Game of Thrones FAQ 3.3 Thoughts

Below are comments on the recent changes introduced in the Game of Thrones FAQ version 3.3.1. Let us know what you think about the changes in the comments below.

The Maester's Path Restricted

clu: I’m all for reducing Maester’s role in championship games. No card should be outright banned without long playtesting and tournament plays. Whelp, we have that data and it all points to TMP being overpowered. Restricting is a good first step but I don’t believe that is enough. A complete overhaul of the agenda needs to be done.

Darksbane: Personally I dislike this agenda quite a bit, but I’m not sure exactly how this restriction is going to affect the appearance of this agenda.

FFG said about the restrictions:

Over the course of recent tournaments, two cards have strongly skewed the metagame. The results of multiple Regional Championship events have shown that the cards are appearing in extremely large numbers and causing the metagame to stagnate. Players are ignoring or discarding other choices because of the perceived strength of these cards. As such, these two cards have been added to the Restricted List: The Maester’s Path (Gates of the Citadel, 19) and Search and Detain (Here to Serve, 120).

This works for normal cards, but you build your deck around agendas and nothing else on the restricted list is integral to the Maester’s agenda. Sure this might skew it slightly away from Martell but it isn’t exactly like Martell is the only option for TMP decks.

doulos2k: My guess is this was purely a meta decision on the part of FFG. They’re just hoping this will reduce the overall usage of TMP. Time will tell if they’re right... because most TMP decks I’ve run are barely affected by this restriction. I do understand what they’re trying to do, but I’m just not convinced it was the right move.

Jimpanda: I suppose it makes sense. I'm not convinced it's the right call, but it will help a little. I don't feel like this solves the larger issues that exist with this card, but it's probably the best band-aid for now, with GenCon a few weeks away. As I have said before, I don't think restricting this card will do what the designers are hoping it will do. It is still as versatile and advantage-getting as ever, except now it has 100% less Narrow Escapes. The problem doesn't lie with the card; it's the fact that there are zero effective ways to handle it that makes it a problem.

OKTarg: it seems like they hit this with the hammer to avoid a ton of Maester decks at GenCon, though I think the modified win change may have a heavier impact than the restriction. I may have preferred another errata but I haven't been convinced by any of the options I've seen offered.

Paladin: While I’m not sure that putting it on the Restricted list really dampens the effectiveness of the agenda, I do think this is a good initial step over errata. I think errata should always be a last step to fix a card; adding errata means the card no longer plays as written, and the more errata you add to the game the more that players have to keep track of. Whereas by making it restricted, FFG has taken the least intrusive step possible to try and limit the power and popularity of the agenda. If it still remains overly played, then errata might be in order, but I’m glad FFG started with this step. (Of course, the best fix would be to make a few anti-Maester cards that make playing the agenda a big risk!)


Search and Detain Restricted

clu: I was waiting for this one to happen. I don’t think this plot is overpowered and the problem with restricting it is removing it from being viable to play. However, it ended up in most of my decks due to gold, initiative, and the non-save effect. I was a little surprised Retaliation didn’t also find its way onto this list as well. The idea of a separate restricted plot list would make this ok but when comparing it to Venomous Blade it just doesn’t seem that good.

Darksbane: Nothing bad I can really say about this one. Although I think it might be time to look at the restricted list as a whole.

doulos2k: I kinda saw this coming. It has such a huge impact in certain games and became an auto-include in so many competitive decks. I think it was a bad move, personally. A better play, in my opinion would have been to errata the stats to make it less attractive or to make it so that whoever wins initiative chooses the card that gets bounced. But, again, I get it - they’re making a meta decision to reduce the overall use of the card. The problem in my mind is that this is essentially a ban - I expect we’ll see this card played very little at all going forward.

Jimpanda: It is safe to say that this card will probably never be played again. It's probably too strong, but that should have been clear during the design process. It's too bad that it had to hit the Restricted List, never to be seen again, because I liked the core mechanic of the card, just not the finished product.

OKTarg: was this restricted because everyone was using it? So why not Valar or similar plots used a ton? That being said, I don't have a problem with this because it was so harsh on rush decks and just boring to see in every last plot deck.

