Our staff has put together a first blush analysis of the newly released A Game of Thrones LCG 2nd Edition Core Set. We’ve used a one through five scale; five being the best possible score. The cards are listed in numeric order. Let us know in the comments how you feel about the Neutral cards from the Core set, and we’ll be back shortly with further reviews.Today we have 10 reviewers today (who you can get to know better here), so scores are out of 50 possible points.Onto the cards!emptyrepublic - 5 out of 5So far we haven’t seen any trait based discard/control so the traditionally-bad Ally trait is not an issue. Also, remember that in 2.0 the gold curve is expanded so a 5 gold character is roughly equivalent to a first edition 3 gold character. Keeping that in mind, the reaction plus the ongoing economic benefit makes him a “must” in most early decks.Ire & WWDrakey - 5 out of 5Resource, draw and a good body in the same card? 1x for every deck.Istaril - 5 out of 5That Ally trait isn’t a drawback (yet?), and you’re going to be happy enough to see that non-limited +1 gold on a decent body, even if it means you have to set him up and decline the draw bonus. Chances are you’re running 2 of him.JCWamma - 5 out of 5Non-limited economy AND cards gained when he enters play, this Little finger is a Big deal.mnBroncos - 5 out of 5Until Ally hate becomes a thing this guy is an auto-include in every single deck.Oktarg: 5 out of 5Yep.rave - 5 out of 5Wow! Littlefinger is hard to pass up. If there isn’t any Ally hate, he’s incredible. Great early game card. HIs strength is respectable for the huge resource boost all around that he gives you.scantrell24 - 5 out of 5Start every deck with 2 copies. Littlefinger's 4 strength with two icons grants plenty of challenge-phase flexibility, but he shines because of the draw/gold combo, which no other card in the Core Set comes close to matching.VonWibble - 5 out of 5He’s a lord for Noble Cause, he’s easy card draw, he boosts economy. Hard to see a reason not to include him.Old Shrimp Eyes - 5 out of 5Batfinger is a an auto include and will remain so for a very long time.emptyrepublic - 4 out of 5In Joust I can see how this is not a good deal. In Melee though it’s excellent to pull back your opponents who are running away with the game. Especially if you can follow up the next turn with a Marched to the Wall to target uniques who were saved by duplicates.Ire & WWDrakey - 4 out of 5Resets are powerful. While this one doesn’t put people in the pile of the dead, it’s still well worth it if you can handle the cost.Istaril - 4 out of 56 gold and one card to eliminate your opponent’s board (in the absence of “Treachery”) is cheap, and keeping him on the board for that turn isn’t all that hard with claim soak, Calm over Westeros, etc. Even just the threat of activation will completely change your opponent’s game plan, and that’s where stealth and an intrigue icon can punish him for holding back too. Definitely not in all decks, but a defining feature of the decks that run him.JCWamma - 4 out of 5I'm possibly underrating Varys here, as he's the only full reset available. He is a little awkward still though - he requires you having the gold to play him on the table and then being able to keep him in play for the entire round, essentially. Without there existing an easy way to stop military challenges from happening, he could be too unreliable; however, if more detailed challenge control becomes a thing in the future his value will increase. And in the meantime he'll still scare the **** out of your opponents, which will be nice.mnBroncos - 4 out of 5This is a four until we get a full reset plot. Some decks that want to play a more control style will need this card, however, its big gold investment and need to keep him alive/not get canceled for his ability to work.Oktarg: 4 out of 5Don't just slot this guy in; build around him and reap the benefits.rave - 3 out of 5Varys’ cost really hurts his viability—needing to commit so many resources to equalizing the board means if you overextend to play him and he’s neutralized, that likely may have lost the game for you. He’s a risky play. Still, a blanket reset is a blanket reset.scantrell24 - 3 out of 5How many copies are you willing to cram into a deck? Probably just one. So when you need Varys, what are the odds that you’ll have in hand, be able to afford him, and be able to keep him alive until dominance? Not high enough for my taste.VonWibble - 3 out of 5Could be necessary to get you back in the game, but at that cost to strength he’s making you lose a lot of tempo, and he allows saves, of which I think there will be many thanks to dupes. Also there’s no guarantee you draw him when he’s needed. Could work very well followed up with Marched to the Wall. Control decks probably need him more.Old Shrimp Eyes - 4 out of 5Bonus points for being the only weapon of mass destruction in the core environment. Will drop as the card pool expands. Forgetting his ability for a second, his stealth is nice in case you actually want to use him to win intrigue challenges. Crazy, I know.emptyrepublic - 3 out of 5Given that attachments are much more durable now it’s necessary to stack in the attachment control. A 4 gold for 3 STR monoicon