Quote from Matt Tabak »It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Quote from MOON-ENormally I would be adamantly against the whole "name" thing for a large number of reasons, but I'm going to ignore them for now because I think in this theme and setting it actually works really well.
However, I have an alternate suggestion. I know nothing about game of thrones, but from what I've heard it seems like it has a lot to do with noble families. My guess is that each of these families has a crest. What if each card from a particular family had that family's crest as a watermark? (like those in Ravnica or SoM) Then, cards could refer to the watermarks rather than the name. This allows your cards to interact with things like lands or spells or equipment (etc.) that wouldn't normally have the family name. (This still has a whole host of issues in terms of standard magic design, especially parasitism, but i'm putting this set in an alternate reality where I ignore all of those things.)
So far you've posted pretty much only rares and mythics. If you're going to make this an actual set (specifically for limited play) I need to see more of your commons and uncommons since those are what make sets work. I can't really judge your rares because, again, I know nothing about GoT and can't compare them to the characters they represent.
So far the only thing I would suggest would be trying to make each family more distinct. Yeah, maybe characters from that family have facets of all sorts of colors, but from a practical perspective I want to make a deck based around a particular family, which means each should probably exist in 2 (but no more than 3) different colors and have some sort of mechanical identity. Think the tribes of lorwyn here.
Quote from MOON-EWell it's fine if everything is a rare, but then it's just not a set, it's just a collection of cards. It's perfectly fine to make a collection of cards, but if you wanted to make an actual set, you'd need some commons and uncommons. When you're translating something like a TV show into a set you have to extrapolate a bit. You'll have cards like a generic soldier or a generic pesant etc. etc. that never appear in the show, but you infer they exist in the world. Not everything has to be a direct translation, you have to make some stuff up to fill in space. (Either that or just make some random legends, which is fine too.)
You don't call it a water mark, you just say "Stark cards get blah". Then people will be all like "Stark, what's that?" Then maybe they see a couple of stark legends with the name "Stark" and the crest and think "oh, that must be it!" Maybe your booster packs or promotional artwork features the family names and crests on them. Maybe your rules insert or token slot has a guide to show players which symbol means which family.
If worst comes to worst, just call them "crests". Same thing, people will still know what you mean, but you don't break the flavor.
Quote from ProfaniWell, its oseems to me from the thread that this mainly comes from GoT season one, and not the whole five book world. I wouldn't dismiss the cards because of it, but some of the themes become questionable once you know more about the world. Especially Theon. That is so off
Soulbond for example, may seem to fit if you take a lightly look at the series, but it really only works for some Houses like the Stark. It is however that much more about betrayal and deceit, and not letting that become a theme in such a set would be a miss I think. GoT is much more about Innistrad before the angel's return, with every kind of monster hiding behind a human veil instead of being so obvious.
I like some of the cards, especially Benjen Stark. That card is spot on.
''Human Coward King'' is also cute.
Another little thing, why not use the Old Card Face for these cards? I think it fits so much better than the modern one. Here's my mockup of a Joffrey card to signify it.
Quote from antsinyourpantsI *love* this. Stumbled upon this by accident when I was Googling for an image of Maester Aemon. Keep up the great work! I really wish we could play with these one day.
Quote from Ethereal ArmorMetal is scarce, smiths are pricy, and [whiny] plate mail is heavy. [/whiny]
Quote from Master of White"s KnightsAwesome. Song of Ice and Fire cards! I kinda feel some of the cards have their colors off though.
In my opinion:
Theon Greyjoy - Black- He's generally an arrogant, mean-spirited fellow.
Tywin Lannister - Blue Black - He's got to be one of the most deliberate characters in the game. A serious thinker, His only motivation is the pride and power of his house
Cersei Lannister- Red/Black - She's NOT a thinker. Shee brutal and aggressive and prone to work on personal feelings over more long term plans.
Ser Jaime Lannister- Red - (till he loses his hand) He lives for battle. Doesn't really think of the future. Doesn't fight for honor but nor does he fight for personal gain. His only real motivation is his love for Cersei and his whims. And Jaime is a knight!
Denearys - Red/White - Yes, she likes dragons. But she has the biggest moral center of anyone in the entire movie. Equal only with Ser Barristan and Eddard Stark.
Syrio - He's very white. A bodyguard basically. Maybe with a little blue thrown in only because of his fighting style's controlly nature and he's so darn observant.
Bronn- Black- He's your stereotype dirty mercenary. He fights for personal gain. That is all. Sure he likes other people. Tyrion for one. But does he really CARE about Tyrion? Not unless Tyrion is paying for it.
Sandor Clegane- White- The man has done nothing his entire life but protect. He's a bitter and angry individual, true. But he serves, protects and obeys. Like a loyal hound. That is until he breaks....
Ser Barristan Selmy. Give him Ser Jorah Mormont's stats. To quote Renly "I know that old man. He needs someone to protect or who is he?" Barristan has led soldiers before but it is nowhere near his affinity. He loves knighthood. Not soldiering. He lives for his king. Barristan is a knight! He would die a knight!
And technically Jon Snow isn't a ranger. He's a steward. lol
Ser Allister Thorne is a Knight.
Quote from fooliganI think the principle lannister villains are mostly white if anything. If taking care of your own and bringing people into the kings peace, courtly demonstrations of power and taking vengeance on those who have wronged you have always been incredibly white traits.
The fact is these houses don't fit very well into the traditional colour pie.
White does a lot of saving permanents you control
hurting people who hurt you
giving all your friends and underlings bonuses
generating expendable underlings
I consider protection abilities, especially creature type ones to be discrimination and contemptuous forethought embodied. Maybe not in it's natural resistance form on most green creatures but certainly on red and blue and whites protection. White knows how it thinks things ought to be, and for all it's talk of justice and honor it is willing to walk right past you and your protests and do it. I bet it would claim it's ability to do it was evidence of natural righteousness and virtue too.
Does ser kevan sound like anything other than a white creature to you?
Frankly I can see cersie as some sort of tapper or prison effect or somone who gets your own guys in and out of play or combat.
Robert wasnt an enemy creature she got rid of and it wasn't as if that was a crime of passion.
We're you playing when Akroma seemed like as much a good guy as bad guy? I always think it's so depressing when white is the colour of justice and good or at least it's the misguided into bad decisions paladin colour. What was that the septon and mormont said about how soldiers rape and sack? Which colour has got all the soldiers?
I really thought asoiaf was all about dispelling these high minded misconceptions about honor and valor and glory and good guys and bad. All magical invaders aside, and maybe even with that, Tywin was probably the best thing that could have happened to the seven kingdoms.
If you think dany had altruistic reasons for wanting the thrones until like the 4th book I really don't think you are paying enough attention. She wants revenge. She wants to depose usurpers and anyone who's benefitted from the people who over threw her crazy father. She's like got herself into a real self justifying cycle that all revolves around her blood and fire thing and it takes her running amok through the world's oldest civilizations, fickle, terrifying in her wrath and obtuse in her willful lack of understanding and turning everything she touches to poop for her to understand there is more to leadership and her role as a monarch than just winning and not feeling disgusted.
Eddard may have had the honor and lawful minded thing down right but jeeze did he have no consideration for the way anyone else did things. What's good for the realm completely played second fiddle to his personal navigation and he made no effort to understand the climate he was bubbling into or the ways the realm actually worked. He was a fish out of water, with his own agenda throwing his weight around. Does feeling righteous or being trapped in a weird situation make it any better? Not really, he just knew who is friends and enemies were and played things like they were back at home.