Paladin: I don’t get this at all. I was under the impression that the Restricted list was meant to limit overpowered cards. This is not an OP card. It is very useful, certainly, but OP? Just because a card is played a lot doesn’t make it OP. Retaliation is seen a lot, Valar is seen a lot, etc. The Fury Plots are OP because their numbers and abilities are crazy. But S&D is nowhere near those and with the number of great plots in the game, I don’t think it comes close to being an auto-include like the Furies.


Killer of the Wounded Limit 3 Times Per Round

clu: Someone in our meta threw this deck together and he ended up with wins on turn two. I still don’t understand the three times a round instead of phase. It feels like a blanket statement declaring all effects can only be triggered three times per phase.

Darksbane: Degenerate decktype neutered? Fine by me.

doulos2k: I never ran into the problem with this card, but after reading about it, I completely understand the ruling. Like many others, I am also curious about the per round. The combo that caused this could only happen during Marshaling, so I don’t see how the per round was necessary... did they see something else as a possibility?

Jimpanda: Again, cards that can stand infinite times are always bound to be abusable. More errata on cards is not usually something I favor, as it bogs down a game that already has thick rules, a steep learning curve, and lots of errata. It probably needed to be done, and I am not against it, I just think it's a shame that more errata is needed. Shadows Bob was a much bigger offender than this guy, and he was allowed to exist for a long time before he got slapped with his errata. Thank The Maester's Path for bringing the problem to the forefront.

OKTarg: why not three times per phase like Shadows Bob? Or why not a blanket ruling about standing per phase? This is also definitive proof that FFG wants all combo gone from the game, for better or worse.

Paladin: This seemed like a crazy combo that was very hard to pull off. I get what FFG is doing here, I think I even agree with it, but it seems like they are really heading in the direction of making all effects limited to three times a round or phase. Perhaps we are heading towards a universal rule that limits how often effects can be triggered? (Assuming FFG can decide whether it wants limits per round or phase.)


Threat from the East Reworded

When revealed, you choose one:
-Each player draws 3 cards. Each player that drew 3 cards discards 3 random cards from hand.
-Each player discards 3 random cards from hand. Each player that discarded 3 cards draws 3 cards.

clu: I really can’t express how angry I was when the rules lawyers destroyed this card with really poor choices. I understand it was mostly due to different rulings being declared at different times and then the whole thing was slapped back together like Frankenstien. I applaud the idea of correcting text back into the spirit of the card.

doulos2k: FINALLY! About time this card was set back to something that actually makes sense from a natural reading. I’ve always thought The Laughing Storm combo with this card was ridiculous, but I’m a Targ player that like Knights of the Hollow Hill and this one combo could lose the game for you before you even start. So, yeah, I’m a happy Targ player. :-)

Jimpanda: This makes all the sense in the world, and is exactly what the card should have done in the first place. More having to explain to new players that "This card actually doesn't do that, even though that's what it says."

OKTarg: much better wording here. It's still strong for TLS as you can draw to cap while they sift their hand randomly (while being a 4-5-1 plot), but not as crippling and NPE to other deck types like hollow hill.

Paladin: Good errata. This is the type of errata that I don’t really mind, since it makes cards work like you think they should, so is easy to remember.


Shield Island Dromon and Sorrowful Man Opponent Must Choose a Valid Option

Should read: "...Then, that character's controller must either pay you 1 gold or kill that character."

clu: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Correcting text into a workable template is great. Hopefully, future cards will benefit from the clarity. Oddly enough I’m not sure why FFG stopped here. Granted, Theon would be a even more of a bomb! The scary thing is giving Lanni access to viable location control and Targ access to more efficient kill.

Darksbane: This is a much needed clarification. The previous way where an opponent could choose an option they couldn’t fulfill was extremely counterintuitive. This gives Dromon and Sorrowful Man a good boost.

doulos2k: I am very happy to see these cards fixed, but like others, I’m baffled why they stopped here. Sorrowful Man was broken because his cost-to-effectiveness ratio was too low without the forced decision (2 gold plus 2 influence for, at most, 1 gold made for an unplayable card). Shield Islands Dromon faced the same problem, in my opinion. Yes, it only cost 1 gold, but you have to use a slot knowing that you have to take the card out of play (to the bottom of your deck) in order to trigger its effect. To me, that’s expensive without a forced choice. Maybe they think the other “choose” cards don’t suffer from the same cost problem? Just guessing there... still baffles me because from a natural reading, you should never be able to choose to do something you can’t actually do.