isn’t good, but the reaction is repeatable and you need proper attachment control now. They’ll have value until there are better options.Ire & WWDrakey - 4 out of 5Repeatable attachment control on a stick. The fact that they cannot take attachments means that they work even better against their attach-y foes.Istaril - 3 out of 5Once again, don’t underestimate attachment hate, especially the repeatable kind. Unless you’re playing Baratheon (with Maester Cressen), this body is definitely worthy of consideration in any and all decks that stand a good chance of pushing a military challenge. Oh, and strip that Bodyguard before you apply claim...JCWamma - 4 out of 5Repeatable attachment hate, you say? The body it's on is pretty awful, but expect a lot of decks to lean heavily on these raiders until we get more to work with. With Milk of the Poppy looking likely to be everywhere, I can only assume this will see a lot of play, and that play will only increase once we get more negative attachments.mnBroncos - 3 out of 5If your a house with not much attachment control or you don’t want to use up one of your plot spots on attachment control, then these characters are a must in your deck. Attachments are for real in 2.0 and you now need to be able to control them like you would want to characters and locations.Oktarg: 4 out of 5I expect this will see quite a bit of play with attachments more viable than in the past.rave - 4 out of 5Not bad in this current state of the game. Rattleshirt’s Raiders seems like something you’re probably just going to want to splash in 1x for the off chance you really have to deal with a problem attachment. They’re a nice toolbox option to have.scantrell24 - 4 out of 5Attachment control is in-demand, largely because of Milk of the Poppy, and decks that don't have Viserys, Cressen, or Confiscation will want to strongly consider a copy or two of Rattleshirt's Raiders. He's not a horrible body on his own for military-light houses either.VonWibble - 3 out of 5This guy should go straight into any deck that doesn’t want to run confiscation. Unless you like having Milk of the Poppy on your best characters of course. So why only a 3? Because you have to win a challenge with them participating, and they only have 1 icon. If you are using these against Stark you may find it difficult to get anything out of them.Old Shrimp Eyes - 3 out of 5Tempted to rate them higher just because Milk of the Poppy should be in every core set deck and these guys are therefore a necessary inclusion as a result. But, long term, I don't think Rattleshirt's boys are going to come out to play much.emptyrepublic - 3 out of 5Anti-synergistic with Fealty which I imagine many early decks with run. At a minimum they are a bi-icon 7 STR character with Pillage (which will be seen how effect that is). Don’t think they are worth that much now, value may go up depending on future themes introduced in 2.0.Ire & WWDrakey - 3 out of 5Not a bad card, as the numbers on it are decent, but needs more Wildlings to really find a home for itself… and does not yet quite fit into Banner (you need to get those 12 cards in from the second Faction) nor (15 neutral cards is not a lot, when you factor in resources) decks. Should become better when we have more Agendas available.Istaril - 2 out of 5Actually quite an efficient character, but I don’t think he’ll see too much play as people flock to the lords and ladies at the same/similar price. With more Wildlings, will start to be a real presence, but now he’s mostly a beatstick. With Pillage. Which isn’t a thing.JCWamma - 4 out of 5If you have no other faction-kneeling effect in your deck, these guys are 5-for-7 in practice. They also help power up the Raiders above to make it easier to remove attachments, and give utility to a future Wildling deck. They also have Pillage if for some reason you care about that, but it's the pure neutral efficiency that's earning them a high rating here.mnBroncos - 4 out of 5Again I am not rating cards for the meta now but also in the possible future as well. He has army trait which can be relevant, as well as being able to pump any other Wildling cards that come out in the future. However, it is interesting the kneel faction card aspect, I assume that is going to be the “fixed” version of first edition’s “limited response” mechanic.Oktarg: 3 out of 5[review pending]rave - 3 out of 5Not impressed with pillage. Stats are good, but 5 gold solely for good stats is not. Maybe worth it if you run a healthy amount of the win by 5 military effects.scantrell24 - 2 out of 5Excellent against Targaryen burn (like Plaza of Punishment and Dracarys!), and potentially good in decks that find they need more Mil/Pow icons. The Horde gets better when you have a second copy in play, beceause your opponent can't be sure which one you'll buff, but it's not easy to find the deck space and the gold to marshall these bad boys.VonWibble - 4 out of 5Helps Rattleshirts Raiders, and that alone makes them well worthy of consideration. As the card pool expands these can only get better. The fact you kneel the faction card doesn’t matter so much here unless you are using Lannister, as chances are taking these and Raiders is eating too much into a Fealty limit anyway.Old