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
The Hand's Judgement - Should The Maester's Path be Banned
Jul 09 2012 05:04 AM |
CardGameDB
in Game of Thrones
Small Council The Hands Judgement clu jimpanda
Should The Maester's Path be Banned or Restricted?Position: No
By: jimpanda
Ah, The Maester’s Path – one of the most hotly contested Agendas in the game. Is it too good? Should it be Restricted? Should it be Banned outright?
Let’s get the idea of banning it out of the way. Banning The Maester’s Path immediately makes the 12 Chains almost unplayable and will leave dozens of other cards without a home (sorry, Maester of War, the breadline is that way). From a design standpoint, you would not only be invalidating an entire Chapter Pack cycle, you would also closing up a huge amount of design space for the future.
As far as the Restricted List goes, we are on fragile ground. Is any one Chain worthy of restriction? I would say no, as they are not very powerful individually. Their power comes from the utility of having them on the Agenda, as well as their interactions with each other; restricting one essentially gets you nothing.
This leaves us with restricting The Maester’s Path itself. Again, I feel that this is a move that fails to generate the desired effect. Essentially, restricting this card means that the problem lies not with the card, but its use with other Restricted cards. I feel that in this situation, restricting the Agenda does very little, as it and all of its pieces can still be used. The Restricted List, as it stands now, does not strike me as particularly interactive with The Maester’s Path, and while not getting another choice off of it would naturally make any deck slightly weaker, it would not stop the basic functions of what makes Maester decks strong. A good example would be versions of Martell Maester’s Path, where the Restricted card choice is largely an afterthought to the main deck/ Plot choices.
The fact is that The Maester’s Path opens up a tremendous amount of deckbuilding space for players, and while it is a popular choice, the results are not skewed enough to be considered unbalanced. It also provides a skill-testing deck choice that is tough to pilot perfectly. Instead of every Martell deck being a Knights of the Hollow Hill control variant, Maesters provide another option – one that is significantly different in card choice and play style from the other. In the words of Martha Stewart: That's a good thing.
[lightbox='got/the-maesters-path.jpg']got/tn_the-maesters-path.jpg[/lightbox]
Should The Maester's Path be Banned or Restricted?
Position: Yes
By: clu
Ban this agenda, the proof is in the lemon pie. The final two regionals touted a Targ Maester win in Chicago and a double Maester show down between Lanni and Greyjoy in the championship. This is not the first success Maesters has scraped together. It has been a dominant subtheme since the beginning of the season spanning every house, this isn’t even mentioning the hardest deck to tech against http://www.cardgamed...tell-maes-r173.
It is an unbalanced beginning of the game if your deck size is sub sixty. Every percentile you can push towards drawing the “money†cards the better as seen here http://www.cardgamed...the-binom-r213. It also gives card draw, attachment removal, gold production, and strength reduction to name some of the things the agenda can do for you.
Maester’s doesn’t bring anything new in the way of holistic archetypes. What makes AGOT a great balanced game are the weaknesses and strengths of the houses. Maesters just bolster themes already inherent in them like Bara Power Rush, Targ Burn, and Stark Dire wolves. Giving house Lanni and Martell access to one of the best attachment removal is like giving Bara and Stark access to easy card draw. Oh, wait.
If we don’t learn from history then something something, something something. Wildlings ruled the regional scene two years ago and Blood of the First Men was banned. It’s back but with a severe limitation. The Maester’s Path has garnered an errata but it is obviously not enough if it can still run the table. Take maesters out the equation for six months or forever to make folks play different decks.
The chains are still good without the agenda. The chains don’t have the same restriction as the agenda to you can still trait manipulate a character to maester to gain all of the attachment might. If you don’t think the chains still make decks and are subpar, then it points to an even greater reason to ban the agenda if it makes them into world beaters.
This is no complex game of cyvasse. Choose the best move for the game. Drop the ban hammer on The Maester’s Path agenda.
- darknoj, Rave, sfunk37 and 4 others like this
45 Comments
What's the best Maester deck? Martell or Targ? Is it any worse than Martell or Targ KOHH? Or rather, worse enough to require banning the card?
I'm trying to wrap my head around the Lanni maester, and I can't really figure out what maesters bring to the house besides traits to trigger the chains. I get the feeling that the Lanni Maester win was just a good player with a solid deck, not completely OP just because Lannister gets a reusable attachment answer.
The chains are too much touching on the in house flavors. Mill chain, burn chain, attachment discard chain, attachment recycle chain, icon manipulation chains and trait manipulation. I feel the chains make houses lose some of the reasons why a player would or would not pick that specific house, but I don't know what could be done to that.
