Renly or Stannis the eternal (and so far only) question
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Renly or Stannis the eternal (and so far only) question

  1. #1

    Default Renly or Stannis the eternal (and so far only) question

    Title more or less says it all. Which commander have you had more success with, and how do you think they'll stack up when baratheons have a few more releases under their belt?

  2. #2


    Honestly the baratheons tactics page is looking a little bare so feel free to also post lists with your commander of choice.

  3. #3


    the baratheons and starks are very op compared to the other factions imo (depending on list) and would be my first pick in nearly any match up, including dothraki. I prefer renlys card and stannis's theme. Most recent match was free folk vs stannis and the baratheons barely lost any units. Jaquen Hgar is my fav ncu and listing him with baratheons has been very powerful. Barath vs Targ has been my first starter vs starter game and the baratheon won by a decent advantage. For real though the baratheon turtle matched with lucky ghar rolls is brutal

  4. #4


    Had mixed results with Baratheons vs Starks (Rob Stark), won some lost some. I really prefer Stannis, personally, but that's a thematic reason, i think Renly is quite effective on paper based on what i have seen of the units.

    I wouldn't call the Baratheons fact i don't see any faction as such, but i do agree that Starks, and to a lesser extent the Night's Watch and Baratheons, have an easier learning curve. The baratheons can be hard on the nerves while you get out-manoeuvered like crazy...but they can take a hit like no other.1

    Somehow i didn't find the Sentinels as useful as the Wardens...i think that's contrary to what most people found?

    The Baratheons do indeed advance in a sort of "testudo" formation...they are really hard to kill. But as usual they do have issues against some cunning enemies. For example, Stag Knights don't do that much unless they are attacked, in a similar way to Free Folk Giants. Just like Giants they rely on getting into a position where the opponent absolutely has to attack them. If that occurs...they can wipe out units quickly. Smart Opponents will manage to avoid this and the Knight's wont' be able to push their weight. But anyway, my pet peeve with Baratheons right now is the "When a unit is destroyed" trigger on tactic seems counter intuitive for the faction that relies on toughness.

    My favorite unit so far is the Wardens with Stannis or a Warden Master. They move forward and contest objectives, then tend win the attrition battle.

    Stannis can really put the hurt with his Tactical Approach tactic card, and wardens have a sort of engine for it : first find a way to put weakened on the foe, then when they attack use it as vulnerable...that is bound to bring a dice to 1...which will bring another weakened token...which you can then trade for 3 wounds (that does follow up right?)
    Last edited by Oakwolf; 01-01-2020 at 12:28 AM.

  5. #5


    Ok, this is going to be a doozy of a post.

    I held back from getting into this game, specifically because I was holding out for the Baratheons (and Stannis in particular). So once they were announced, I was all-in. I bought the starter set a couple weeks ago, and finally played my first game (35 points) a few days ago against a Robb Stark starter-set army, with just the Baratheon starter-set units, Bronn in the Sentinels, and Stannis in the Stag Knights. I don’t have all the experience, but here are my initial thoughts:

    Stannis provides abilities that give Baratheon units more teeth on the offensive. While this certainly isn’t a bad thing, between the Baratheon tactics cards and their core unit (Wardens), overall the faction feels like it wants to be more defensive/reactive than proactively aggressive. Their cards aren’t that diverse in their triggers either, and those triggers generally require your units to be engaged, attacked, or [gulp] destroyed. You are mostly reacting to various levels of punishment an enemy unit is inflicting upon yours - engaging it, wounding it, destroying it. There are no card triggers for maneuvering, charging, rolling attack/defense dice, or retreating etc; things that Stannis’s personal unit might actually do. Also consider that when you add his 6 cards into the deck, 4 of them simply double up on preexisting triggers. One of those triggers is the extreme one - it requires one of your units to be destroyed. So that’s now 20% of your total deck triggering off of destroyed units. If this was a horde style army, it’d be great, but how many times can you be expected to play those cards until the bonus effect becomes irrelevant to the game’s outcome? There just aren’t *that* many units to serve up. So by the third play, your remaining unit is probably pretty powerful, but at that point, you’re probably on the verge of defeat anyway.