Shrimp Eyes - 2 out of 5Distinctly unexciting, but does suggest a proper wildling theme in the future. Which is nice.emptyrepublic - 3 out of 5In Melee you need as many characters standing as you can to at least discourage your opponents from attacking you. 3 gold is steep, but attachments are “safer” now so it’s not such a bad deal.Ire & WWDrakey - 3 out of 5Honestly, this is a much better card than you’d ever believe a 3 gold attachment being. Oh, and Robert Baratheon said he wanted one of these.Istaril - 2 out of 5 - While the payoff can be huge, 3 gold is a lot to ask and functionally makes it non-setup in many cases (with some cheaper lords as exceptions, but you don’t really want it on them anyway), and rather expensive to re-play. On the right target, it’s certainly powerful enough to draw out my Confiscation, but whether a single stand effect and baiting out a specific plot is good enough to warrant a slot in your deck remains to be seen, and depends on the other attachments you’re counting on.JCWamma - 2 out of 5On the expensive side, but standing your best characters should not be underestimated. Don't confuse the low rating for a dislike of this card; there are a lot of decks that will get a lot of mileage from this card, it's just that for the majority it's over-costed, and this is a hell of an attachment to Confiscate.mnBroncos - 3 out of 5 - I really like this card and I think be very powerful in some decks. Lords and Ladies are some of the best characters in the game and getting to use those characters twice for half the cost of the character is good value.Oktarg: 2 out of 5Powerful effect with a lot of limitations means that I usually won't be playing this. But, a powerful effect with a lot of limitations also means that it can be useful in the right hands.scantrell24 - 2 out of 5Only decks built around bombs want Seal of the Hand, and with Milk/Tears/Sword so prevalent in the meta those decks have a difficult time winning consistently.rave - 3 out of 5A very strong attachment. But at 3 gold, a real risk to play. (any attachment is, really) Even with the attachment rules, having to re-play a 3 gold card isn’t necessarily worth it. That said, this can turn certain characters into nightmares.VonWibble - 2 out of 5This attachment is stronger than quite a lot of in house blades, and a lot less restrictive on where it can go too. I think it’s a card that you have to build around however, and it won’t go into a deck without heavy consideration.Old Shrimp Eyes - 3 out of 5Feels odd to look at a three cost, positive attachment in such a light but I guess this is the brave new world. Well worth a punt and with no shortage of top class targets, this attachment can and will do you a lot of work. I'm looking forward to sticking this on Balon Greyjoy.emptyrepublic - 4 out of 5Since big expensive lord and lady characters will be the centerpiece of most decks it's hard to see how you couldn’t include at least a copy or two of this card. I imagine over time it’ll get crowded out with better things, but for now it has lots of value.Ire & WWDrakey - 4 out of 5Honestly, this may be one of the best cost-efficient ways of soaking Military claim in the whole Core, and that’s on top of protecting your key character from removal.Istaril - 3 out of 5Gaining setup is what makes this one worthy of consideration, if you have the lords/ladies for it - especially since, unlike dupes, they can be placed on other lords/ladies, and will be bounced to hand if your character suffers an unsaveable demise. It’s a condition though, so Cressen can make short work of it.JCWamma - 4 out of 5Being non-terminal might seem like a worthless gain here - you weren't going to keep it anyway, right, you were using it for a save first - but it actually makes a big difference because of the burn match-up. Duplicates being far better would make this card near-worthless if not for that, but the Bodyguard does have some real utility and I expect it to be a commonplace card for protecting Lords and Ladies - aka, the characters that can actually win you games in the current cardpool.mnBroncos - 4 out of 5Now that attachments can be set up it opens a whole new layer for them. Any deck with 4 or more lords/ladies will like this card, it is a one cost save.Oktarg: 3 out of 5[review pending]rave - 4 out of 5Despite its cost, it feels at least on par with how it used to be, maybe better, because of it’s ability to be set up, and the fact it now saves from discard.scantrell24 - 4 out of 5I like that you can setup Bodyguard on a cheap Lord/Lady like Shireen or Viserys, then bounce it to hand when they die and re-marshal the following turn to protect a more important Lord/Lady. That additional flexibility moves Bodyguard from a 3 to a 4.VonWibble - 4 out of 5Its an extra copy of any lord or lady you have in your deck. Unless you are playing Night’s Watch, that’s pretty much any important character.Old Shrimp Eyes - 4 out of 5Nothing more to add to everything that's just been said. The changes to attachment make this card well worthy of inclusion and in a core set only environment it's an auto include for nearly everyone.emptyrepublic - 3 out of 5Only of value to decks with low amount of intrigue characters. No doubt a likely