. It had plenty of cards made for it, but it just didn't have enough good cards during any specific cycle. Not every theme can be competitive, even if you restrict a ton more cards. If anything you should petition for FFG to make more good cards that fit the already created themes.
If you restrict the best options, then other options just become the best. There are always going to be strong builds and strong cards, even once you restrict the current strong builds and strong cards. They will be replaced.
The main reason of the suggested restriction seems to be "non-interactive" cards. The cards that were suggested as non-interactive are mostly control cards. The thing is, there are counters to control cards. If control decks run rampant, then we'll see a surge in cancel-decks. Then cancel-decks will be overrun by rush decks. You are looking at the current environment and not at what the environment could be. The environment is always changing. It is up to the player to use the counter-tech available instead of ignoring it.
You can play what theme/deck that you want to play, but you shouldn't expect to win unless you tech for the current environment/meta.
@sWhiteboy: I think you're missing the main point of Dan's article. If he were saying that any particular build or few cards were too powerful, your response would be on point. What he's saying is that we have multiple competitive builds, but they all come down to who can get their super powerful removal effects off first based on luck of the draw.
I believe the first regional is in, the only information I could find was top 4, and that more than half the players played Stark and none made top 4. If someone wanted to take the time to compare deck lists after regional season is done, all the top 4 at each regional then I think it would be much more telling. I think that your arguement that says most good decks are 50% similar would hold much more weight if it was backed by staticstics. Not that I am by any means saying that you are not correct, when you consider the fact that 10 out of 60 cards are income, then you only need 20 more cards the same to reach your 50%.
From personal example, I have 5 different Stark decks that I play with at least moderate success. I would not be suprised if at least 20 of the same cards are in each deck. The 10 resource locations are all the same, 3x refugee, Catelyn Stark, Meera Reed, Carrion birdx3. Thats 18 that I know about for sure, but I promise you this all 5 of my Stark decks play completely different being that they are each different agendas, Siege, Winter, Summer, Wildling and Maester.
I think the opportunity to build diverse decks is out there, ESPECIALLY for those that think outside the box, and don't just copy someone elses idea and tweak it. I am not saying that I am either of those people, most of my decks are pretty straightforward not many suprises, but at the same time they were built from scratch and playtesting. I have played against some amazing decks that were like nothing I've ever seen. That does not mean I did not see the same characters that I have seen over and over again.
Last note, I don't mind losing, and the best part about losing to good cards like those you mentioned, die by the sword, no quarter, hatchlings feast, frey hospitality is that you know they are out there when you are building your deck. If certain cards going to ruin your deck, then you have two choices you can 'toolbox' for them or you can try to build around them.
~The other option if you don't like your characters dieing is, of course, to play greyjoy...
1) Control effects make for NPE
2) Luck determines games
3) There should not be auto-includes
4) If we restrict the good cards, then "bad" cards will be playable
I'm not going to disagree with any of those 4 things, but I think that restricting cards (and options) for the houses is not the way to go.
Just look at the suggested Restricted list. The list nerfs 3 things: Maesters, Martell Control, and Targ Burn.
What if someone wanted to build a pure Maester theme deck? A pure Maester deck is not currently a top-tier deck, but it still gets severely restricted. So, some theme decks should be usable, but others shouldn't? Targ Burn is a deck that just recently reached possible top-tier status, but it needs to be nerfed to the ground with 3 of the burn cards being restricted? There has to be a better way to go about this.
Now, I am not against expanding the Restricted list, but I am against the MASS expansion that this argument presents. Instead, restrict the cards that create issues. For example, just restrict Threat From The North and Hatchling's Feast, instead of a ton of burn.
Totaly agree for the competitive scene.
And that's not to say, that there isn't possibility for creative deckbuilding and out-of-the-box thinking... it's more to do with the fact that the 'creative' choices are just some of the cards with overly powerful effects, that haven't seen much use lately. Little synergy - just all out raw power.
Ever looked at an interesting event that would add complexity to your deck, then thought that "yeah, well my autoinclude events (most efficient cancel available to house, most efficient location/character control availble to house, most needed utility to fix up decks weaknesses) already take up 8 card slots, and I really can't afford to run this, since it would weaken my setups." <-- That's what I'm talking about.
Just that slight feeling, that the game is getting a bit stale, and SOMETHING should be done (and preferably within this year) about it. Hell, maybe the introduction of an interesting Deluxe Expansion (Tyrell) might rock the boat interestingly enough to keep the game fresh for that short while longer, but then we'd be back again where we left off.