    Now all that being said, I did manage to pull an unlikely victory by the skin of my teeth by specifically playing the objective points. After round 3 it became clear that taking the field by force of arms would be an uphill battle at best. I ended up grabbing my 10th victory point with Stannis’s unit in the final turn of round 5. This was my last unit with only 4 models remaining. If the game had gone to the 6th round, his remaining berserkers and outriders would have obliterated me. It was a tense, hard-fought game, and ended in dramatic/thematic fashion with Stannis refusing to yield to overwhelming odds. As a huge Stannis supporter, this is pretty much what I expected. It’s what I signed up for. If you play Stannis, you do it out of principle. You do it because you believe in the character. Thus, for any true King’s man, the decision is easy; want has nothing to do with it (100% Stannis). That being the case, I am eager to see the rules for the new heroes, because it looks like we're getting an Attachment or NCU version of Stannis. If I can keep him in my army, but use another thematic character as "Commander" (maybe Davos?), then I will probably go for that.

    Anyway, for those less than fully-committed to the one true king, then (and it pains me to say this) Renly might be the way to go. He's just a more likable and competitive commander for the masses. His cards seem to jive with the faction better by adding trigger diversity to their faction deck, and boosting unit durability on the field through healing effects. So just like in the story, I’m not surprised that more people have flocked to his banner. Honestly, the fact that this game was able to effectively capture the feel of these characters in this way, is a testament to its thoughtful design.

  6. #6


    I'm more or less in the same boat Oakwolf, I've done nothing but struggle against other opponents because of the limitations of the starter set. I want to make baratheons work, but all my friends playing stark's and lannisters have these crazy death star combos that I can't seem to counter. I think I like renly's cards better, but I have virtually no success with either commander.

  7. #7


    imo baratheons greatly depend on game mode, i would agree with you on their current limitations. Starks are very powerful rn though they are my personal go to. I think baratheon just fit my play style more, im not a huge fan of stannis or renly to begin with and had little hype for the expansion, but after playing them they have become a fav of mine. I love the cards and the units are really cool looking. I don't play them because I want to tbh its just a faction that plays well to how I normally play wargames. I don't think there is a wrong answer between stannis and renly and it looks like theres a hero box with alt cards for each coming

  8. #8


    I'm loving the baratheons at the min, wardens with Renly is my go to (Stannis is my favourite but game wise Renly takes it for me)
    He gives the army some really needed healing plus my current list has Tycho NCU for a panic heal once per game.
    Sentinels are great but I just find the utility of wardens far better.
    Stag knights unfortunately are my least favourite until something comes out for them other that the Nobel 10 points is a huge dump of points.
    The list I use is;
    4 units of wardens one with Renly two with master wardens one without an attachment
    1 units of stormcrow archers with a lieutenant

    I'm debating Walder as strong as he is I could have a 5th unit of wardens for his cost.
    The list performed really well in Dance with dragons senario even though Renly got took out turn one from jaqen rolling a 6

  9. #9


    I think that i may have more trouble with Stannis because i can't see the whole scope of his theme yet. As previewed on the FB group, Selyse (and Shireen) will give the R'hllor affiliation to a unit. No idea what that will do, but I expect a sacrifice mechanic (speculation) which would go hand in hand with units getting destroyed and why this would be a bad thing for the opponent. This would make Stannis the complete opposite of Renly (who heal like no other)

    From what we know, there is a box containing King's Men coming, and another containing "R'hllor followers or something of the like. Michael Shinall did state that Stannis will get some scary ranged unit.

  10. #10


    I completely agree with what your saying about Stannis and after playing a few times with him it's hard to get a close game his force crumbles very quickly.
    From my experience in this game and this is not complaining it's just my opinion and that is new factions lack the options that other factions have and my prediction is that the hero box for stannis will greatly up the power of him as a commander and his loyalty units will be the power behind him plus I'm hoping the red woman will be a strong healing combo that baratheons, running stannis desperately need without the look at neutrals.
    I like the theme the game has created yes it's amazing but from a competitive point Renly is currently taking it.
    Stannis the red woman the onion knight and Tycho will be awsome to see in a army of the one true king and outside of tournament play I will be running stannis as much as possible until new releases come out.
    Similar to the free folk from my gaming groups I play with they seemed to struggle at initial release but now are very powerful due to the new releases.
    Baratheons in my opinion are going to be very strong the deck they have is very strong but need the support from other releases to make it work best.
    But I love this faction it was my "dibs" when the game got announced.
    Wish King Robert was in the game my life would be perfect he is my favourite baratheon followed by Stannis

  11. #11


    I wish the one true king, Bobby B was alive and in the game. I've been told that it is supposed to be after his death, but you can play as Eddard Stark who spent all but the entirety of his remaining life in a dungeon, but I digress.

