Jump to content

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!

Search Articles

* * * * -

All Things Shagga - The House That Shagga (Deck)Built

Small Council All Things Shagga Devastacia

All Things Shagga - The House That Shagga (Deck)Built

Deckbuilding can be an intimidating process, especially for newer players. The sizable number of cards allowed in the LCG format can be a lot for even the most seasoned player to handle. Even with card databases at a player’s disposal, building a successful deck can already be a daunting task. But what happens when a shiny new combo comes along that a player wants to exploit? Do they simply pull a few cards out of a normal build, throw the combo in and hope that it hits? The simple answer, in most cases, is no.

This week, we’re going to examine the differences in how deckbuilding for a Shagga is a much different approach than deckbuilding for a Jaime. While most Jaime decks tend to have a central theme and a lot of cards that synergize well together, Shagga decks are more based around a very specific combo that can be devastating to the opponent’s chances of winning. There are several questions that a player should ask themselves when building a Shagga based deck. To examine these questions, we will look at a few combos involving everyone’s favorite recently unrestricted card, The Laughing Storm (GotC).


How powerful is the combo?
The first consideration that a player should make is simply how powerful a combo is. If you are going to focus building an entire deck around getting a combo to go off, that combo should hand you the game in most cases. A great example of this is the combo of The Laughing Storm + Citadel Law (MotA) + Any Cheap Maester + Rule by Decree (Core) + Threat from the East (QoD). The idea is that you play The Laughing Storm and a cheap Maester on the setup, kneel the Maester as a pre-plot action to play Citadel Law, and reveal Rule By Decree. Because you now have played an event, your opponent has more cards, and has to discard to four. Then, for your normal plot choice, choose Threat From The East and choose to discard first, causing them to discard another three cards at random. The second part of the effect does not happen because a player (You, with The Laughing Storm) was unable to complete the first part. This leaves your opponent with one card in hand before they reach the first draw phase of the game. Obviously, this can almost hand you a win before you even make a challenge in many cases, unless your opponent had an amazing setup. If your opponent happens to be playing the popular Knights of the Hollow Hill (MotM) agenda, there’s probably little point in them even playing the game out at this point.


Then there are combos that you don’t need to build around, but can enhance any other idea. The Laughing Storm along with Val (RotO) is a particularly potent card drawing engine that fits into virtually any Baratheon deck. Even without the rest of the combo, Threat From The East is an easy plot to add to any deck involving The Laughing Storm, as the 4/6/1 stats are excellent and the effect can be beneficial even without The Laughing Storm in play.

How reliable is the combo?
Now let’s take a look at reliability. The big combo that I talked about above is anything but reliable. There is no way to search for cards for this combo, since you need to have the cards on the setup. Even if you run three copies of The Laughing Storm, three copies of Citadel Law, and several cheap Maesters, any Mathlete can tell you that the chances of you getting The Laughing Storm and a Maester in your pre-setup hand AND having Citadel Law in your hand after the re-draw is not in your favor. On the other hand, the previously mentioned combos with Val or with Threat From The East are far more reliable as they require much less to work, can happen at any point during the game, and each card in the combo is strong enough to play on it’s own.

How reliable is the rest of the deck?
Another thing to consider when building a deck around a large combo is how many slots the combo is taking up in your deck. The large combo we have been talking about takes up, at minimum, about 9-12 slots in your draw deck, plus two plots. This is a significant portion of your available slots when you consider that you really are never building a 60 cards deck, but a deck that is 60 cards minus the obligatory support locations that every deck needs. Finding the balance between how many cards you can devote to making a combo work, how many plots you can devote to finding the cards you need (such as Summoning Season (Core) and Building Season (Core)), and how many cards you need for a backup plan if the combo gets shut down is tricky. This brings us to our next question.


