The White Book S7E09- 233

The Confrontation:

Glazer: Atkinson, at last we see each other plain. Mr. World Champ, you wear a different chain!

Greg: Before you say another word, Glazer, before I'm left on the past again, there is something we must discuss...

This game has a broken card, the is none but me who can intercede, fix Tyrion, that's all I need!

I can't seriously consider nerfing Tyrion when Crown of Gold comes out this week. He's about to take a major hit. 

 

Also, even with 4 extra gold each round, I still have tough decisions to make. My Tyrell/Lanni deck runs the Hound, Arbor Knight, Highgarden, Widow' Wail, and about 10 events. Often I'm forced to decide between, say, The Hound or Highgarden and Tears. 

A single card that you can't reliably find is not a good answer in my opinion. 

A single card that you can't reliably find is not a good answer in my opinion. 

It's basically the 4th Dracarys.

 

Also, I'd put Tyrion behind at least Melisandre, Balon and either Dany or Dracarys! in the errata line. 

Pulseglazer - the new sound setup is much better.

I agree on the conclusions about Tyrion, particularly the suggested errata if one were to be needed. Its not so much the card as the other cards that come later to give him more options.

We can easily say the same about Balon if Greyjoy get easy access to strength boosts without needing to be fp, or Arianne if Martell get some more great 4-5 cost characters with powerful enters play effects, or even Randyl Tarly if the Arbor Knight could have used his ability on him.

Great debate you guys!  Think I have to side with Greg on this one.  Tyrion just makes events way too easy to play out. The pain is only going to increase when, and this is hilarious from a Nedly side, when you have Tyrion out with Brothel Madame.  If you go second and your opponent goes broke in their marshalling, you drop Madame and you've effectively locked your opponent into just doing a power challenge that round.

Was going to listen but something urgent came up

I'm impressed/surprised/confused with Glazer's Les Miserables reference [the musical, not the book].

 

edit: I commend you for your duty. And God's blessing go with you.

Is that a new mic I hear Glazer?!  Sound was much much better this week!  Only gotten about 1/2 way through the episode on my morning drive, but so far it the discussion is really great.  

Love the Return of Atkinson  !!!

But come on dude Spoilers !!!

(I mean sure A Storm of Swords came out almost 16 years ago, but who reads these days)

 

Love the resurrection of BERLITHA, it maybe a little early for it in 2.0; but Aaron and Greg did not disappoint !  I was imagining a boxing ring main event situation, a 'Champ and a Chump' duking it out with sexy ring girls, wearing......  what was I talking about again? 

 

#LoveTheDangerZone

How can you not love the 1 card restricted-list idea?

Barnie/Scantrell - I think the Crown of Gold just highlights that Tyrion is the most vulnerable of Lannister's big characters.  I don't want anything errata'd.

 

VonWibble/Jack - Thanks! I just decided to stop trying random ones and buy the one Roy uses.

 

Kain - I mean, you can still intrigue.  And a one round lockdown isn't unheard of. Game of Thrones, for example.

 

TJ - Well, it was the Confrontation!

bolomolo - 1 card RL for life!

I'll just leave this here...

 

 

 

unless I am breaking forum rules

I think Tyrion should have been loyal from the get-go. He becomes way less ubiquitous and plays into Lannisters theme. Make a different non-loyal one for the Lannister box set.

And I agree with scantrell that you should view Crown of Gold as Dracarys #4.

Looking at CoG as a 4th Dracarys is a great way to view it. And in that light, makes me view it a bit stronger.

Given the theory that Street of Steel lets you search for something if you win mil by 5+, Crown of Gold really makes me hope its just a search for a weapon attachment rather than any attachment.

Ok, I've only made it halfway so far (too many interruptions), but great cast! Very engaging.

 

So far, I'm siding with Will (in pointing out the stealth on Tyrion). We all agree Tyrion is an insanely good character (over the curve), and I think we also agree that he takes away decision points... but where I disagree (again, so far) with Dobbler is that many good characters take away decision points from you or your opponent (and I won't even go into the general idea of control as taking away decision points, a la Melisandre). Jaime or Drogo/Arakh doesn't kneel to attack - it becomes a no-brainer to use him in mil challenges. Balon makes a challenge unblockable (no point in even chump blocking), The Old Bear makes blocking a no-brainer, Fiery Followers are always better used in a challenge as they'll stand for dom, A Game of Thrones denies you the choice on which challenge YOU initiate first, Burned Men and Widow's Wail are always better ambushed than marshalled (there goes a decision point), Eddard takes away the decision point of whether to use him in a challenge as FP.

 

I think where Tyrion is egregious is that he's the whole package - possibly the most efficient impactful character in the game. And there had to be one, surely. 

Others have covered a lot, but my stance on Tyrion is pretty simple.

Card games have a "power curve" that defines an average card's impact on the game.

 

Card effects allow you to "break" game rules.

 

Tyrion's "rule break" is simple, add gold in challenges.  This obviously affects a huge facet of the game (bluffing events/ambush)  ***BUT*** every faction can use it!!