  12. #12


    Quote Originally Posted by Breastplatestretcher View Post
    I wish the one true king, Bobby B was alive and in the game. I've been told that it is supposed to be after his death, but you can play as Eddard Stark who spent all but the entirety of his remaining life in a dungeon, but I digress.
    Don't even get me started on this. Ned Stark shouldn't even be in the game (his imprisonment is why Robb called the banners), and also imo Boltons should be their own faction at this point. Don't get me wrong, I like the option to take Bolton units if I want, and would like to try some cutthroats in the army, but Bolton units have become so ubiquitous that it starts damaging the theme for me. I'm not sure whey they were even considered "Neutral" in the first place. If anything, especially since Ned Stark is apparently around, they should either be a part of the Stark faction (which really doesn't need an expanded unit pool), or their own unique faction. Having Boltons show up in every other faction's armies seems out of place. I don't get the sense they even had the manpower for that. Personally, I can't see myself using any Bolton units in my Baratheon army once their product line is fleshed out. That's the only reason I consider the option now, because as a Stannis supporter it just feels wrong. But anyway...

  13. #13


    In general I think Neutrals should only be allowed to be taken by select factions - so if you wanted Boltons to be "neutral" in that they could be taken by Starks and Lannisters (representing their different loyalties throughout the books) then sure, just chuck in 2 Bolton units. Stormcrows? Really only makes sense for them to be Daenerys-only. In general I think the Neutrals have taken a lot of design space from future factions, because while Boltons do have a distinct playstyle they shouldn't be considered to be a full faction before, say, Greyjoys or Martels or Tyrells.

  14. #14


    How it was explained during the Kickstarter was that Robert’s death is their fixed point in time. Everything after that is “What if”’s. So Ned is in the game for those that want to say he escaped, was rescued, was traded back, etc... Bolton’s being the first Neutral units made sense because at the time we only had Stark and Lannister. Bolton swapped between those two, so it fit. I think the big issue was they waited too long to bring in Neutral units that were not Bolton.

    I think, in hindsight, restricting what Neutrals could be used by what factions would have helped make balancing them easier. However, it would have also restricted that “What if” viewpoint. And if we don’t have “What if”’s, then that becomes a lot more restrictive when it comes to gameplay. Cause at that point you’ll be getting into “this army never fought this army”, “NW war machines can only be used in this scenario because they never left the Wall”, etc type issues.
    House - Ravenhurst
    Sigil - Black raven on a copper field, clutching paintbrushes
    Words - “We do not Highlight”

  15. #15


    True it is a game, and we need to keep that in mind. As much as I think the neutral alliances are kinda strange and ask myself why are nights watch fighting so many factions that indirectly fund and support them, but I understand why they did it. It's a game and they want it to be fun above all else. Who knows maybe in edition 2 they could try to create a fun and thematic neutral system where some factions are limited by what neutrals they can take. I think neutrals were meant to make sure every faction has access to certain units even if it doesn't make sense for the fiction's playstyle. Or maybe to include units like Boltons who are a little big to fit into someone else's faction but a little small for their own faction themselves.

  16. #16


    Robert's death being the fixed point in time is totally reasonable. It's just that this is the Baratheon forum, so a lot of bitter Baratheon fans want to be able to answer this Stannis or Renly question with "Neither: 100% Bobby B" lol. But there would be no War of 5 Kings if Robert was still alive, and the whole game is based around that conflict, so therefore he has to be dead. I suppose they had to adhere to some narrative framework, albeit loosely, to account for why all of these armies are fighting each other. It only made sense to develop these belligerents as unique playable factions with their own agendas as outlined by the source material. I consider these factional elements, and the characters within them, fixed in the same way that Robert's death is acknowledged as a fixed narrative event.

    Since this is a game though, yeah, it needs to provide a healthy margin for hypothetical scenarios. I have no issues with Starks fighting Baratheons, or Lannisters fighting Nights Watch, or even two armies of the same faction fighting each other. Lesser houses and lords rebel or shift loyalty all the time within this universe, so it's up to the players to rationalize those encounters (or not). This gives us the opportunity to create new stories for our favorite characters through gameplay, which is really cool.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion

Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.