So, with that background, I'd have to agree with most of Twn2dn's arguments. His approach to tackling the issue is good, and would still leave all of the cardpool available to players, while still hindering the overall rise in power-level nicely.
I think the most important cardtypes (with examples) that should be looked at are:
- Overly powerful card advantage Agendas (TMP, Summer, Winter, Knights): The usual rings' argument of Agendas being bad, since you cannot interact with them stands here... And doubly so with the Seasons, since the Ravens can only be interacted with by a VERY limited cardpool.
- Power Weenies (Lost Spearman, Distinguished Boatswain, Refugees): The reason here is mainly that these drive the game more and more into Setups and initial hands mattering too much. And also reduce the value of larger gold cost characters disproportionately.
- Too efficient removal effects (The Hatchling's Feast + Threat from the East, Meereen Tourney Grounds + Flame-kissed, Tin Link)
- Too efficient hand destruction (TLS combo's, maybe something related to PbtT)
- Too efficient or repeatable "soft"-control (Meera, Scourge, Game of Cyvasse, House Divided, Ghaston Grey)
- Too efficient rush cards (KL Knight of Flowers, PotS Viper, Beric, Taste for Blood, Core Robert, new Cersei)
- Too efficient cancel (Alannys, The Iron Throne, He Calls it Thinking, Baelor Blacktyde)
- And too efficient plots (Retaliation!, Loyalty Money Can Buy, Search and Detain...)
I think most of the cards that Twn2dn mentioned in his list fall into one of these categories, maybe with a few exceptions (Ellaria is more of an anti-rush silver bullet, than a rush card, but I'm tempted to agree, that she's had her time in the sun already). There's a few cards on that list that I'd maybe give the benefit of the doubt, but I wholeheartedly agree that all of them should be considered.
One important subset of cards, that this list does not completely cover are the Lannister and Stark Agendas. I'm hoping, that the overall reduction in setup efficiency and removal effects would also curb their powerlevel... if this is not the case, then these need to also be curbed in some fashion. Maybe an errata to Fear of Winter, that it can't be played if you don't have any plots in your used pile?
I can't possibly be the only person who feels like the metagame is interesting, diverse, and in the best place it's been since the start of the LCG. I don't want to destroy the system that's created that, and by and large, that's what all suggestions here and on the main FFG boards would do.
Each house can build a couple top tier decks and that makes the biggest impact to me.
I do like the idea of a separate restricted list for Plots though.
One point I want to clarify though (and I think most people understand...just being careful), is that I am NOT saying that the environment is particularly unbalanced at the moment. As people above mentioned, pretty much every house (except perhaps Bara?) has a reliably competitive build or two in joust. Pretty much every house (except perhaps Lanni, or has that changed?) has a competitive melee build. This is a HUGE improvement from two years ago or even last year. From a house vs. house comparison, the environment is more balanced now than ever before.
My concern is more fundamental to the game experience itself. Effects that (somewhat) consistently clear an opponent's board, gain control, or somehow prevent challenges are inherently non-interactive. This isn't a problem when only a couple of them exist, and when pulling them off feels like that epic "once in 10 games" sort of thing. But these effects become a big problem when they are commonplace. Character removal (kill, etc.) isn't the only source of non-interactive cards...effects like Burning on the Sand, The Laughing Storm, and Fear of Winter significantly reduce interactivity. They undermine the challenges phase. On their own, I don't think anyone is saying such effects a big deal, but when combined with other similar or complimentary effects--whether these effects are control oriented (Ghaston Grey) or just extremely powerful (TLS + Val), the game begins to feel gimmicky and arbitrary.
Games should be fun for both players, and there's plenty of room in AGOT to make it fun even for the loser. In 9 out of 10 games that I win with my current Targaryen deck, I guarantee that the opponent felt like the game was fairly boring and/or frustrating. Whether it's because I pulled off a timely Hatchling Feast or just killed everything with (recycled) Flame-Kissed. In the games I lose, it's typically because my own mechanic doesn't work the way I'd hoped (opponent's characters are too big, I lack influence, etc.) and those games aren't fun for me. Even if I had built a deck that was inherently more interactive, such as something built around challenges, I have to include those non-interactive effects (like Die by the Sword) to compete...because no doubt my opponent will be running the Terminal Schemes, Frey Hospitality, Lannister Pays His Debts, and other frightening effects of their own.
All of the problem events named in the opening have effects that are triggered after a challenge is won and also include another play restriction. I would say that all of these fit the bill of being “challenge phase mechanics.” All of these events require you to win a challenge and have something else happen as well. With the exception of some Targaryen burn cards, most character kill in the game is still combat-oriented. Also, each of them is cancelled by Paper Shield– a free, neutral event that everyone has access to.
