Francisco G. made a very reasonable suggestion on Agotcards: Restrict or ban Tin Link.

A lot of people seem to agree that TMP is still very powerful and a lot of people are still upset about it.

While I am not in the latter group, restricting or banning this one link might really change the power level of TMP and the entire environment. One of the problems of TMP is that the agenda does not only provide card advantage, but also easy answers to a many problems, attachment removal being among those answers.

If Tin Link would be banned or restricted, Maesters no longer would have an automatic built in answer for attachments in general and also to Winter/Summer decks in particular (with Copper Link). Frozen Solid, Condemned, maybe even Milk of the Poppy (it does not remove the trait, but a Maester Murenmure or a Conclave without game text are still somewhat nerfed) would all become better answers to the Maester menace.

Not only would the removal of Tin Link help to battle Maesters with attachments, it would also help other decks who rely on attachments to become more reliable (e.g. Lannister PbtT decks with Widow's Wail, Devious Intentions and Enslaved).

At the same time, with attachments becoming more playable once more, Targ might be forced to run more attachment discard again, as attachments still nerf some of the best burn cards, such as Hatchling's Feast and Flame Kissed. This would make Targaryen deck construction a little bit more difficult, which many people also seem to see as necessary. 

Discuss !

/signed

Tin Link is an awful card that significantly distorts the environment. It allows any house to use an effect that is typically beyond that house's focus (for example, gives GJ access to repeatable attachment removal). This is particularly troubling given the versatility and convenience of the link when played with TMP. The effect is easily the strongest attachment removal in the game, and made only slightly less strong by the ubiquity of other maester decks, since Tin Link can't target other chain attachments.

I think I am not jumping too far when I conclude that the existence of Tin Link has artificially propped up TMP decks and, in so doing, contributed to the popularity of TMP decks over the past year or so at the expense of more diverse builds.

The restriction of Tin Link would no doubt increase the variety of the competitive landscape, and might even make the Tin Link more useful as an effect, rather than it's current value as a deterrent. For example, if such a restriction resulted in an increase in the use of attachments by players more generally, running the Tin Link may become an attractive choice in certain, maester-heavy decks. But if it does not, then the "soft ban" on Tin Link would still increase variety in the game.

I believe that by pretty much any measure, Tin Link deserves restriction.

Signed again! I agree with everything that has been said.

And… gladly signed.

Making the inherently weakest cardtype in the game even more vulnerable isn't good for the game.

Now if we only got some protection/help for duplicates as well…

Signed Signed Signed.Count me as 3.

Signed. (especially because i love banner bearer!!!)

Is there a reason not to ban it? Hard to imagine a non-TMP deck ever running it

RobotMartini said:

+1. Although a restriction would essentially be a soft-ban since it's primarily there on TMP for utility (against seasons and negative attachments. Pretty much the only attachments run these days seem to be instant effect like Flame-Kissed, or locaiton hate like Frozen Solid.

Running it in the main deck would dramatically decrease its influence over the meta enough so that players probably wouldn't play it. That's fine by me.

/signed

Signed

The ubiquity of Maester decks and the half hearted attempts by R&D to address them is the single biggest factor in my lack of interest in competitive play over the past year or so.

The draw link is a problem too.

Since ever, i believe the true problem of the links are their "only one per phase", i would rewrite all with "only one per round".

In the case of tin link, i believe this link shouldn´t affect to uniques attachments.

Signed!

The ease and frequency that attachemnts can currently be removed greatly reduces their overall value especially when any maester build will most certainly include the Tin Link.  Restricting this card would help bring attachments back as a valid card type to include in competitive decks and increase the flavor, variety and enjoyment of the game.

Restricting it is too harsh, since the number of decks that will run it over The Maester's Path will be miniscule so in practice it's a ban. Why not just errata it, for example hitting only non-unique attachments like suggested above, or changing it so it can only discard attachments of printed cost 1 or less, or removing the Chain trait so it can't start on the agenda? Or making it unable to gain any new traits so it can't hit the Ravens (although why you'd want to give two builds much more old and tired than Maester builds more support I don't know)? It just seems like soft-banning it is unnecessary when Maester decks are already declining in popularity. But it'd seem I'm in the minority, so meh.

JCWamma said:

We want to give attachments a chance, don't we ? This includes non-unique attachments. Why should every house have such an easy access to attachment hate, nerfing an entire card type, at the same time preventing some decks from becoming competitive ?

If Maesters want attachment hate, they still have access to Ill Tidings, but at least they have to put this card into their draw deck, draw it first and then protect it against intrigue challenges. Ill Tidings also can only be used once and also be cancelled by Paper Shield, so all in all, it is a totally reasonable card.

Compare this to Tin Link, which is accessable through the Maesters Path almost at all times, can be used repeatedly, can be recovered by another link and is very hard to cancel. I really don't understand why a card like this even exists.  It's not that attachments were running rampart or anything before Maesters were introduced. So yes, it should be completely nerfed.

Also, putting it on the restricted list is a more elegant solution, as errata should be avoided whenever possible. It is easy to point new players to a restricted list, but having to memorize a long list of errata'd cards is just a pain.

Twn2dn said:

You said that well… I share this opinion.  I feel that Tin Link should be restricted first to see what happens, before an outright ban occurs. 

/signed :)

So, if something is warping the game as much as I gather this must be, how could it be good for it to stick around?