Tyrion is an "easy way out" for decks that need to play expensive events and ambush characters.  Just like Mel is an "easy way out" for decks that struggle with handling problem characters, Randyll/KoF for decks that have stand/boosts and need to go fast, Illyrio for decks that need stand, etc.....

 

Now of course, Tyrion is VERY powerful, but I have to side with keeping him non-loyal, solely to allow every faction to "cheat" in the same way by bannering to the Lions.  If he were loyal, it would constrain deckbuilding. The opportunity cost is limiting enough (you can't just slot him into a Stark Banner of the Rose deck, for example, you have to commit to the rest of the Lanni non-loyal package) and I think this limitation is sufficient to keep him in check as we get more cards.

 

Right now, lots of 1st Ed players like me are still figuring out the curve and using him as a crutch to pay for events.  As we get more options, his impact *on the meta as a whole* will be lessened, but when he shows up in a game he will likely define at least one round.

Disregard

@Kizerman86

 

I feel like you actually made one of my points for me.  If Banner to the Lion makes any deck better due to Tyrion's ability to cheat the gold decisions, then he becomes a massive meta-bias.  IMO, the 2.0 metagame is mostly defined by the gold curve and a player's ability to implement character control through aggro or soft control within the gold curve, where as the 1.0 metagame was defined by the presence of Valar.

 

@Istaril

 

First, while Kennon brought up the character stats, and I brought up the comparison of Tyrion to Paxter (two characters with similar design intent), I think we all agree his stats were phenomenally good, so there was nothing to argue about there on the show. So we didn't belabor the point.

 

I agree with the notion that all characters are intented to affect or modify the decision tree of both players (For instance, even if I marshal a solitary Jorah as my only character, it likely changes your decision making process if you are second player). Obviously, power characters have a greater effect on the game status, and you gave several good examples.

 

Where I disagree is that I believe Tyrion has a much larger, and possibly meta-defining/breaking effect on the game and the associated decision trees.  Mel is great, but there are a number of stand cards in the game.  Jamie/Drogo are both great, but there are also a number of MIL removal cards.  The generation of 2 gold, and often 4 gold, is something that can really only be countered by Treachery or Blanking...and both of those effects can hit nearly any character so that is a wash.  If we see more cards like the (upcoming) Loot card that actually penalize a player for accumulating gold, I'm more than willing to change my mind. 

 

Aaron mentioned during the podcast that he sees Plot gold as an "effect" right now, and is the most important factor when selecting a plot.  While I wouldn't word it the same way, I agree with the general notion that Gold is the central definiting decision in the current meta.  And in my opinion, Tyrion makes a mockery of the Gold decisions.

I guess my perspective is different from yours on a macro level as far as what the ideal meta should look like.  I would agree that the gold curve defines what each faction should be able to do, and I see where you are coming from with Tyrion enabling any faction to play up above that curve, so maybe I'm completely off-base here.

 

A different way to present my view would be to say that Bannering to Lanni in general can help with shortcomings in gold.  Just like bannering to Martell or Bara can help with shortcomings in character control.  Just like bannering to Tyrell can help with providing more reach (heh, reach....) to close games.

 

The difference here is that gold is more definitive of the game system than reach, character control, etc.... 

 

You mention that you see it as the central defining decision of 2nd Edition, and I'm probably just holding on to the "good old days" of effect-driven gameplay over econ-driven gameplay.

 

My biggest takeaway from this entire debate is that you are pumped up for 2nd Edition and I'm glad to have you excited and producing content again!!  Looking forward to the next #dobblertalk, it is seriously the most concise resource out there while remaining quite thorough, and I love it.

My idea meta-status would be that all 8 factions are played equally.  And that all 8 factions are represented equally as Banner houses.  But this is an ideal, and in 12 years of playing this game, very few times has it been even mildly close to being true for even 60% of the factions.  But it seems like a goal to shoot for even if it is impossible to achieve.

It's important to distinguish between a powerful effect and a potentially problematic effect. These are not necessarily the same.

I agree that Tyrion is extremely strong, and one of the main reasons (along with the Hound and Widow's Wail) to banner. However, I generally agree with Aaron that Treachery is more problematic, even if it's less powerful. The swingy effect of Varys going off or being cancelled can easily decide a game. Cancelling Gaston Grey, Ice or Mel can also define a round and a game.

Of course, having the gold to play a key event from gold acquired through Tyrion can similarly be decisive. I think the major difference though is that the owner of Tyrion has the ability to play in such a way to maximize the gold acquired (for example, no need to save gold for events, the Hound, etc.), whereas the threat of Treachery significantly alters an opponent's options and the impact of cards in each faction that are critical to that deck winning. For example, there are many decks that cannot win without triggering Varys or Castle Black on a key round, etc.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add...

When Brothel Maiden comes out, I think the impact of Tyrion will diminish somewhat. It will be pretty common that the Lanni player has a gold going into the challenges phase. While that of course is too little to fuel the Hound, it does fuel dinner of Lanni's tricks. That of course doesn't make Tyrion weaker, but will mean that Tyrion's unique value is altered a bit.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add...

When Brothel Maiden comes out, 

 

I suspect that Madam is no Maiden.