Combo: What Game of Thrones is Missing

Many players have recently expressed concern about the growing power level of certain cards in the current (Maester's) card block. In particular, the agenda has attracted some attention as people complain about how powerful Joffrey-focused, Shadows-Robert-focused, or other combo-centric decks have become.

I don't disagree that the agenda and/or Apprentice Collar could use a minor adjustment, but I oppose drastic actions, such as restricting or banning one of these cards...or even some type of errata that would essentially render this mechanic useless. For example, I think it would be a mistake to errata the agenda to "printed maester only."

I believe that we are a long way away from often-cited combos becoming a problem in the environment. If anything, we likely need more combo in the environment. Traditionally, combo has been one leg of a three-legged stool in deck building. In many games, combo decks tend to be incredibly fast but also relatively vulnerable to control (ie kill/discard/bounce) effects. In contrast, control decks often have difficulty keeping up with the slightly slower but continuous pressure put on them by aggro decks. (In Game of Thrones, aggro would be something like Bara power rush, Stark Seige, or [arguably] Martell House Dayne. In other words, aggro has to do with how the deck plays, not necessarily how fast it wins.) And finally, aggro tends to lack the consistent control effects needed to stop a combo deck, which can often win before the aggro deck is able to gain momentum.

In the CCG days of Game of Thrones, combo-centric decks were relatively weaker than control and aggro, but they did exist. Alayne Stone + infamy + copy effects allowed someone to claim 15-20 power in one turn...though it usually took 3-4 rounds to get the combo in place. Other combos were less exciting but just as potent, and resulted in a more diverse environment where less efficient cards could be played if run in a deck devoted to a combo.

The current environment lacks diversity in large part because it lacks combo-centric decks. Worse, given the lack of a natural rock-paper-scissors dynamic, aggro and control builds are held back to prevent any one deck type from becoming dominant. A few examples are the restricting of The Laughing Storm, the errata to the Heir to the Iron Throne, and the printing of many Brotherhood characters with STR 2. In contrast, control builds are tailored to hold back aggro, with Venomous Blade, Lannister hyperkneel, and Stark direwolves all well equipped to slow down a fast deck. Yet when control becomes too powerful, it too is restricted, just as Lannister kneel was (erratas to Alchemist Guild Hall and Lannisport Brothel) and Martell recently was (restrictions to key control cards).

As hard as designers try, however, balance remains extremely difficult to achieve. Nearly every major tourney results in one deck type revealed as "dominant," and often that deck type can be played best out of one house (Lanni shadows, Lanni kneel, Martell summer, etc). The problem is this: Every time a game ruling (FAQ) or in-game solution (new cards) attempts to balance the aggro-control dynamic, the "solution" over- or under-compensates. Even when successful balance between aggro and control is achieved, it typically favors 2-3 houses. This isn't because designers and play testers are apathetic or incompetent. Given the complexity of a game with six factions, three challenge types, and a myriad forms of control/power claim, it's just impossible to strike the perfect balance between aggro and control that gives all houses a variety of balanced options.

Rather than continue to perpetuate this bipolar dynamic, it would be much better to reintroduce combo as an equal (or even slightly inferior) third path. Combo would be allowed to beat either aggro or control, each of which would be designed to beat one of the others. This rule doesn't have to be absolute...a control deck focused on character kill (Targ "burn") may be able to stop a fast aggro deck but lose to a Greyjoy "mill" deck or a yet-to-be-designed combo mechanic. But in general, each deck type should have strengths and weaknesses that balance each other out in rock-paper-scissors fashion.

The end result would be an environment that has more variety and is much more fun. If one deck type became dominant, it won't take 2 years (or even 6 months) for in-game or metagame solutions to emerge. It also wouldn't take multiple FAQs, which tend to rile just as many people as they satisfy.