attachment for Ned or Robb Stark.Ire & WWDrakey - 3 out of 5Asha and Eddard already sent in their orders for an urchin.Istaril - 3 out of 5Tears of Lys protection, mostly, and a couple factions with an intrigue hole make this one worth considering. Might maintain some value in the long run, as having it bounce to hand and almost guarantee you an intrigue icon on the valar turn has some potential.JCWamma - 4 out of 5Intrigue icons are both important in this core environment (see Tears of Lys later on) and also missing from some large characters, particularly outside of Lannister and Martell. There are numerous character who can benefit greatly from it for reasons beyond protection, particularly Asha, Eddard, Randyll and Robert (another challenge to force through your intimidate on).mnBroncos - 3 out of 5Some decks (Stark) are going to need this card. With Tears of Lys you can’t risk losing characters like Ned to a one cost event.Oktarg: 4 out of 5Not all decks will take this, but I think greyjoy and stark both will and will be glad they did. Eddard and Asha, in particular, are amazing with their very own spy network.rave - 3 out of 5The lower end of 3. This could be a character. I suppose some houses might have a real intrigue problem with such a small card pool, but this will get worse and worse. Your deck doesn’t have intrigue? Pair with a house that does. (At least at this state of the game) This card patches a weakness in decks that doesn’t have to be there. BUT, this card is money on Asha. If you run Greyjoy in general, this is a card to consider.scantrell24 - 4 out of 5Worth considering in Bara, Greyjoy, and Stark to protect the big-hitters, and to combo with Asha or Eddard, but also just for evening out your icon spread.VonWibble - 3 out of 5There are plenty of characters that are powerful and lack intrigue, even in intrigue heavy houses, Areo Hotah in Martell for example. Characters like Eddard Stark, Randyll Tarly, Asha Greyjoy and Balon Greyjoy are particularly good with this.Old Shrimp Eyes - 4 out of 5The Greyjoy in me wants to rate this as a 5. It's defensive utility is not to be underestimated as it protects a lot of people from the spot removal of Tears of Lys.emptyrepublic - 5 out of 5With the low amount of attachment control and limited resets at the beginning of 2.0 this card is imperative in order to impart some control on the high cost uniques of your opponents. Especially those with strong effects like Queen of Thrones, Robert, Stannis, Ned, etc that will form the basis of many decks.Ire & WWDrakey - 5 out of 5Likely *the* Meta-defining card for the Core environment.Istaril - 5 out of 5Especially in the core environment, this is a 1 gold counter to the scariest your opponent’s deck has to offer you. Will lose relative power as the threat base expands to lower cost curves. How often will you use this on Maester Cressen, I wonder?JCWamma - 5 out of 5Without any reliable character control that isn't prohibitively expensive, and with the 6-7 cost characters having some absurdly powerful effects, Milk of the Poppy will simply define the game for the time-being. It's better than in first edition, because it's exactly the same while the cost curve is increased. What's better than negating a 3-4 cost character? Negating a 6-7 one. You will cry if this gets placed on your Tywin, Varys, etc.mnBroncos - 5 out of 5So, your 7 cost character now has no effect.Oktarg: 5 out of 5Don't hate. Confiscate.rave - 5 out of 5Pure gold in an environment with no on-demand board reset. Especially with all these useful new keywords. Put this on those ridiculous 7 gold characters, and you just shifted board position by not doing much of anything.scantrell24 - 5 out of 5Again, like with Littlefinger, the only question is whether every deck should run 2 copies or 3. A meta-defining card.VonWibble - 5 out of 5With big uniques with flashy effects around it’s hard not to put this into a deck.Old Shrimp Eyes - 5 out of 5X3 in every deck for the time being.emptyrepublic - 2 out of 5There isn’t a shortage of power icons already so the value of this isn’t high. It’s 0 gold though so there is value in the future, but right now there’s no real need. Littlebird is the only icon granting attachment you really need right now.Ire & WWDrakey - 2 out of 5Too many Power icons in the Core for this to matter. Cards that make us care about it need to enter the environment, for this to actually see play.Istaril - 1 out of 5A little harsh, as 0 cost setup cards aren’t bad, but there are so few good targets for this in the core - power icons are everywhere!JCWamma - 2 out of 5This is just as good as the other icon-granting attachments in theory, particularly for melee; in practice, all the big characters have power icons already, so what's the use? I'm giving this a 2 rather than a 1 because in the future if more characters with only military and intrigue icons are released, this will dramatically increase in value.mnBroncos - 2 out of 5There is a reason this is 0 cost compared to Little Bird and Syrio’s Training. However, since it costs 0 you could put this in decks just to increase your setups.Oktarg: 1 out of 5Sorry bro.rave - 2 out of 5I feel the same as I do about Little Bird for this, but this feels worse because