What are you really trying to accomplish?
The amount of a deck that you can devote to making a combo work is just as influenced by what you are really trying to accomplish as how powerful the combo itself is. In most cases, Shagga players are looking for fun and innovative ways to win casual games, not to win every regional tournament they play in. Their concern is not so much their overall win-loss record with the deck, but if they can manage to get the combo off and shock their opponent on a semi-regular basis. Try to remember that when building a Rube Goldberg device of a deck, there are going to be times where one part simply doesn’t work very often. When this happens, try not to get discouraged about the combo. Go back to the drawing board, look for ways to make it more efficient, and keep looking forward to the look on your opponent’s face when you crush them in that innovative way.
  • bigfomlof likes this


25 Comments

Photo
JallekTully
Jun 20 2012 08:00 AM
I've found myself asking similar questions when building strange and innovative deckbuilds. I like to take the time and look over pretty much all the cards so that way I can make connections between multiple cards that allow to make such combos. A very simple combo that if you focus on it, can be quite powerful is using a shadow parasite equipped with a hunting spear, then you can use any number of burn cards or even add melee to him to make it that much harder to defend against. It's not a shocking combo, but it can be demoralizing when you can't block a character that has a printed str of "0".
I guess I'm not a hard core shagga... The biggest combo I run is Lead Link + Maester + Threat from the North + King Roberts Hammer + Steel Link.
Remove 6 or 7 characters from play in one turn? Yes please! (This can even go off pretty early if you need to because of a couple trouble characters. I usually synergize with the hunting spear, Salla's escort ship, and Lyanna Stark.)

I guess when I list it out it is a big combo, but not too hard with The Maesters Path. Still, any combo with King Robert's Hammer has its blocks with seasons. (Got totally messed up by the greyjoy warship that blocks the first location effect too.)

But yeah, I tend to go for more "small" card interactions then big game winning combos per-se. I'm still Baratheon though so there's always a big power grab. So it works out. ;D
    • alexbrew likes this
I guess I don't understand why, with Threat from the East, no one else can draw since you couldn't discard with Laughing Storm. Why isn't it that each player does what he can there--what's LS's global effect. I figured I'd juts have 3 more cards than the other players since I didn't have to discard--which is an advantage, right? Am I making sense here?

Thanks, and another great article, btw.
Photo
slothgodfather
Jun 20 2012 04:14 PM
Because of the "Then" aspect of the card, if any player was unable to fullfill the first portion of the card effect, "then" no player gets to utilize the second portion.

I guess I don't understand why, with Threat from the East, no one else can draw since you couldn't discard with Laughing Storm. Why isn't it that each player does what he can there--what's LS's global effect. I figured I'd juts have 3 more cards than the other players since I didn't have to discard--which is an advantage, right? Am I making sense here?


With any effect in the game that says Do X, then Y...if X can't be completed by all players involved in the effect, then Y isn't done at all, but all players still have to complete as much of X as they can. Therefore, if you have The Laughing Storm in play and you choose to discard first for Threat From The East, all players have to complete as much of the discarding as they are able, but since you couldn't complete the entire condition due to Laughing Storm (or any of the condition for that matter), then the second half of the effect doesn't trigger at all.

I guess I'm not a hard core shagga... The biggest combo I run is Lead Link + Maester + Threat from the North + King Roberts Hammer + Steel Link.
Remove 6 or 7 characters from play in one turn? Yes please! (This can even go off pretty early if you need to because of a couple trouble characters. I usually synergize with the hunting spear, Salla's escort ship, and Lyanna Stark.)

I guess when I list it out it is a big combo, but not too hard with The Maesters Path. Still, any combo with King Robert's Hammer has its blocks with seasons. (Got totally messed up by the greyjoy warship that blocks the first location effect too.)

But yeah, I tend to go for more "small" card interactions then big game winning combos per-se. I'm still Baratheon though so there's always a big power grab. So it works out. ;D


That is a big combo by definition, but the whole idea behind Maester's Path was to give those Maester decks that sort of combo potential and a toolbox on demand that doesn't require a ton of luck or other search effects to make them work. Maesters as an archetype would be virtually unplayable without the agenda.

With any effect in the game that says Do X, then Y...if X can't be completed by all players involved in the effect, then Y isn't done at all, but all players still have to complete as much of X as they can. Therefore, if you have The Laughing Storm in play and you choose to discard first for Threat From The East, all players have to complete as much of the discarding as they are able, but since you couldn't complete the entire condition due to Laughing Storm (or any of the condition for that matter), then the second half of the effect doesn't trigger at all.