Jimpanda: This is a good step, but as is pointed out above, there needs to be a little more clarity here in general rules terms. I like this change though; it's far more intuitive this way, and some of these cards might actually be playable now.

OKTarg: I also like the change, but why not extend to cards like Penny or Game of Cyvasse? Is the choose updated for just these two cards? I'm more confused than I should be on the back of a fresh FAQ.

Paladin: Again, why not just make a universal rules change to “choose” actions? I’m guessing it’s because FFG wants some cards to not function like Dromon, but man is it confusing when cards that have the same printed text play differently from one another.


Castle Battlements Immunity Doesn't Apply To Itself

Should read: "Attached location is immune to other non-plot card effects."

clu: I was under the impression that cards couldn’t be immune to themselves ala self referencing text. Maybe this was from the CCG days but I never understood why people went nuts on this card. I thought the rules already accounted for it.

doulos2k: Crazy that this was needed. But, there you have it!

Jimpanda: LoL


Before the Black Walls Clarified

"When revealed, name a challenge type. In order to declare any characters to attack or defend during challenges of that type, a player must declare all of his or her eligible characters." is all considered part of the "When revealed" effect and is active while the plot is revealed or when the "When revealed" effect has been triggered by another River plot card..

clu: Does this mean it isn’t active when Marwyn or the rookeries trigger it? Someone will need to explain this one to me...

doulos2k: This one baffled me as I always considered the entire thing part of the “when revealed” text. But, alas, I now see it was necessary because without the errata, you could literally say your opponent could only trigger the “name a challenge type” portion on the next River card.

Jimpanda: Boy, that's a mouthful. If anyone can come up with a simple way to explain these effects/ the need for clarification/ what the clarification does to a new player in simple terms, I will eat my left shoe.


Archmaester Marwyn and the Opponent to Your Left

Should read: "The opponent to your left…" instead of "Your opponent …"

clu: What happened here? Oh, you didn’t specify which opponent. Because, you know, there wasn’t any precedent or anything in all of your other opponent choosing text. #%!*^ templating!!!! That being said...to the left is the correct call rather than choosing an opponent because you know for a fact collusion exist in melee or you’d pick on the weakest player in the group.

doulos2k: I think this should have been changed to “Choose an opponent” to give it the most effectiveness in Melee. Marwyn could be good in an event-heavy deck... maybe Targ Maesters Burn could use him, but not convinced.

OKTarg: I never considered the aspect of deal making in melee that this card affords. Could be a decent boost to this somewhat average ability, though certainly nothing to write home about.

Paladin: Sigh, I get what they want to accomplish here, but again, adding errata just adds complication to the game, and this one does not seem necessary at all.


Griff Wacked By The Nerfbat

Should read: "House Targaryen only. If Griff would be killed, instead attach him to your House Card as your only agenda with the text: "If you control fewer attachments than each opponent, unattach Griff and return him to play.

clu: Aside from this ruining my favorite current deck I don’t know why this happened. I can only assume they introduced something into the wild they thought they could handle. I feel giving the bounty of Griff to every house was intentional as well as the idea of an unkillable character. I don’t know why they changed their mind. He wouldn’t been played in darn near every deck without an agenda, which, I think is fine considering small amount of non-agenda decks right now..

Darksbane: Well this takes Griff down a couple notches. I don’t mind the House Targ only addition but I really dislike when a card like this gets errata before we even get a chance to see how it effects the meta. I”m assuming the card went through playtesting in its original form, if it wasn’t a huge problem in playtesting I don’t see the problem leaving it in the environment for a month or two to see how it will shake out.

doulos2k: Honestly, after playing with Griff a good bit before this errata, I get it. If you lucked out and got him turn 1, he was AMAZING claim soak. Frustratingly so because he always came back standing. Kill him, bring him back, kill him, bring him back. You could choose to run a no-attachments deck and be almost guaranteed that he’d never die (that is, until Meera Reed or Nightmares shows up).

Jimpanda: For God's sake, he was just printed! This is another case where this errata should CLEARLY have been part of the card (at least the "House only" part). The errata section of the FAQ is going to need an index soon. That said, I have no complaints about the effect of the errata.

OKTarg: there are still many saying that the attachment recursive ability doesn't work as printed....so why not clarify that? It seems like FFG thinks it does, so why not say so?

Paladin: Why why why? Ok, I get the House Targ part, keeps it in line with the other chargendas, but why change the effect text before it’s even been playtested by the public?

Free Man Gives Up His Wilding Ways

Its traits should read: "Wildling. Refugee."

clu: Little surprised this took this long. Going to chalk this one up to bad proofing, which is insanely different than templating.

Darksbane: Well there goes my Wilding deck, poor Wildings never get any support.

doulos2k: Annnnd... yeah. Now we can all go back to what we were doing before. The debate is finally settled. FFG had no intention of making a Wilding trait. Bummer... was really hoping we could see something awesome come out of that.

Jimpanda: The real question (apart from dubious proofreading) is: why did this fix take so long to implement? Was the design team considering making Wildings tournament contenders? I am happy that the Free Man finally has a home though.


General Comments

clu: The biggest change is restricting The Path of the Maester. Come GenCon it’ll be interesting to see the spread of decks in the top eight. Something I haven’t seen people harp on is how effective maester’s are in melee as well. One agenda dominating the field is a farce. I know you can tech against them but it is difficult much less making one of the six card types completely unplayable with Tin Link. We’ll see. I fully expect heated debate post GenCon but pre-Worlds further on this topic. Overall the updates to cards was more house keeping than anything else. The issue of either/or choices on cards may end up being the biggest impact to the overall game. I can only assume every card that has that templating is being reviewed right now and debated whether to make it a universal ruling.

Darksbane: While I don’t think any of these changes are negative I don’t think it is going to have much effect on the Gencon meta. What I think this FAQ is on the borderline of doing is showing that some work needs to be done with the Restricted list. Some things need to come off there and other things (I'm looking at you Tin Link (CbtC)) need to go on it or just be banned (I really hate Tin Link).


doulos2k: Overall, I’m happy with the FAQ. The jury is still out as to whether restricting The Maester’s Path is really going to have the meta-effect I assume FFG is hoping for. Will people who tend to run Maester’s really opt for something else just because it’s restricted? I’m with OKTarg that I think the modified win change is going to have a bigger impact in TMP use in competitive play. Why are the Fury plots still restricted? I mean, they would be auto-includes in many decks, but they’re really not that crazy strong (compared to other cards with similar effects) and they’re very targeted.

Jimpanda: I think that this looks like a lot, but really doesn't accomplish too much. I have increasing concerns about the amount of errata being piled on to this game, and things like Free Man being a Wilding and Cotter Pyke being "onborn" are just baffling to me. Most of the errata is agreeable and necessary, but it shouldn't be needed in the first place. I hate to throw the “M” word around too much, but there is a reason that Magic is so good - pretty much all of the 10,000+ cards actually do what they say they do, ie. it’s an incredibly accessible game. The more errata you have, the worse and worse it gets for new players (and it annoys everyone, regardless of tenure). The Maester’s Path has been Errata’d, Restricted, etc. (not to mention other cards that were changed as a partial or direct result of it, like Shadows Bob) and it still probably won’t do much except confuse players, old and new. Do I agree with the function of the Errata? Yes. Do I hate that it is ever needed in the first place? Absolutely.
It'll be interesting to see how much this impacts GenCon in the end (my guess is not much at all). I also agree that the Restricted list itself could use a complete overhaul sometime soon, not to mention Compelled by the Rock being banned still. Overall the errata is positive and some things are certainly steps in the right direction.

OKTarg: I like all the changes, but I would like to see a complete rethink of the entire restricted list. Surely Castellan of the Rock merits a look at coming off....with all the cheesy help Bara has been getting to boost it why not throw Lannister a bone as well?

Paladin: I’d like to see more use of the Restricted list and less use of errata to balance out cards that dominate the meta. But if that becomes the case, I think it would also be great if cards were rotated in and out of the Restricted list. And even then, before adding errata or placing a card on the Restricted list, I really wish FFG would just come up with cards that counter popular deck types. Maesters too strong? Bring on a Faceless Man who can kill them with impunity. Wildlings dominating the scene? Build up the Night’s Watch to take them down. Etc. I mean, it’s a Living Card Game, so why not fix imbalances by adding cards rather than taking them away or changing them on us?