there’s no real advantage for power icons in the early game.scantrell24 - 1 out of 5Until we see non-kneeling Mil+Int characters like Asha Greyjoy from 1st edition, there’s no compelling reason to run Noble Lineage.VonWibble - 1 out of 5There just aren’t enough targets to justify it, and it’s unlikely that will change for a while. If more big characters with Military and Intrigue icons start appearing than the score can go up. The one card I think this is really good on is Dornish Paramour, but that isn’t enough to increase the score.Old Shrimp Eyes 1 out of 5Whatever. I'm cool with those Little Birds, thanks.emptyrepublic - 2 out of 5The military deficit among the various factions isn’t that high. Unlike intrigue, which is most often the gap icon on a character, need to boost military presence isn’t anywhere near as important.Ire & WWDrakey - 3 out of 5Like the two before it, this will mainly see play for “fixing up” specific powerful characters, this time Catelyn and Daenerys being the obvious choices.Istaril - 2 out of 5Doesn’t have the benefit of protecting directly from Tears of Lys, but I suspect this one will find a home on a couple characters, like Dany or Catelyn, that could be quite impactful. Generally, not something you include unless you have 3+ excellent targets for it.JCWamma - 3 out of 5Military is currently the most important challenge in the game, so granting that icon is a big deal. The reason this is only a 3 is that the big 'challenge' characters (so not your Melisandres, Tyrions or Ariannes) already have a military icon. Really the only characters this is truly amazing on (and where I expect it to see play) are Catelyn and Daenerys. That may change in the future though.mnBroncos - 2 out of 5Significantly less important than Little Bird because there isn’t a card yet like Tears of Lys that takes military icons into account. With that said though, some decks are going to like this to increase their military power without needing to splash a faction to get it.Oktarg: 3 out of 5I want to put this on Dany, but I'm not sure who else it will go on. Maybe I've overrated it a tick.scantrell24 - 2 out of 5With cards like Syrio’s Training, you need an exceptional reason to include them in a deck. Otherwise the opportunity cost is too high. For example, in First Edition the attachment Rusted Sword was a Weapon that granted a military icon; common targets included Maesters (who did tricks every time they knelt) because of the Targaryen location that stood a character with a Weapon, or Arianne Martell who raised claim when attacking but lacked a natural military icon.rave - 3 out of 5Syrio’s training is interesting, because it can prep the decks with less military might to use Put to the Sword and Put to the Torch. That said, that’s not the most efficient way to make a deck. It’s alright.VonWibble - 3 out of 5Similar to Little Bird, there are plenty of characters who can use a military icon. Generally these won’t be big characters, but the fact attachments return to hand means this could be at worst a bonus defender each turn. Catelyn Stark gets a lot out of this, but are you likely to put it in a Stark deck just for her?Old Shrimp Eyes - 1 out of 5What do we say to Syrio's training? Not today.emptyrepublic - 3 out of 5We’ll see how important the reserve value “really” is in the long run. Also there isn’t a lot of stuff we know of right now hinging on dominance victories so this card will be middle of the road until the game space evolves more.Ire & WWDrakey - 4 out of 5Likely a much more important card for the game than people expect. For any decks going for the “long route” of slowly controlling their foes, this will help stop your opponent from accumulating power, and let you concentrate on messing with their board position meanwhile. The fact that it also offers more Reserve for those decks, which naturally want to hold a lot of cards in hand… aligns up nicely. The 1.0 Iron Throne was never actually *bad*, just way too costly to see much play.Istaril - 3 out of 5 - I think we’re all in the dark here about the reserve increase, which could easily push this to a 4. Still, the dominance win for Aeron, A Feast for Crows, Chamber of the Painted table, or just an influx of power is not bad in and of itself, in the right deck.JCWamma - 3 out of 5For decks focused on winning dominance (for example, those running A Feast for Crows or Aeron Damphair), this will be vital. However, note that an effect like this existed in first edition and was essentially "meh", seeing very little play. With fewer easy sources of power early on this will be played, but as more characters with the likes of stealth and renown are drip-fed into the cardpool, this will be relegated to decks that care more about dominance as described above. And don’t be fooled by the reserve boost, it’s nice enough but not worth a 2-cost location for.mnBroncos - 3 out of 5 - Decks that want to constantly win dominance or that constantly have a large hand size are going to like this card. It is by no means an auto-include though unless you want to just shut down the advantage an opponent would have for getting one into play.Oktarg: 2 out of 5I have no idea because this isn't the type of card that I play, but I don't