OK, cool. Where can I find that in the rules or FAQs, because I already foresee the argument when this happens. All my melee buddies will say, 'but it states "each player" and so we all act separately with this.' I'll need to refute them with actual rules proof. Thanks again.
Photo
slothgodfather
Jun 20 2012 04:43 PM
@Devastacia: Yea, that's the way it's been interrupted and I'll go along with it. But I don't really see why the sentence isn't applied to each player separately except that's what everyone else tells me.
    • doulos2k and OKTarg like this
It doesn't make sense to me either, but thats the way its been ruled.
Photo
potatoechip99
Jun 20 2012 04:55 PM

OK, cool. Where can I find that in the rules or FAQs, because I already foresee the argument when this happens. All my melee buddies will say, 'but it states "each player" and so we all act separately with this.' I'll need to refute them with actual rules proof. Thanks again.


The first thing to look at is section 4.9 about the word "Then". Basically because the "Each player discards 3" has to be completed before anything after "Then" nothing will happen if Each player doesn't discard 3. Same goes for "Each player Draws 3" if not all players are able to draw because of draw cap or something.

(4.9) The word "then" If a card has multiple effects, all effects on the card are resolved, if possible, independently of whether any other effects of the card are successful, with the following important exception:
If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be resolved.
Take for example the card You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf (CORE L167):
"Any phase: Choose and kneel a non-{character, Then, that character claims 1 power."
In this example, because of the use of the word "then," claiming power on the character is dependent upon that character first kneeling. In other words, the card cannot be played on an already-kneeling character to claim power for that character.
By contrast, the card Cersei Lannister (CORE L39) does not use the word "then," and its effects are not dependent on one another:
"Dominance: Kneel Cersei Lannister and pay 2 gold to choose a character. Kneel that character if it is standing. That character does not stand during the standing phase this round."
In this case, the two effects (kneeling the character and preventing it from standing) are considered separately: The chosen character will be prevented from standing if it was knelt by Cersei's effect, or if it was knelt previously in the round.
If the wording of the FAQ paste above does not convince your meta... then hopefully this thread will. It's a bit involved and goes through three pages, but ktom gives a good explanation and, more importantly, Bolzano's post near the bottom of the first page describes the response he got from FFG directly.

http://www.fantasyfl...=480976&efpag=0
Photo
slothgodfather
Jun 20 2012 05:12 PM
The FAQ entry makes perfect sense. And I know the arguement is that if "each player" was unable to complete the first part of TftE successfully, then no player is able to initiate the second part. However, the FAQ example does not bring up the clarification that this text does indeed apply to each player as a whole, instead of each player independently.

The thread Doulos2k linked does address this through the wisdom of ktom and especially the simple reply Bolzano got from FFG. So there you have it. A pretty solid plot choice for any Bara player with TLS, and why wouldn't you have him in your deck!
Photo
MaesterLUke
Jun 20 2012 05:20 PM
I need to put up my completed deck list, but the Martell/KotHH - No Use for Grief deck that one the Days of Ice & Fire Melee '11 (back in November) might be another good example. Although it was a lot more "go off or go home."
One thing that's pointed out in KTom's explanation is the "if able" qualifier. That's what makes Threat From The East consider the effect for all players as a whole rather than independently. If it had the "if able" qualifier like Game of Cyvasse, each player would resolve the effect independently.
It seems the community is divided on this issue, but really (regardless of what FFG says [is that sacriligious?]) it only seems logical that the card would be treated independently for each player, since it doesn't say "All Players". I have to go with my gut on this one, and not just because I hate the Laughing Storm card so much.

The first thing to look at is section 4.9 about the word "Then". Basically because the "Each player discards 3" has to be completed before anything after "Then" nothing will happen if Each player doesn't discard 3. Same goes for "Each player Draws 3" if not all players are able to draw because of draw cap or something.

(4.9) The word "then" If a card has multiple effects, all effects on the card are resolved, if possible, independently of whether any other effects of the card are successful, with the following important exception:
If a card uses the word "then," then the preceding effect must have been resolved successfully for the subsequent dependent effect to be resolved.
Take for example the card You've Killed the Wrong Dwarf (CORE L167):
"Any phase: Choose and kneel a non-{character, Then, that character claims 1 power."
In this example, because of the use of the word "then," claiming power on the character is dependent upon that character first kneeling. In other words, the card cannot be played on an already-kneeling character to claim power for that character.
By contrast, the card Cersei Lannister (CORE L39) does not use the word "then," and its effects are not dependent on one another:
"Dominance: Kneel Cersei Lannister and pay 2 gold to choose a character. Kneel that character if it is standing. That character does not stand during the standing phase this round."
In this case, the two effects (kneeling the character and preventing it from standing) are considered separately: The chosen character will be prevented from standing if it was knelt by Cersei's effect, or if it was knelt previously in the round.