What I would like to see done with maesters is the restriction of the tin link. Currently it is the card that is destroying one other card type completely and the player with it has too easy access to it. Just take it off the agenda when needed and recycle back if your opponent gets it down.
(1) become restricted to avoid playing narrow retreat in the maester deck,
(2) an errata should make the deck 60 cards + chains and
(3) a neutral anti-chain card should be published in one of the new chapters.
This actually feels like a very elegant solution. Not complicated and scales neatly.
Banning it is out of the equation mainly because of marketing purposes.
The errata with the 60 card minimum limit is definitely the best solution so far.
Would it make any difference if the 12 chains were shuffled and placed on the agenda face down and you simply drew one off the top as your Response?
For example, Knights of the Realm is pretty decent and can be used in 5/6 houses but if you look at the Knight support in the game its almost non-existent. 10 cards support the Knight trait and some of those are bad cards. There's even two anti-Knight cards. By comparison, Maester's have a large amount of support (from a single cycle even) and no specific hate cards.
From a thematic standpoint I think TMP is good since every Lord likely has a Maester. However, every Lord also has multiple Knights and they need more love.
If think restricting Valyrian Steel Link (HtS) and Tin Link (CbtC) is the best way to go. Valyrian Steel Link (HtS) is the best and most reliable draw engine in the game, as you do not even have to draw it itself. And Tin Link (CbtC) hurts too much stuff.
Blank the maester of war, and they lose all their combat crests. Location hate gets rid of their saves.
I think banning is a very bad idea. More incentive to play without the agenda would be cool. (I'd like to use the chains effectively with a different agenda.)
A subtle hand is needed when dealing with balancing a game like this. Too much and too many cards become dead.
If your meta plays maesters, find a creative way around it.
If it's a "real" problem, it'll get fixed, by the professionals who made the game in the first place.
I only play Baratheon, sub-theme Asshai, Knights, Lords, or Maesters (Maybe summer or winter). Maesters is one of my strongest because the cards work together well. I'f be happier seeing knights, lords, and asshai brought up to that level then maesters being brought down.
I get the feeling targ burn and shadows control will be pretty effective soon too, since maesters only really have hard counters for events and attachments, not locations and character abilities.
Tl;Dr?
Don't ban or restrict. Learn to play creatively for your meta and wait for more cards that add to the list of maester "counters" available.
(I think other houses besides Lannister and Martel should have some tools though.)
House Tyrell anyone?
Ultimately I think if you think the card should be banned you are overreacting and being ridiculous. I also think that saying the words "to make folks play different decks" makes me discregard anything else I just read because there is no reason a game should EVER force someone to play a different deck/type/style/house/etc.
Now don't get me wrong, I do agree something could be changed to the agenda to bring it more in line with the other current agendas in terms of powerlevel. But I don't think you should ever consider a card OP just because it is fielded more often than another. TMP can work in any house and supports different deck themes. The only other "neutral" agenda is KotHH and unless you are using all 3 stats it doesn't generally benefit the deck. (I'm discounting wildlings and NW just because I don't see them played much or hear any reports of them being played much) There is no wonder why TMP is as popular as it is simply because it is useful regardless of house. I personally hate that most other agendas are house restrictive. But I suppose that is best for another rant.
Here are a few options that were mentioned in the other discussion on TC along with a few I just thought of:
a) remove the mod-win condition @ time (there are situtations where this is fair however so not sure it's a good choice - such as 15 power & 1 chain left vs zero power & no chains)
b ) implementing a minimum # of chains that need to be put onto the agenda
c) after chains are pulled draw deck is still 60 cards
d) only moving chains on particular challenge types or limited to offensive or defensive wins
e) some type of negative similar to PBtT (you have to move a chain back to your agenda after losing as an attacker
f) restrict the tin link
g) you have to pay 1 g each time you move a chain (I actually think this is a very good suggestion since everyone forgets that we lower our gold curve by having free attachments)
h) get new cards to support the other agendas and stop complaining about TMP.
I do feel a combination of these would bring TMP down in power closer to the other current agendas. Particularly C, F and G.
Once the TMP is "fixed" I wonder what card will be next for the /omgwtfbbqbanhammer?
I think the 60-card idea has merit, but one aspect of the agenda this could break is that depending on the matchup, you can decide to put fewer chains on your agenda when you first put your cards down, so it's possible to have a different number of chains from game to game (though I think this is not usually done... it's just possible with the way the agenda is worded).