play expensive passive buffs that don't help in challenges. Time will tell if the reserve matters enough, but with no valar there's nothing to keep me just playing out my cards, really.rave - 4 out of 5Iron Throne is nice because it generally enables your entire character base to participate in challenges without worry. The usefulness of the reserve bonus has yet to be determined (at least for me) but it’s a cheap price to pay to take the weight of dominance off your back.scantrell24 - 3 out of 5Great on setup. No so great later in the game when you need a character. Probably not worth blowing up in-game with Torch or Sow because you want to save those targeted location discards for draw engines.VonWibble - 3 out of 5Its OK I suppose, a likely extra power per turn for a slight hit to tempo. Aptly the bonus to reserve helps mitigate a disadvantage of A Feast for Crows, whilst Iron Throne helps ensure the dominance win.Old Shrimp Eyes - 3 out of 5I hear you win the game by getting enough power, so almost guaranteeing dominance will help with that. It's a tad dull, granted, but will no doubt slot in to decks as an enabler for all your "when you win dominance" tricks.emptyrepublic - 5 out of 5It’s one of the few economy cards you’ll have. It’s also a 1 for 3 effect so the value is good even if it’s only good for one use.Ire & WWDrakey - 5 out of 5[No review]Istaril - 5 out of 5It’ll be a while (if ever) before you’re not including this x3. Thank god it’s 4x per core.JCWamma - 5 out of 5Easy 5. Reducing by 3, even for a limited, is phenomenal - ask first edition Baratheon players. Shame it counts against Fealty.mnBroncos - 5 out of 5A one cost seat of power for every house. This is great economy.Oktarg: 5 out of 5Hey guys: run literally all the limiteds. You can't do better so don't even bother.rave - 5 out of 5*sigh* I really hate these cards. Amazing of course. How could it be anything else? To be fair, it costs, which does make a difference for setup, and because effects so commonly cost gold now, reduction doesn’t help them. Watch out for Treachery when you play this.scantrell24 - 5 out of 5At least 2 in every deck. Usually 3.VonWibble - 5 out of 5Boring but very much necessary for economy.Old Shrimp Eyes - 5 out of 5.Yep.emptyrepublic - 5 out of 5You’d be just flat dumb if you didn’t play as many of these as you could.Ire & WWDrakey - 5 out of 5[No review]Istaril - 5 out of 5 - It’ll be a while (if ever) before you’re not including this x3. Thank god it’s 4x per core.JCWamma - 5 out of 5Backbone of decks from hereon out for obvious reasons. Shame it counts against Fealty.mnBroncos - 5 out of 5 - Every deck plays 3 next.Oktarg: 5 out of 5Same as KRrave - 5 out of 5Better than it’s ever been because gold is miles above cost-reduction in usefulness now. Get those proxies ready!scantrell24 - 5 out of 53 in every deck. Much better artwork than the previous edition’s Roseroad.VonWibble - 5 out of 5Boring but very much necessary for economy.Old Shrimp Eyes - 5 out of 5Mm hmmm.emptyrepublic - 4 out of 5I’m going for a weak 4. Holding the two gold in reserve will definitely telegraph to opponents that you might be holding an event. Also, in order to get that “win by 5 STR” condition cleared you more than likely have to over commit slightly. That said, without consistent resets you need to go for the big characters when you can and this is one of the few options you have to do so.Ire & WWDrakey - 3 out of 5Pushing and paying for this is not trivial, which is a good thing. Still, the impact can be pretty big as well.Istaril - 3 out of 5 - Targeted kill. Almost invariably a gold advantage too. Good to borderline essential in certain decks, the real value will be determined by how ‘broadcast’ holding 2 gold and making a big military challenge is - preventing a “lose by 5” trigger is not that hard. Still, even the bluff factor can change a game, so a solid staple for some decks.JCWamma - 2 out of 5The effect is powerful, but most (not all, but most) of the characters you want to trigger this on already have military icons and high STR, so the only way you can reliably trigger it is to be tricksy or already be in an overwhelming board position. And that would be fine, but you then need 2 gold sitting around on top of that. This is very difficult to play, in my opinion.mnBroncos - 4 out of 5 - Targeted Kill is always strong. 2 gold is kind of a lot but also gets some protection from the key cancel in the core set.Oktarg: 2 out of 5This card is a trap. If you can have two gold and win the challenge by five even after having telegraphed it, you were probably winning already. Congrats.rave - 5 out of 5Neutral targeted kill that doesn’t care what it kills is very strong. Especially considering that if you play this and go first, you’re disrupting their same challenge phase. To be fair, the 2 gold does telegraph quite a bit... Also, the chump block is going to push the STR needed to trigger this to higher levels than you may want. But this card is what will shift boards. It’s difficult to cancel, and brutal.scantrell24 - 3 out of 5Powerful but incredibly expensive both in terms of gold and meeting the triggering condition. So far I like slotting a single Put to the Sword into some decks, just so my