Beyond the Wall, Season 1 Episode 35

A term you used, and I've heard before, that I really don't know:

Burn.

Another problem I had was not only didn't you read the text of the cards, but you used slang for some of them.  "Stan the Man" is what card?  There are five Stannis cards.  "Mel" I got, but it was still hard to figure out which specific card you were referring to.  I think you also said something like, "Dale."  This continued throughout the discussion

A term you used, and I've heard before, that I really don't know:

Burn.

 

Another problem I had was not only didn't you read the text of the cards, but you used slang for some of them.  "Stan the Man" is what card?  There are five Stannis cards.  "Mel" I got, but it was still hard to figure out which specific card you were referring to.  I think you also said something like, "Dale."  This continued throughout the discussion

Yeah that use of jargon and nicknames is a habit that you slip into after a bit of time playing this game (and after spending time learning any new subject, really).

To address the ones you raise:

• 'Burn' refers to cards that lower character's strength, Like Poisoned Wine (Core Set) or The Winds of Winter (from the pack of the same name), for example. It is also more specifically used to refer to the strategy of reducing characters' strength to zero in order to remove them from the board through effects like those on Flame-Kissed (Core) and Threat from the North (Princes of the Sun). This is predominantly a Targaryen theme and the related cards are often themed around fire, hence the name.
• 'Stan the Man' refers to the version of Stannis you get in the 'Valar Morghulis' chapter pack, because, well, he's the man. Stealth, Vigilant and Renown together wins games.
• 'Dale' will be Dale Seaworth from the 'A Turn of the Tide' pack, he's the only card called 'Dale' in the game at the moment.
• I've not listened to the podcast yet so 'Mel' is harder to place. It will be a version of Melisandre as you've no doubt realised. The most played one is the one from 'Return of the Others', so that would be my guess, but no doubt someone else who has listened to the cast can tell you for sure.

Hope that all helped. As a new player you may often find yourself in the dark when reading articles or listening to podcasts, but don't be put off! They're some of the best resources around to help you improve as a player, and they'll help you pick up all the little phrases and technicalities by osmosis, probably quicker than you'd expect.

Just an advice: Link the cards in the comments! So people can read them! Problem solved!

Lazy bastards! ;P

Hope that all helped. As a new player you may often find yourself in the dark when reading articles or listening to podcasts, but don't be put off! They're some of the best resources around to help you improve as a player, and they'll help you pick up all the little phrases and technicalities by osmosis, probably quicker than you'd expect.

 

At the moment, they are the only resource around. >.>

And you touch upon the reason that different decktypes blend together: it´s all about creating card advantage, which you perhaps could have explained in greater depth. And even mill falls under that category even though you´re planning 20 minutes ahead.

And you touch upon the reason that different decktypes blend together: it´s all about creating card advantage, which you perhaps could have explained in greater depth. And even mill falls under that category even though you´re planning 20 minutes ahead.

This seems like a slightly over-simplistic analysis. Are rush decks or power-grab combo decks really trying to get card advantage? Usually the opposite - they're trying to win before their card disadvantage starts to be a problem. You're right that it would have been an interesting point for discussion though.

We started on Card Advantage, but it's also a discussion for a whole cast (and our mics were cutting out). If that's a topic that you want to read into a little, Darknoj did write a brief article about it for FFG here.

Burn is an excellent catch; we missed that one entirely. We were hoping to line up a new player to nudge us along, but scheduling recently has been a nightmare for both Darknoj and I. I'm sure it's not the only common term we missed, but we'll make sure to do a part 2 if a couple others slipped through! So far we have burn, and one that  had to get cut due to recording troubles, closers... anything else?

As for cards, the Mel referred to was Return of the Others Melisandre (2 power for dom or unopposed intrigue/power challenges). We could link them, but if we link all our top 5 lists, nobody will listen . Maybe in a few days.

A listener once mentioned that he wished thrones had version names for each card, in the vein of Call of Chthulu; so there. There might be a Jon Snow with the (spoiler alert) version identifier "Night's Watch Trainee", another might be "Wildling", a third might be "Lord Commander". Tywin could be "Family Patriarch", another "Hand of the King", a third "Aerys's Hand", a fourth... the list goes on. I think that'd be pretty neat!

Burn originally got its name (I believe) from the practice of using spells in magic to "burn" down an enemies life total or a creature's toughness using (mostly) red magic spells, instead of attacking them with creatures

Fireballs was especially prominent in this role, but a lot of direct damage used a "fire" theme, so it became known as burn. Also, because you were "burning" through their life total.

Did you say use locations to mess with Stan the Man?! Thats a no can do. Good podcast. I never did really get all the player types until listening to this. Thanks

Haha, oh dear. I think I meant "don't count on locations to mess with stan the man". Doh. Erratum number 1.

This seems like a slightly over-simplistic analysis. Are rush decks or power-grab combo decks really trying to get card advantage? Usually the opposite - they're trying to win before their card disadvantage starts to be a problem. You're right that it would have been an interesting point for discussion though.

They didn´t discuss blending or merging decktypes with those kind of deck. But sure, a bit unclear from my part.

I'd say that Rush and Combo, which really don't care about current board state except in so much as it'll interfere with (winning challenges) and (getting combo off), respectively, are a lot less about card advantage. 

Essentially, those are decks that generally care a lot less about how many cards, resources locations, saves, etc you have in play. That doesn't mean they don't care; they don't want you to draw your counters to their combo/rush - but certainly overall game state matters a lot less to them.