This example doesn't prove anything regarding this issue, I don't think.
Photo
slothgodfather
Jun 20 2012 05:59 PM
@Devastacia: Actually, if there was an "if able" then it wouldn't matter if you only discarded 1 or none, because it was still as successful as possible, then you move on to drawing. However, I think it is still considered as a whole even if the "if able" makes it irrelevant what the others players are able to accomplish.

I'm not sure what would need to be done to allow each player who successfully discarded 3 cards to be able to draw 3, while a player that did not successfully discard 3 is unable to draw 3. Perhaps it would have to read more like "each player discards 3 cards randomly, then each player who successfully discarded 3 cards from this effect draws 3 cards."


@bigfomlof - Even if you disregard the reply by FFG, which I don't see why you would, the card does say each player does something, then does something else. At first glance we all see that as applying to the individual. But look at it this way, in respect to the rule that Chip posted and forget about TLS for the moment:

Each player discards 3 cards, then each player draws.
Player A discards 3 cards. Player B discards 2 cards.
With the above FAQ ruling, the post-THEN effect cannot occur if the pre-THEN effect does not resolve successfully. Agreed?
The question becomes, did EACH player discard 3 cards. No.

/done.

Wait... did I just convince myself.... crap.
    • Deathjester26 and Kennon like this
I know, right? I see it both ways and like and don't like either. Because (now I'll convince myself the other way) if Player A discards 1, because that's all he had, and Player B discards 3, would they each then get to draw 3? That seems unfair. But then, as Player B, you wouldn't play that plot then, and as Player A you might because something got you down to one card (for good or ill).
I think they should have just said "All players" personally to make it more clear, but the reason this is a debate is because that sentence, in a rules structure can really be interpreted both ways. Since "Each player" was unable to discard 3 cards... THEN no player can draw 3 cards.
Photo
MaesterLUke
Jun 20 2012 06:10 PM

It seems the community is divided on this issue, but really (regardless of what FFG says [is that sacriligious?]) it only seems logical that the card would be treated independently for each player, since it doesn't say "All Players". I have to go with my gut on this one, and not just because I hate the Laughing Storm card so much.

If you'll note, that conversation is 8-14 months old, and the logic has been codified (if not necessarily clarified to everyone's satisfaction) as working as discussed. This is a game and you are welcome to play it however you like... Heck, you can even write FFG and ask them to change the ruling. But it seems odd to choose to over-write the rules because you don't like the way they feel (trust me, I've felt the same in many cases, but the metagame usually finds a way to adjust... or we see errata).

I was going to give an example of another rule to choose & change, and realized that would just clutter this thread.
    • Deathjester26 likes this
Well, I know it's an old argument, and we're all just talking, right?
Photo
slothgodfather
Jun 20 2012 06:26 PM
@Big: Honestly after looking at my break down I can't see it any other way. I think most of us read it the other way initially and it's hard to accept that it's incorrect because it made perfect sense to begin with. I bet the first time any of us read this there wasn't any confusion in our mind and most of us though it applied to the individual or that we all got to draw 3 regardless. However, like most tricky card interactions, we do have to read this with the current rules in mind. (Specificly the FAQ entry about "then" effects.) And I don't see how your previous comment could convince yourself of any of those scenarios you mentioned.

@MaesterLuke: I don't mind clutter! Was it the Red Wedding plot by chance? :ph34r:

@Big: Honestly after looking at my break down I can't see it any other way. I think most of us read it the other way initially and it's hard to accept that it's incorrect because it made perfect sense to begin with. I bet the first time any of us read this there wasn't any confusion in our mind and most of us though it applied to the individual or that we all got to draw 3 regardless. However, like most tricky card interactions, we do have to read this with the current rules in mind. (Specificly the FAQ entry about "then" effects.) And I don't see how your previous comment could convince yourself of any of those scenarios you mentioned.


I am totally happy to be not convinced by myself, actually. And I thank all here for rehashing the argument for my sake, as I missed it the first time through. I feel reasonably assured that I can handle the weirdos I play with. Again, cheers, all.
    • slothgodfather likes this
All this "wording" is making my head spin...let's just all PEW PEW PEW and have a good time!
Do we need to edit this article now that Threat from the East has been Errata'ed?