opponent will see the first and then have to worry about over-defending military challenges thereafter. In specialized murder decks like Stark Fealty, you might want 3 but then the Fealty agenda restriction makes that difficult.VonWibble - 4 out of 5Expensive, but targeted kill is at a premium with no Valar around. Any deck with decent military presence is going to want this, even weaker military decks should consider it.Old Shrimp Eyes - 2 out of 5Not as great as it appears initially. Those requirements require you to make this a sizeable investment in strength and gold, both of which are telegraphed and potentially catastrophic if this back fires. If you can easily win the challenge and have spare gold rolling around all over the place, then this isn't the leveller it is pegged as being. It's a win more card.emptyrepublic - 3 out of 5Right now there aren’t that many locations that you need to stress about. It’s ever so slightly easier to pull off than “Put to the Sword” but the impact is lower as it’s likely most locations will be economy or low impact. No doubt though this will creep up to a 4 as more locations are introduced.Ire & WWDrakey - 5 out of 5The only neutral location removal in the Core makes this an important keystone of the Meta.Istaril - 3 out of 5A lot of draw is location based (that nasty Red Keep), and for many houses, this is the only option you have to control them right now. Especially early on, even hitting a gold producer might be great.JCWamma - 2 out of 5A tough event to play unless you already have board advantage. There are ample locations worth triggering this on - the likes of The Red Keep and Ghaston Grey in particular stick out - but between the restriction for playing it, the gold cost and the fact that it doesn't actually hit characters, I can't rate this too highly.mnBroncos - 5 out of 5Location control is something I always over looked in 1.0 however, a 1 cost conditional removal of some of these key locations is going to be a big deal and this will be in a lot of decks as key location removal.Oktarg: 2 out of 5I can't really think of that many locations I would want to pop; give me a milk or a tears instead. Will obviously get better with time, though.rave - 5 out of 5Glad this card exists. It’s not a bargain, it’s not easy to trigger, but it’s an easy card to toolbox into most decks. It will just get better and better. As far as the core goes, it’s a strong, if low impact toolbox card worth slotting.scantrell24 - 4 out of 5Blowing up draw engine locations is such a huge tempo play. Even military-light Factions can probably push this through by sacrificing an INT or POW challenge win.VonWibble - 3 out of 5Military heavy houses can add a point to that rating. At this stage I think hitting economy locations is good enough to justify this, and hitting things like Ghaston Grey is undoubtedly very desirable.Old Shrimp Eyes - 3 out of 5Gets an extra point on Put to the Sword as location hate is less prevalent and locations are harder to protect. But the pre requisites still make it a flashy effect that can be seen coming and is far easier to pull off when you are already ahead.emptyrepublic - 4 out of 5Not a must have in every deck, but the 0 gold cost is great because you won’t telegraph to your opponents that you are going for a close until it’s too late.Ire & WWDrakey - 5 out of 5A Melee card, so rating it as such. Harder to hold in hand for your closer than in 1.0, but should still see tons of play in Melee decks.Istaril - 2 out of 5Phenomenal in melee, and probably not bad in joust, but suffers from the same problems it did in first edition: does not fundamentally advance your board position. Unless board position doesn’t matter to you much (a true rush or combo deck), you’ll look elsewhere first, even if this is “free”. Anyone else amused “Superior Claim” is a picture of Stannis?JCWamma - 5 out of 5My rating here is obviously Melee-exclusive. This is near-enough a direct reprint of a first edition so good in melee it was restricted - it turns out sudden power grab is good in a race to 15! For Joust I doubt even the most dedicated rush deck will include it past the core.mnBroncos - 3 out of 5Hard to rate this because it's a 5 in melee but a 2 in most decks in joust.Oktarg: 2 out of 5This is better in joust than its 1.0 counterpart, but that doesn't make it good. 5-5 in melee.rave - 4 out of 5Not an every deck card by any means, but being free, in a fast deck, this seems to have potential to be threatening.scantrell24 - 2 out of 5I generally dislike power-grab events that don’t impact board position in the Joust format. Only Greyjoy decks or Martell decks might want to rush hard enough to make Superior Claim worthwhile. In melee, this sees play because the common approach is to play proactively rather than reactively (you can't control three opponents at once).VonWibble - 3 out of 5Its a free event, and a nice way to finish the game. In melee it’s an autoinclude for sure.Old Shrimp Eyes - 5 out of 5Will be in melee decks until the end of time.emptyrepublic - 4 out of 5The intrigue light factions will need to keep this event in mind because I imagine it will be their bane in the early days. The text is interesting because it deliberately creates space for cards in the future to be able to manipulate these “effect tokens”; so in the future the power of this event may go down.Ire & WWDrakey - 4 out of 5Another meta-defining card, the impacts should be obvious.Istaril - 4 out of 5Meta-defining, cheap, and easy to trigger, with real downstream potential (icon manipulation, etc). The downsides; the delayed effect still gives your opponent a turn’s use out of the character, and he’ll make good claim bait, so your challenge order is dictated by this card, making it more broadcast than you’d think.JCWamma - 4 out of 5The closest thing to direct character kill we have. This is an important card in my opinion, offering decks that aren't entirely focused on the red icon a route to actually control the board in a Valar-less environment. Without it we risked the game becoming all about military challenges, so this card does a lot of good. On power level it's very fair, with the cost, the timing, the restrictions on the target and the effect not killing until the end of the phase all stopping it being too powerful. Good card!mnBroncos - 5 out of 5This will be a key removal card in heavy intrigue decks.Oktarg: 5 out of 5Build for it, build to protect against it. Meta defining.rave - 5 out of 5A less risk/less reward version of Put to the Sword. Still targeted kill, still good.scantrell24 - 4 out of 5Absolutely perfect design. A months ago the community was worried that intrigue challenges wouldn’t be as relevant as they were in first edition, but Tears of Lys nullifies that argument. You have to be careful with Balon, Asha, Eddard, Robb, Robert, Stannis, Knight of Flowers, Randyll Tarly, Old Bear, and Khal Drogo. Either dupe ‘em or attach Bodyguard or Little Bird if you want them to stick around.VonWibble - 4 out of 5More targeted kill. However, without icon removal there are a lot of characters who are immune. Add 1 to the score for Martell for this reason.Old Shrimp Eyes - 4 out of 5Massive and the best event based character removal currently on offer.emptyrepublic - 4 out of 5It’s one of the few cancels that you’ll have access to early on. The catch is you need to have as much gold as your opponent in order to do it. Until something better comes around you need this as a counter to Tears or Put to the Sword; not to mention several of the faction specific events.Ire & WWDrakey - 4 out of 5Event cancel is, and has always been, important.Istaril - 2 out of 5Gold-costing cancels aren’t really my style, since in this case it nets you neither card nor gold advantage. Still, depriving your opponent of a planned power-play - especially if he over-committed to get it off (put to the sword, etc) is potent, and this card is an excellent control on the meta. Cancelling a big “Things I do for Love” for free will be satisfying.JCWamma - 4 out of 5A valuable card for the game to have, the cost X on this card is really cool design. With Dracarys! around, I expect any deck relying on characters in the 4-5 STR range to run this. Without Dracarys! (and for Melee Superior Claim), I'd drop this to a 3.mnBroncos - 4 out of 5 - I have never been the fan of cancels in my decks I have always rather play the effects that my opponent has to answer, however, there is a lot of strong effects just in the core set alone that I am strongly considering this. I also really love how it works with giving the more expensive events more protection.Oktarg: 2 out of 5This isn't the type of card that I play but I guess there is nothing wrong with it.scantrell24 - 3 out of 5It’s not easy to find space in decks for Hand’s Judgment, especially with the unknown gold cost. When I marshal first I have no idea how much gold my opponent will keep, so unless I have Tyrion or Forest Ranger or Paxter I’m unlikely to run it.rave - 4 out of 5Interesting design for a cancel. There are a lot of annoying cheap events worth slotting this for. Just the existence of this card makes Risen from the Sea a risk. This can prevent you from the annoying Bara and Martell stall events, Treachery on your Kingsroads, Dracarys!, whatever. It’s pretty good.VonWibble - 4 out of 5Cancelling the likes of Dracarys! or Doran’s Game are both going to be game saving moves. It’s never a bad thing to have, the only drawbacks being lack of space for events that are more proactive in nature.Old Shrimp Eyes - 4 out of 5It's not going to be prom queen but having a versatile cancel as an evergreen card is a welcome presence in the card pool.Before we award the top 3 and bottom 3 non-economy cards based on cumulative points, I'd like to take a second to plug the New Player FAQ thread . It includes background information and general knowledge about the game itself, links to various resources like podcasts and player maps, and much more. It's a work in progress that receives constant updates, so please share it with new players, and check back yourself every now and then. Also please let me know if there's anything you'd like to see added! Now without further ado...Littlefinger (50)Milk of the Poppy (50)Tears of Lys (45)Noble Lineage (15)Syrio's Training (25)Seal of the Hand (25)Feel free to chime in below. Did we nail it? Make any horrible oversights? Let us hear it, and we'll be back on Monday with Stark cards from the Core.