The other ones... well, it depends how far you stretch the definition of card advantage. A choke deck doesn't actually draw more cards than you, and may not remove more cards from the board, but by making more of your cards 'dead cards', they create virtual card advantage. The Ghaston grey decks, even at resource parity, are getting a use out of their character (a challenge, presumably) before they trigger, so they're using their cards more effectively... but total card numbers and playable cards stay the same. It's by no means clear cut!

One decktype you didn't mention directly is a "Switch" deck. In many ways it's kind of like Toolbox, but essentially it's a deck that predominantly plays as one type but against certain match-ups it will change to be a different type.

For example, Greyjoy Maesters back in the day could be a control deck (trait manipulation and dissension, Newly Made Lord, building up card advantage with Valyrian Steel Link then offensively Valaring, etc.), an aggro deck (2 claim plots like Retaliation! and Rise of the Kraken, utilising efficient cards like Distinguished Boatswain, Island Refugee and The Conclave), or a rush deck (use the Maesters to protect a card like Asha or The Conclave and rush to 15 with the help of Rise of the Kraken, ideally getting the 15th power at the time you remove the final chain). All these cards were in the same deck, and what you faced determined what 'version' you played. This might have involved a small level of toolboxing in terms of the chains, but mostly it was just the choices you made playing the deck that dictated how it played.

Another example would be a Targaryen House of Dreams deck that runs Dragonpit and Aegon's Hill, and will either be control or aggro depending on which of those locations it chooses. This is a less 'pure' example since a) House of Dreams is arguably the biggest toolbox card in the game, b) you have to decide right at the start of the game rather than letting your playstyle throughout the game dictate it, and c) if you're playing by the rules you only get to make the switch 50% of the time. However I think it's still valid.

Another decktype you missed in my view is Delayed Rush. You kinda touched upon this with Control, talking about how it will wait until the board state is favourable before going for the win, but I don't think that's strictly accurate. A traditional targ burn deck, one of the control-iest of control decks, will not wait until a specific set of circumstances before getting to 15 power but will rather build up power over the course of the game. Likewise a Lannister kneel deck, also a control build but one that generally gets to 15 slowly through unopposed challenges rather than sudden, spiky grabs of power. Now, compare and contrast the Martell control decks that focus on denying the opponent as much as possible until they have a couple of renown characters (or possibly just The Red Viper) and then flip To the Spears!. There's a clear difference here in my mind.

Also, less of a terminology point perhaps, but it's worth mentioning that many decks don't really occupy any one of these terms. Take the Lannister deck that won Worlds last year - its restricted card was Castellan, so it was control, no? But then House Clegane Brigands are hardly control... Tywin Lannister and Cersei Lannister dance between aggro and rush, often depending on how close to 15 you are and whether you have 2 claim. It wasn't a switch deck either though particularly, short of deciding what order you want to play the Cities in and why. Often I find its the better decks that are harder to pin down - perhaps exemplifying why they are the better decks.

Sorry for the rambling, just thoughts that occurred while listening.

I think you're right, we oversimplified control to the 'closer' type "Red Viper" or "Rhaenys Hill" decks, when a lot of them work more slowly (although they still attempt to lock down your options in the same way). 

I actually expected our "Threat Cards" to engender more discussion than our lexicon! No comments there?

See James i call your "switch" deck a modular deck. Where their are several modules that you can play in the deck.

Nice one!

But one question: where do the name "tempo deck" comes from?

Man, I just realized that Darknoj left in the bit where I screwed up the alphabet, but cut the bit where he did. Sneaky bastard

I also kinda feel like my Greyjoy list lacks a Newly Made Lord.

FWIW, as one who's owned the game for 2+ years, but only recently started playing, and as a non-MTG player, the timing charts and terms make my head spin more than what you guys call your decks.

The rules are really unelegant (sic.)  I play a number of FFG games, and know there are complaints about their rules, but I only have a problem with this game.  At first, before reading the huge FAQ, "clarifications" etc., it seems semi-straight forward, but when you enter the world of the timing charts and moribund it's say good night.

I like reading rules and even instruction manuals, and I have read the rule book numerous times as with the addendum materials and I feel I've only got about 70% of the game down.

As an MTG player, the timing rules are a mess to come into as well.

FWIW, as one who's owned the game for 2+ years, but only recently started playing, and as a non-MTG player, the timing charts and terms make my head spin more than what you guys call your decks.

 

The rules are really unelegant (sic.)  I play a number of FFG games, and know there are complaints about their rules, but I only have a problem with this game.  At first, before reading the huge FAQ, "clarifications" etc., it seems semi-straight forward, but when you enter the world of the timing charts and moribund it's say good night.

 

I like reading rules and even instruction manuals, and I have read the rule book numerous times as with the addendum materials and I feel I've only got about 70% of the game down.

I've often wondered if there'd be a good way to help this in the podcast. I've tried to answer rules questions on cardgamedb, the official boards and agotcards...

On the cast, I've done my best to answer some of the more common 'tricky' questions, as well as, for trivia's sake, some fringe cases... but it might be worth doing a series highlighting some rules interactions on a more basic level.

I'm just ... umm.. typing out loud? on how to structure such a topic; maybe highlight key rules interactions by phase (with a few examples)? The problem, of course, is that it's hard to be comprehensive and, as a rules veteran, I'm sure I've at least somewhat lost touch with some of the entry-level rules troubles that crop up.

Yeah, I was mostly thinking of structuring it like the "Setup" episode; continue in that vein for each phase.  I'll see what an outline looks like before committing to it, but I think it can work.

Sounds like people basically would appreciate a podcast version of Citadel Customs? (Worth pointing out the one small rules error in the article I linked - Deadly has since changed to prevent it from working the way it is implied to with Frey Hospitality here)