There are many factors at the start of the game that can influence how these first turns play out. Plot selection, initiative, aggressive mulligans, set-up phases, deck construction, etc, all play a role in how games kick off. There are plenty of opportunities to prevent some of these one-sided situations. Don’t like your opponent getting an early jump on you? Try playing higher initiative plots, lowering the overall cost of your deck for a stronger set-up phase, or play event cancels/ stronger defensive characters/ kneel effects to prevent a turn one savaging. The point is, there are plenty of opportunities in AGoT to mitigate completely one-sided games, and I don’t feel that restricting all of the powerful cards is the way to go.
One of the things I like most about AGoT is the diversity it provides. Each house has proven to be a strong tournament contender, and within each house there are several different good competitive builds (with the possible exception of Greyjoy, which feels very Winter-centric and doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of other possibilities at present). At any given time, I feel that there are a dozen or more top tier deck possibilities, and that far outshines any other card game format that I have seen. The results from the Moonboy Classic, while being a relatively small sample size, show every house evenly distributed, with some interesting builds to boot.
While I love the Restricted List, and feel that a steady rotation of its cards keeps the game fresh and balanced, adding another tier to it seems like a bit much. Imagine the conversation with a new player about how the game works, which is already fairly complex, now with the added complication of a two-tiered Restriction system.
The Restricted List should be used sparingly to give players some hard deck-building choices and prevent one or two decks from becoming dominant. Is Flame-Kissed really so powerful that it needs to be restricted? It’s a one-for-one character kill card that can’t deal with bigger guys without other card effects. Putting The Maester’s Path AND two of the chains on the Restricted List just feels like overkill. Are the chains powerful? Yes, they are, but they are far less dominant than they were only a few months ago and this is without any interference. This is why the metagame is good – it has a tendency to fix itself over time without having to resort to banning/ restricting cards.
If, at the end of the Regionals season, it turns out that 40% of the winning decks were running Maester’s Path, some kind of restriction might be on order, but I have a feeling that the format will remain fairly balanced in the end.
i respectfully disagree, i don't think you can say definitively when its most useful but i find its used most (as i have seen it) as a turn 1 plot when you have a great setup and your opponent does not, and often its too much to recover from
I agree that with no rotation, the balancing aspects of cards begin to degrade. I have found though that with a bigger card pool, the counters for strategies increase as well.
As an example, you note Fear of Winter as a problem card, and I would agree, I also feel it is one of the most powerful cards in the environment.
However, now decks that run Fear of Winter have to consider that Search and Detain or Shadows and Spiders are in the environment as well, and both are extremely popular. The pre-plot epic phase trick to Rule by Decree that people like to use is a pretty huge telegraph as well.
Perhaps we need more reliable blanket counters for events or effects. Calm over Westeros and Burning Bridges are starting to show their age.
In a way, I see plots meant to curb abusive amounts of a certain card type or tactic (ie. Fleeing, RBD, Valar, First Snow) as a restricted list of sorts. Not in the traditional sense, but if you fill your plot deck with these, your deck doesn't really do anything.
If my deck is weak to control, or doesn't have much staying power, I will run Fleeing to the Wall. It is effective in resetting board control when I can't match my opponent in non-character effects. If I run this, I'll run my 3x location destruction and move on, I don't need to think about Rhanerys Hill, Ghaston Grey, Iron Mines, w/e, nearly as much.
And though the challenge phase is the most interactive aspect of the game, not all houses perform at an equal level.
I feel like houses like Stark and Baratheon are wired for the challenge phase, that's why all of their draw is there, their challenge effects are best, and their renown characters are the sexiest.
I feel, Lannister, like in the books, has to cheat. Which is why so much of their draw and effects are in the marshalling phase. If you rob Lannister of their effects, and play by Stark or Bara's game, they will stomp you into the ground. PbtT is their best go at challenges yet, but even that is not absolute.
If my intrigue or early game is weak, and I fear this deck, I will run First Snow and/or Rule by Decree in my plot deck to fill the holes. Usually that gives me some breathing room.
Also love the WWDrakeys idea of errating Fear of Winter to be "cannot be chosen as a first plot". The problem I there is in Fear of winter that has always been is that it makes the game to be all about setup optimisation this severly hurts decks that are slower or are using big uniq characters instead of small weenies. Yes there are ways to combat it, but I would find it a lot more interesting if you couldn't play it on the first turn, then it would still be the control killer and aggro helper plot.