Restricting certain links might also be enough to reduce the power and, therefore, reduce the popularity of the agenda. Dobbler suggested restricting the Tin Link in the last 2C1C, I think if you restricted that one and maybe valyrian Steel? Forcing people to choose between chains based upon what they need in the deck. Might be enough (might be too much).
I think banning is unnecessary.
What if the cards went to hand instead of onto a character, and what if the restriction on winning said that you couldn't have any chains attached to the agenda or in your hand?
h) My thoughts exactly. Other agendas (The White Book?) need more support, and I think we need more neutral agendas and more house specific ones. (One for each house at least.)
Not to mention the win restriction on TMP is the downside (and printed maester only). I've pulled 20-30 power before getting the last chain off sometimes.
I hate big eratta for cards. Unless they reprint it and send me one for free. ;D
omgwtfbbqbanhammer = win
If they are not careful with shadow cards imo it will be City of Shadows (CoS). City plots keep getting buffed, and as new cards come up the shadow cards pool increases and you get more amazing cards that are auto include no matter what house they are like Young Griff (VD). The fact that you can play shadow cards from any house for just 1 gold penalty is very strong and will be seriously overpowered once you have many shadow cards to choose from.
So an additional thought of mine is that - what makes this agenda so strong? Well, once you start to win, it helps you keep winning by giving you free tools on an as-needed basis. It has the drawback of requiring maesters to be alive and in play, along with you winning challenges, and you cannot "win" without removing every chain. So how does this differ from other agendas?
KotHH makes you skip setup but gives you access to 3 bonuses every turn, readily available influence, initiative boost and gold production. This frees up your deck to be created in a slightly different strategy than would be without the agenda.
SoW allows you to focus on what Stark does best, win MIL challenges - both offensively and defensively. The drawback here is obviously that you can't get UO for INT or POW challenges, and can't claim a power for DOM. Well Stark is so weak in INT it would be amazing for them to get an UO INT anyways, and UO POW challenges aren't all that common either (in my meta) - and they still get to move power. So really, what's the down side?
PBJ (aka PBtT) Gives you an additional freaking INT challenge EVERY TURN! From turn 1 you have the capability to do 2 INT challenges every turn, potentially wrecking your opponents hand - because we all know Lanni has some awesome characters with INT icons. This allows them to focus on what they do best (not winning MIL challenges!) but instead running the INT gambit and denying your opponents options. The downside is obviously that if you lose an INT challenge your opponent either gets card draw or a power.
Wildling Agenda These are pretty strong I think with the + stealth and - cost options, giving any house access to cheap costed, high STR characters. These obviously synergize more with certain houses. The draw back is requiring more power to win, however with capitolizing on the field, you should be able to make up that difference.
City of Shadows Another interesting agenda that can perform better out of certain houses, has the obvious draw back of 1 OOH cost for OOH shadows cards and that you cant claim UO power unless you have a card in shadows. Considering it is a shadows deck I don't see that last part as being much of an issue. Also this gives you access to every shadows card in the game, pretty good bonus with the right build.
The White Book is rather blah to me only because I don't want to play Lanni and there just isn't enough neutral support there. It gives power for winning defensively and lose a power (or kneel a guy) if you loose offensively. That is a pretty weak bonus for a fairly big drawback - though it is extremely Nedly and I understand why they went that way with it. If played strategically I can see this being pretty decent though rather boring since you would only defend and risk attacking when your confident of an UO challenge.
Brotherhood is another fun one that can be pretty good (as we've seen in our meta) but the benefit doesn't come directly from the agenda. Rather it is that all your brotherhood characters gaining access to their nifty abilities that is the bonus. Clearly this leans towards a specific deck build. The negative is obviously that power is on your fragile characters and can still be moved for claim of a POW challenge.
I said all that to show you that yes, compared to most TMP is a powerhouse of an agenda. But look at the types of decks that each agenda makes. Stark decks are always MIL heavy, weak in INT, so their agenda fits perfectly. Lanni decks are always MIL heavy, and if they are using the PBJ agenda they are usually very weak in MIL. Making them a very competative matchup. Why are maester decks such a threat? Because they seem to lean towards an actual balanced icon spread. This gives us the chance to win more challenges each turn.
Anyways, I say all that to (fill time in my day since I am bored at work waiting on lunch to roll around and to) say I understand peoples fear of the power creep. And I share that sentiment. But with many of the new cards FFG is producing, it seems this creep is inevitable as they dream up more creative, inventive, and game changinge/breaking abilities. So I hope they only nerf TMP slightly, and decide to bring up other agendas like TWB to a better level and to offer more cards to support those themes.
and look at that, it's almost lunch time!