Limbhack (A Game of Thrones, 2nd Ed:)

Just noticed this thread again, so sorry for the late reply, but I’ve been using this for both my netrunner and agot2 scans Releases · ExplodyCat/octgnNetImages · GitHub

2 Likes

I played 1v1 VTES a bunch. It’s a different game, but it’s not bad. AGOT seems plenty deep enough. If and when there’s a community locally, I’ll give it a go.

15 posts were split to a new topic: Doomtown

For what it’s worth, I’ve bought a single core of every LCG that has come out. AGoT is the first one that I went on to buy two more cores. But in no way is it as good as Netrunner.

12 Likes

I think it compares pretty favourably to Core Set netrunner though. Even if it’s mechanically less interesting.

My main “negatives” with AGoT are:

  • No real ramp up. You essentially start the game with two full turns
    of stuff all slapped down before the first challenges phase.
  • A little bit too brain burn-y. This is probably a positive for many.
    But I feel my head start to hurt trying to think of the chain of
    events for every possible challenge, and then what challenges the
    opponent will do.

But the game has lots of good stuff too. Most of what people have said above. I love the different types of challenges and their effects.

5 Likes

My main thing with Agot is a bit lack of options during game and limited card draw. Playing a huge number of card games Agot feels a bit generic but I love the plot system. I love that Netrunner is not very draw based and click system provides many ways to play yout turn. In Agot I feel there isn’t much to do if opponent draws better than me because options are mainly decided by draw and there are still few tutors. Netrunner offers so many choices to migrate the luck with click system and drawing whole deck is not uncommon. Agot games usually last about 5-6 turns with less than 30 cards drawn from the deck. I think 50 card decks would had worked much better. I am sure I will like Agot more with bigger card pool. Now all decks feels like unfocused “pile of good cards” with high variance.

5 Likes

Yeah, I don’t understand why they didn’t trim decks down to 50 cards when revising to 2.0. Those 60-card beasts are just unwieldy. I agree that, with where the card pool is at right now, the games feel like “put lots of good cards in a deck and hope they come out in the right order” rather than having a particular game plan and executing on it, like you do with Netrunner. That might actually be a bit of a positive, or at least a silver lining, though: you can’t hinge your whole strategy on one or two cards, because with 60 cards’ worth of variance you might never see any copies. Of course, then they build Targaryen with a bunch of cards that depend on you having Dany in play… :expressionless:

2 Likes

I agree with both of these cons. There isn’t really an “aggro” strategy, because the concept of tempo is kind of thrown out the window. You can play a deck that’s more focused on military, or you can hope to play more guys than your opponent, but neither of those are really “aggro” strategies, technically. The concept of resource generating is heavily detached from turn count, when compared to similar games.

It is definitely more brain intensive for me as well, but that also might be because I’m more fluent in Netrunner at this point. Playing 5 rounds of Thrones in a row sounds really intense…

Not to totally derail this conversation on a pointless tangent, but I can’t help noting that every time I pass by the thread I read it as “limerick.” Quite disconcerting.

Carry on.

1 Like

I have three cores and try to play whenever I can - the local meta here really stepped up they formed their own weekly day with strong turnout - good on them! Right now it’s 3rd on my priority list - Netrunner night/events, 1x General Board Gaming night, and then Sunday Thrones. Often Thrones gets cut due to life, but mostly because the card pool is a bit shallow and I felt I’ve explored most of it right now (on a casual level).

Setup phase still kinda irks me, I have issues with the concept but maybe I’ll come around on it. Plot decks and interactions thus far have been fun.

Building decks for setup is so so so huge–there’s a 1.0 vet who plays at our store, he runs a Stark/Martell deck that’s all weenies (biggest character is Robb) and routinely gets 4-5 card setups. It crushes all of us newer guys who want to put the big expensive characters in our decks. I think the skill in this game is knowing how to play for the setup, and then executing your plan based on your drop. You have to have a deck that isn’t going to draw a few 5+ cost characters, a 3 cost location, and hope to win, it seems to me. Still figuring it out, but I don’t think the game is a random luckfest like some people think.

What that does mean is deckbuilding is more skill intensive, I think–people say that the game can be won or lost on setup, and I sort of agree–but I would add that it’s a bit the fault of the deck composition if you regularly get hosed on turn 2 or 3.

Also–not sure if you’ve seen a bunch of spoilers that most likely were accidentally leaked: Four the Watch | BoardGameGeek

From what I’m seeing, I think a power rush Tyrell deck with a bunch of Knight cards, including the Tourney for the King plot, is going to be pretty potent. It’ll focus on cheaper Knight characters, probably use that “Lady Sansa’s Rose” card on Loras, maybe some Superior Claim–I’m excited about that. Mainly because I’ve been maining Tyrell already. I like the storybook knights and ladies theme that Tyrell has going.

Of course, once the renown knights decks get going, people will start playing First Snow of Winter–which I’m thinking will be the next plot we all fuss over whether to include or not.

I think the people who think it’s a random luckfest are the same kind of people who ask me at Doomtown events if Netunner is still all RNG and if Snare is still overpowered.

4 Likes

This deck has been doing very good work for me:

I’m now working on a Greyjoy Wards deck, adding a few choice Starks (Arya, Sansa etc.) to the Ironborn.

I should try it out at an LCG one of these days. I think a fair amount of our ANR community is playing it. Attacking someone’s hand seems positively brutal. It definitely is a ‘creature combat’ game as you say, but I am inclined to believe you when you say it’s the best…

Exactly. Game of Thrones is the best creature combat game. There are three separate combat types which each have different and interesting effects.

1 Like

I think Conquest is still by far the best of the unit combat games, but Thrones has the potential to eclipse it if the cardpool gets more interesting.

1 Like

I also like Conquest better because I feel there’s less bloat and games are quicker. I think agot2 is a better game though; Conquest has a snowball problem.

1 Like

The snowball problem in Conquest isn’t really prevalent in games with skilled players. While things definitely feel snowbally for the first few games, this ends up going away with more experienced play - much like like the “runner is really bad!” (because they aren’t running) problem in Netrunner or the first turn giant shootout problem in Doomtown.

Having played both Conquest and Thrones at a high level, I can say that Thrones seems more snowbally at present, since the cards that actively punish being behind (Marched to the Wall) are stronger than the relatively few cards that help you come back (Wildfire Assault). Most of my Thrones games, even against skilled opponents, are clearly over within two turns or so, with one person so behind on board state that they have no real chance of coming back.

Now, to be fair, I am playing fairly aggro decks - but my experience has been that Thrones snowballs very hard, especially on early military challenges or kills from other sources (Dracarys! for instance). I also have high hopes for the future cardpool - in particular First Snow seems like it will be very helpful here.

If anything, a long GoT game feels more like a burn-down instead of a build-up, which is interesting in a different way :stuck_out_tongue: