So this post is kind of branching off from ktom's -- I'm just curious what most people think about Valar Morghulis in the current LCG environment.

I'd say there are two main ways that Valar is used -- as a safety valve and as a weapon. Valar can be combined with saves to break the symmetry and make it more of a one-sided effect that hurts your opponent. It can also be tossed into any run of the mill deck with the thought that if your opponent gets off to a much faster start you use "break the glass" on Valar and level the playing field and if your opponent does not get off to a fast start hopefully you can win before turn 7 and never have to flip Valar.

I have seen some people (in ktom's plot thread and elsewhere) voice the opinion that they prefer not to run Valar (either running Wildfire Assault or just no reset). In my experience so far, I have found that sometimes my opponent just comes out faster than me and I can never get back in the game without Valar. Wildfire Assault has been underwhelming for me. Most of the decks that I have played tend to be either aggressive or mid-range (Baratheon, Greyjoy, and Stark) but not slow and not geared towards a really long grind-it-out kind of game. Usually I have kind of an even spread of characters between 0 and 4 gold.

So I just wanted to compare notes with other (more experienced) players. Do you find that Valar is somewhat of a necessity in most decks? Or if not do you find that some games you fall behind early and just can't keep up? Do you take other measures with your decks to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

I was thinking that skewing my character cost a little higher should give me a better chance catching taking advantage of Wildfire Assault rather than Valar. Also, I know that just about any general question about deckbuilding can be answered by "it depends" (eg I'd guess a Targ deck with a lot of burn and Threat from the North could probably do without Valar), but I'm just casting about for different ideas rather than looking for one absolute answer.

Valar hates me. I can't use it right, and it always screws me over.

If I do run Valar instead of Wilfire (I always run a reset), it's only as a weapon to use against my opponent. As such, I only run it out of GJ (due to the large number of saves), Targ (hoppers and recursion from the dead pile), or with the Rookeries from Stark and Lanni (hoping to go first, losing the specific challenge as defender, and wiping the board). The 2 gold and 0 claim just make it too hard for me to bounce back afterwards.

However, it has been used against me in spectacular fashion quite a number of times. Just recently LaughingTree used it on turn 2 to wipe out 5 characters on my side and at most 1 on his. In doing so, he took me down to 5 power from 11. I was playing Bara and had tons of renown and 11 power after the first turn. I was playing a rush deck, and tried to win quickly before he got his Lanni control going. Sadly, I didn't have much in my hand to help me out after that.

Valar's a crutch, Schrechlich.

No one will ever covnicne me dfifferently. Yeah - sometimes out fo greyjoy (and a long time ago out of Stark) you could use Valar wiht saves to create an edge. More often Lanister draw to build up massive card advantage and swing the game with valar. But in either case, ninety nine times out of 100 Valar is simply used to reset the board when your opponent gets an edge on you or to get rid of an early problem character.

its just a crutch - an easy to flip answer to the biggest threat on the baord. Or jsut sit back and leverage draw or reveal to get teh edge and then flip it. Its pretty much as easy a startegy is there si and its a lot more relaible than rush. So PoTS or no - Valar will still be in most decks, at every big tournament and still be leaned on as a crutch.

If Outfox or Outmaneuver ever get reprinted - people will actually ahev to think about including or flipping Valar, but until then I just expect to see it in every game and build accordingly.

I always try to think about Valar when I build a deck. I persoanlly run it in very few decks, much for the same reason that Deathjester citedI have a hard time bouncing back myself. But, I try to assume that EVERY opponent I play will be flipping over Valar at some point. The moment you don't assume that, is the moment you get hosed by it. Then, the only surprises are pleasant ones when you get to the 7th plot and see your opponent is not running Valar.

So, how to build against it? I think there are obvious solutions in a House like Greyjoy, but the other houses have to get more creative. Most game changing, monster characters are Uniques (discounting armies) and many of those are Lord/Ladies. I honestly believe that the most useful card in recent games has been Bodyguard for me. I am a player that loved the books before I ever played the game, and I love having the dynamic unique characters as the focus points of my decks. That said, I need to protect them. If I feel my chances of winning the game would be seriously hindered by the loss of a particular character, I run one extra copy...plus three copies of Bodyguard in just about every deck (except Greyjoy). This could just be because my meta LOVES Valar...seriously, I think 3/4 players run it in just about every deck.

That said, it's not a hard card to plan for. I can usually guess the round that it's going to be flipped. I always try to keep a reserve force of characters in my hand for the reset. If my opponent is going to have 2 gold and zero claim, I see that as my chance to put it away. I would love Outfox to be reprinted as someone else brought up. But not so much for Valar. I actually enjoy playing with Valar hanging over my head...I think it makes me better. I would love Valar for the now VERY popular city plots. Those have ruined more of my chances at winning than Valar has. Getting hit with the kneeling one, then the copy one used to kneel out again...it's just nasty. Standing effects are good in general, but I am finding myself using them more often in decks because of these dang plots. With the new city plots, I think it's high time for Outfox (or Outmaneuver), or another kind of when revealed cancel. It was such a great part of the plot phase...Now, I am someone that loves the current card pool and you'll not hear me lamenting "the good ol' days" (anymore). It's not so much the desire for old cards, as it is the desire for counters. Every big play in the game should have a counter...some way to cancel or offset it, or use it to your advantage. Right now the city plots don't have much to counter their effectiveness.

i find valar to be an absolute necessity in every deck i play joust and, in theory, multi for exactly that reason; there are games in which the opponent just comes out faster, or gets an edge, or has better luck in topdecking than you, and so long as you're used to playing around valar when you're ahead (using some of the methods you cited most often for me, building up card advantage in lanni ;-) ) it tends not to be a problem. it's a huge asset, and it would be a very, very rare deck indeed in which i would not include it.

I have to agree on the fact that it would be nice to have some better ways of nullifying Valar, since I think it's the primary reason for being so strong is consistency. There is only one way (in the whole environment) I can think of that can stop you from playing it. Thus it becomes THE easiest way of controlling the game. If the environment had some kind of cancel plot against valar. It would force players to think more about which plots to use for controlling the game, and open up the plot choices a bit more.

I would still be interested in finding out if any Stark players have had success with denying Valar with Malleon's Tome, as I feel this would be a good way of making a high military claim deck playable in Joust. Something like playing City of Lies on the first turn to get it into shadows without having to pay too much for it, then using City of Soldiers and City of Spiders as good additional 2 claim plots, that can also weed off claim soak to help with the military overwhelming.

Finite, in some ways, it's nice to hear my observation backed up by a much more accomplished. On the other hand, I'm disappointed that there's not easy to implement deckbuilding strategy that I overlooked.

I actually tend to disagree with the sentiment that a plot cancel is needed as a foil for Valar. With the low gold and claim, I tend to think of Valar as being fairly balanced. There are already some conditional answers in the forms of The Power of Blood and Stay of Execution. Also, Good for the Gander is a decent answer to someone trying to use saves to break Valar since most saves in the format can not be used twice in the same turn very easily. Then there's the tome, but it seems to require a bit too much hoop-jumping for my tastes.

To me, Valar is usually a way to equalize the board after my opponent gets off to a faster start. I haven't played too much Lannister, though I could see Valar becoming abusive there if the early turns were used to establish some extra card draw with things like Golden Tooth Mines. For the other houses though (where I have gotten most of my experience), card draw depends on doing some hoop jumping like winning challenges for Longship Iron Victory or playing an attachment with influence to spare for Xaro's Home. So falling behind on board position also ends up leading to falling behind on card draw. It's hard to claw back from being behind on the board when you are also being outdrawn. That's where Valar tends to come in for me.

This is something that I've just started picking up on in my own games, so the next few times I play I plan on paying attention to how the first couple turns develop to see how the board position develops and if there's any changes I could make to my decks to make them more consistent.

schrecklich said:

Unless you spend the first round or so building up your draw engine, then flipping Valar to reset the character-based board position. Your draw engine is left in-tact, but your opponent may be hurting.

Good thread.

After playing in both a non-Valar environment in CCG and with Valar in LCG I must say I like the play environment with Valar much better than the play environment without Valar or with having Valar easily countered by a Counter Everything plot (Outfox) that was an absolute staple in every single plot deck for every player that owned that Rare card irrespective of House. If any plot card was a "crutch", Outfox was a crutch. There is already plenty of Valar protection available (from Power of Blood, to Bodyguards to other save effects like Lightbringer or Iron Mines).

Certain Houses benefit from Vala more than others. Shadows decks, Targaryen and Greyjoy benefit while Baratheon rush and Stark to a lesser extent are hurt more. This is a good thing in my opinion as currently all Houses are more balanced in competitiveness (although Lanni still has advantage imo).

And Syd, haha the City plots already have a huge downside that some certain players have already exploited

Low gold + low initiative. To be honest I have been waiting for a certain few plots that really, really hurt that deck that are just not popular plots in our NoCal meta. Absolutely no need to reprint the auto-include in every deck Counter Anything plot Outfox. Or if that effect is reprinted it should NOT be a 3-6-1 plot. It should be more like 3-0-0 in LCG.

Stag Lord said:

QFT!

How is a 3/6/1 plot that may, OR MAY NEVER, actually work for you a crutch?

There needs to be a plot cancel. Not just to cancel things, but to make people think about when to play things. It makes the plot phase much more dynamic whether you manage to cancel anything or not.

As for the city plots having any sort of draw back, maybe in most houses, but I'm afraid Lanni negates all of those draw backs. Low plot gold? Lanni! Low initiative? Who freakin' cares out of Lanni?

ktom said:

Right, I hinted at this kind of strategy when I mentioned Golden Tooth Mines. I guess there is also the King's Landing draw engine. Besides those two, card draw starts to depend on board position (Longship Iron Victory, Wind Dancer, Xaro's Home, etc.... also, Bear Island can provide a similar kind of incremental advantage). The thought process that led me to start the thread though is that I can acknowledge that there are certain strategies that try to break the symmetry of Valar whether it be through weathering Valar with saves, focusing more heavily on events, locations and attachments than creatures, or recovering more quickly from Valar through card advantage. However, in my experience, I have found that, even when I have more straightforward (other less kind words might be "newbie" or "simple-minded") strategy like Greyjoy unopposed or Baratheon renown and vigilant/stand, I find that there are some games when I get a slower draw and need a reset like Valar to pull back into the game. I am curious if my experience was something common to less experienced players that can be avoided with better deckbuilding or if it's something that is just acknowledged (by including Valar in almost all decks) or if it's just me

On the matter of Outmaneuver, I see it as more of a crutch because there's no other direct way to deal with it than timing. Valar (and other resets) can generally be mitigated through a variety of effects (dupes, save abilities, CBK) that may be available on a variety of cards. Outmaneuver on the other hand, inherently has no card based countermeasure.

Still, I think my biggest worry with the return of Outmaneuver or the like has to do with Baratheon noble based power rush. This style of deck already essentially has the first 3 turns of the game locked up in their favor as the first turn an opponent is unlikely to open with Valar (or have a big enough target to warrant it) so they are free to open with high gold, then follow the next two turns with Power of Blood to ensure their board dominance and the safety of their rush until the start of turn 4. The addition of Outmaneuver (or any extremely similar plot) would essentially give them the first 4 turns of utter safety, which I'm rather loathe to grant.

~Because Bara Rush is so dominant in the LCG and has a history of dominance in AGOT. Good thing we don't give them everything they need. Archetypes like Lanni kneel and Targ burn need the extra help because they have no history of success.

Deathjester26 said:

Jonny,

3-6-1 amounts to strong stats for an LCG plot especially when the suggestion is that it is needed because of the City plots and Valar. City are mostly 1-3 gold and 0-1 initiative and Valar is 2-0-0. Outfox being able to cancel resets and the City effects is incredibly strong at 3-6-1. And there is already an awful lot of thought involved in when to Valar. While second turn Valar against you in that tournament, in the very next match in the Finals against Syd's Martell deck my second turn Valar turned into a misplay that allowed Martell (with no City plots) to absolutely demolish that Lanni shadow build on the third turn. Or the next week when cha0s' Joffrey + 2 copies of Power of Blood made every triggered effect and Valar useless. There are plenty of counters to Valar and City plots already in existence that there is absolutely no need for the old Auto Include in Every Deck irrespective of House or Strategy Plot Cancel.

The low gold and low initiative is extremely negative. Try playing City plots in Targaryen like I did for weeks taking losses and you will see they are not nearly as strong outside of specific Lanni Shadows builds that are built around those specific plots.

I agree that Lanni is still top dog but I believe that is so because Lanni is the most balanced house, has the best in house draw engine and has several competitive builds. However any individual Lanni build is beatable by a Martell or Greyjoy build as the last Worlds and our NoCal meta tournaments have shown. But instead of just doing the simple, boring thing (re-releasing a old staple that was an Auto-Include) I believe the solution is to careful buff the other Houses to make all 6 competitively balanced to Lannister. I don't think nerfs or reprinting old stand-by cards makes for the best solution. Why not lobby for a few more mechanics be included in other Houses instead (I personally dont think GJ or Martell needs much more at the moment but the other 3 do)?

So far I see the reason against bringing back Outfox, or Outmaneuver, is that they were auto includes. But isn't this whole thread about how Valar is an auto include? Other than saves and Power of Blood, which I still think doesn't mitigate Valar since you still kill every non-noble character, what other answers are there to Valar? And wouldn't having Outfox mean that you wouldn't need to include saves or Power of Blood, and a lot of nobles, thereby letting you open your deck up for much more exciting stuff? I mean isn't it good whenever a card allows for more builds?

The way I look at is is that people don't want to have one card essentially counter many more cards in their deck. If I Outfox Valar then I am not only countering the plot, but I am also countering any other strategy you may have had that is reliant on that plot going off. You don't get to have board position anymore by saving three or four of your dudes while I save none of mine. You don't get to use other responses to characters dying or whatnot. But shouldn't that be a risk to any strategy that you set up? That it doesn't work? Again let's go back to Power of Blood. What if you are playing a house without too many nobles? What if you have a deck that doesn't utilize that many nobles? Do you just say "Too bad. Your deck isn't viable. You don't have any nobles and Power of Blood!"? I think that is the problem here. Without a counter to Valar, and Power of Blood is a special kind of counter only relevant to a few builds, then there is no risk to running it. And I think there should always be a risk to running a card that has such an impact on the game.

Staton said:

Staton,

You raise a lot of issues here. First I will say that I believe having Valar in the current environment allows for more viable competitive builds that if Valar was not in the environment. Second, I have yet to see a sound argument for why Outfox is needed again in the environment. For one thing I agree with what Dormouse said in the other thread and the LCG Thrones will not continue to grow and evolve as it could if people simply want X card from old CCG reprtined. But more important, I see cards like Outfox as simplistic solutions. I don't think the best solution to one auto-include Plot is just to re-print another auto-include counter any When Revealed plot. Third, I simply don't see a simplistic Counter any when revealed plot as making more builds viable. I'd rather see some reliable draw power and some more balance in every house.

The way I look at is is that people don't want to have one card essentially counter many more cards in their deck. If I Outfox Valar then I am not only countering the plot, but I am also countering any other strategy you may have had that is reliant on that plot going off. You don't get to have board position anymore by saving three or four of your dudes while I save none of mine. You don't get to use other responses to characters dying or whatnot. But shouldn't that be a risk to any strategy that you set up? That it doesn't work? Again let's go back to Power of Blood. What if you are playing a house without too many nobles? What if you have a deck that doesn't utilize that many nobles? Do you just say "Too bad. Your deck isn't viable. You don't have any nobles and Power of Blood!"? I think that is the problem here. Without a counter to Valar, and Power of Blood is a special kind of counter only relevant to a few builds, then there is no risk to running it. And I think there should always be a risk to running a card that has such an impact on the game.

Sorry Staton but I guess we can agree to disagree.

I see many, many viable answers to Valar so I don't see any need for a Counter any When Revealed staple Plot to be re-printed.

In addition to Power of Blood, you have Bodyguard, Greyjoy has tons of saves, Bara has lightbringer, Gilded Plate in Lanni, Pentos in Targ, Dupes can be used as saves, with Alliance reprint 0 cost Iron Mines can be used in any House, etc. Then there are the tactical play counters to Valar, as the other thread demonstrates most run more characters now in LCG than before, flip a high gold plot against the 2-0-0 as some players have.

Finally I am not quite convinced Valar is a auto-include in the current play environment. Syd has done just fine with new Martell without Valar against two very different but very strong Lanni builds. Personally I would bet Outfox would be included in more decks than Valar.

Haha, Staton, go double check dictionary.com. Power of Blood does mitigate Valar. I didn't say it counters.

I think I agree with Laughing Tree. I've been doing quite well lately with a Martell deck using Wildfire Assualt instead of Valar. As well, when' you're using Valar, you already have to deal with a number of issues- low gold, no initiative, and no claim on the plot along with the possibility of your opponent having saves or CBK, or the possibility of being forced by the timing of the game to play Valar and destroy your own board position. It already has quite a string of pitfalls that need to be carefully navigated. Outmaneuver has none. Three gold is solid, six initiative is really quite great, and one claim is pretty standard. And of course, the ability is never going to backfire and hurt you. Really, I see much more thoughtless auto-include potential in a straight Outmaneuver reprint than I currently see with Valar.

Well, at least this thread makes Dormouse look smart.

Kennon said:

Hey Kennon, go double check tzumainn.com/agot. Outmaneuver doesn't have three gold or six initiative.

Now, first of all, I agree that you probably don't want a straight reprint of Outfox, and I'd actually be more inclined to make it something like Outmaneuver. In fact, I'll propose a new card.

Outwit

2/2/1

Cancel the "when revealed" text of each opponent's first plot card this phase. Any player who revealed a "when revealed" plot may choose and reveal a new plot once during this phase.

Low gold, initiative, but still has claim. Now it gives the opponent a chance to switch to a new plot, but they don't have to like with Outmaneuver. I'm sure the wording could be cleaned up a bit, but you get the idea. I say that this plot would be pretty prevalent but only in decks that actually need to cancel something like Valar, or just a super control deck. It wouldn't be as much as an auto include as everyone is afraid that Outfox would be. Plus if you just throwout some random when revealed, then just switch into Valar anyway.

Also, every answer to Valar is a save, with the exception of Power of Blood (~which only mitigates Valar, so that doesn't really count. ). I don't want to have to bog my deck down with saves. A few dupes, a few bodyguards, sounds good to me. I think those should go in almost every deck, but that isn't going to get me through Valar. I'm completely fine with having to put in certain types of cards as answers to something my opponent may have. Attachment control I'm fine with. You have it in there or you might lose due to an attachment. But at the most that's like MAYBE five cards. and that's pushing it. Its usually more like three. Now if I want to build in an answer to Valar, I have to take up possibly two slots in my plot deck, or maybe even three if I want to include alliance so I can run Iron Mines. Then I have to take up at least nine slots worth of saves. Iron Mines x 3, Bodyguard x 3, and at least three dupes. Probably more. And then since I'm running Power of Blood x 2, then I have to run more nobles than I probably want. Whereas if I could use a plot cancel, I would just take up one slot in my plot deck and I'd be free to build my draw deck however I wanted. Thereby making more decks viable.

I'm still confused on how having a plot cancel around would make less decks viable. The only problem I see is that people would have to be strategic with their plots, which they already have to be with Valar and the city plots, but things like A Time for Ravens people never look at that and say, man I wonder if I should play this or put down this non-when revealed plot to try and soak up Outfox. Having a plot cancel around would really make the plot phase more dynamic and strategic. And you can only have one of your seven plots canceled. And its not like every plot is when revealed, unless you're playing the city plots. But screw that, you still have six more to use. I think that if people actually played with a plot cancel it wouldn't be nearly as bad as they think.

Also, I just realized that I didn't talk about the "play a high gold plot against Valar" argument. Yeah that's all well and good, but if you are playing a non-lanni or martell house, who's to say you even HAVE that many cards in your hand to warrant playing a high gold plot? There really isn't that much card draw so by the time you get to Valar, and let's say its on the third turn, you don't have that many cards in your hand. What good is a high gold plot going to do then?

Staton said:

Arg! That's what I get for posting at 2:30 am after a hard night of AGOTing. Touché, ser.

I think I've finally managed nail down the concept that troubles me about it. While I can very easily see Valar (or any reset) used as a weapon, they generally have low enough stats and a high enough potential to hit you as well, that I don't see them being the lock for the win on that turn. Whereas I see a plot like Outfox as the key to ensuring that your opponent can't alter your winning gamestate so that you can win that turn.

~Isn't it nice that the list of possible ways of counteracting Valar didn't include many for Stark... which I really feel got the shortest end of the stick with the King's Landing expansion anyways, and is the house that becomes night unplayable due to the combination of Valar and not enough draw/intrigue.

Because when we're talking about non-Martell/Lannister (high draw) that don't play only nobles (Power of Blood + Baratheon) and don't have a good potential for in-house saves (GJ) we're only left with Stark and Targaryen. Of these Targ has better intrigue, more draw (at least from discard) and jumpers to help with Valar. So the one left out is... the same deck that would propably benefit most from some more options for outwitting (heh) Valar. Of course such a plot would not be the only way of affecting the card pool to fix this...

Staton said:

Staton, I respect your opinion but I disagree. Ill break down my points:

1. Plot Phase Strategy

You also talk about making the plot phase "more dynamic and strategic". I am just not seeing how Outfox makes the plot phase more strategic. It seems to me that it would make things far less strategic. As has been mentioned, its pretty clear when Valar is necessary to just keep someone in the game. A fast deck would simply flip Outfox and boom, the slow deck suddenly has no chance of coming back. The thing about the City plots strong effects is that they are keyed on how many City plots are in the used pile. They are much stronger on plot turns 6 and 7 than on plot turns 2 and 8. This means that putting Outfox in the environment suddenly gives fast decks a no-thought, simplified answer to slower control decks that don't gear up until plot turns 4/5 or so. Currently the plot phase in LCG environment with Valar seems far more strategic than it ever did in the Five Kings era when just about every competitive deck had Fury of.., Outfox, Empty the Vaults and On Raven's/Benjen's Cache. Currently different houses have different solutions to Valar instead of everyone just not thinking and including Outfox.

Personally I would rather see some different, newer solutions. Maybe have some effects that make others immune from being killed or discarded. Maybe a power of the Warcrest to save Warcrest. Stark could get something keys off Winter. I would much, much rather see some new creative and innovative solutions to combos rather than just 'Reprint old staple card that everyone used to love".

Myself, I both won a game by another player using Valar and hurting himself more than myself and lost a game when playing Valar hurt me more than my Martell opponent. It already is a double edged sword that takes experience and timing to maximize its usefulness in a deck. Play it in the wrong plot phase right now, and it is an instant loss rather than a potent reset.

2. Deck Competitiveness

Again I fail to see how Valar makes the environment less diverse. Consider this from our local environment. Syd has already estimated that our local environment uses Valar in roughly 3/4 of total decks

Last two weeks we had 8 man mini-tournaments.

Here is top 4 from past 2 weeks:

1)

2 Martell, 1 Lanni Shadows, 1 Baratheon.

1 Deck with Valar

2)

2 Lanni, 1 Martell, 1 Greyjoy

2 Decks with Valar

So in two weeks, with roughly 3/4 of all decks containing Valar, one week only 1 in 4 makes top four and next week 2 Valar decks make it and two non-Valar make it. Both weeks a non-Valar Martell deck wins the tournament. So clearly Valar decks are not dominating our local environment and we have many skilled players both very old and new.

3. Deck Construction

I don't see the addition of plot cancel making more decks viable. Rather I see as making a few currently existing decktypes with an easy solution instead of nudging players to build more creatively.

The situation you describe is not more decks being viable. What you describe is a way to simplify the deck building process. Instead of thinking through how your deck will respond to a reset like Valar, the answer becomes simply "oh just throw in Outfox". Adding Outfox is not, imo, going to make a single decktype more viable, its simply going to provide every existing deck type with a simplified, one size fits all solution to the best card to allow a slow deck to be able to come back against faster decks.

Again I'd rather see new cards like say a Targ attachment to house that prevents Warcrest characters from leaving play or a new Caitlin that allows her to be replaced by Lady Stoneheart if she leaves play.

New mechanics specific for in each house would be a much more interesting solution than re-printing every old staple plot than everyone used to love in any deck.

Or just give each House (except Lanni) better draw engines. Some good players used to never worry about resets since they were so confident in their deck's draw power to re-assert itself.

Some things to consider, cheers Staton.

Kennon said:

But Valar turns into a weapon when the other deck hasn't built his deck for Valar. I just think that having a plot cancel would make people have to actually think when playing plots and make Valar a bit more of a choice than a "I might as well" card. I mean when Valar was around the first time, did Outmaneuver make people stop playing Valar? Sure didn't. People just learned to play around it.

Also, Laughing Tree, thanks for this discussion! I am loving it! We haven't had much discussion like this in quite awhile. At least not that I've been a part of

Anyway, I'll try and address your points.

1.You're right. A straight reprint of outfox would be bad. That's why I brought up an idea of a new plot. With that plot it would be impossible to stop Valar in those situations where it is needed to keep someone in the game. You just play another when revealed plot and then switch into Valar. And if you are afraid that the rush deck isn't going to play Outwit, then play Wildfire. Then you either get a partial reset or a full reset. Plus, its kind of boring that people can just play any when revealed plot they want and have no fear of it getting canceled. The low initiative and low gold of the city plots is easily countered by just having a bit more resource in your draw deck and those plots fit a control deck perfectly which usually wants to go second anyway, so they're fine going second. And a non control deck usually wants to go first. So either you go first and give them the advantage, or you go second and lose your advantage. Win/Win for the control deck.

2.I'm not saying that Valar dominates the environment. I just think that right now its WAY easier to build a control deck than say a rush deck or a combo deck because of Valar. and I think that Control decks should ALWAYS be the trickiest to build. What I'm seeing here is that most people want to play control decks. They don't like rush decks. But I think that they should be just as viable. Sure you can use bara and use nobles and saves and whatnot. but I think that really waters down the rush. Its not as strong as it could be. Again giving the edge to the control decks. When I say I want more decks types viable, I mean something other than control. Right now control is dominating. I don't even remember the last time I saw a good rush deck. If I'm wrong though, please show me a good rush deck! I've been looking for a good build and haven't figured it out.

3.I agree, it would make deck construction easier. but the more important part is that it would make deck construction POSSIBLE for some deck types. I mean who wants to run a rush deck right now? I mean run one and hope to win? Or even a combo deck. I haven't seen a combo deck since I started playing again. Maybe I'm missing them? and right now I think that there is alot more focus on deck construction than playing skill. If I build a bara rush deck and play against a lannister city plots deck, then no amount of skill on my part is going to make me win that game. I might get lucky and the lanni player just doesn't get any draw at all, but as long as both decks get prime flops and prime draws, the control deck is going to win regardless of skill level. And I mean skill level at the highest play level. Not something like a guy who's been playing for a week against Dobbler. I mean two guys who have been playing about the same amount of time, and one is better at playing and one is better at deck building let's say.

I guess my point is that control decks have an overwhelming favor in the current environment. I would agree that it would be nice to see alternative answers to help rush decks or combo decks(~or just stark decks in general! ), and I even like alot of your suggestions, but I still think that a new balanced plot cancel would be good for the environment. Even if Valar wasn't around, having someone have to make a hard choice on whether or not to play a plot is always a good thing imo.

WWDrakey, I'm not sure that Stark got the shortest end of the stick in King's Landing Edition. They just didn't get tools for the standard build. Instead, they had an entirely new decktype opened up to them- Shadows. Seriously, as I've seen play out down here, Stark is arguably an even better house to run the Shadows Agenda out of and kick some serious ass. Incidently, utilizing Shadows cards provides another way to mitigate Valar and other resets.

Staton, I think you're missing how initiative should be utilized. If you're playing a control deck utilizing low initiative plots and your opponent wins, they don't go ahead and let you go second- which would have been your plan anyway if you had won initiative, instead you get stuck going first and hopefully negating some of your control effects for the turn. What you lose with the low initiative is the ability to choose, and a smart opponent is going to make you take the option that is worse for you. Also, rush is doing pretty well, I think. I saw some solid Baratheon rush at GenCon and Jeppedo continues to do well with a variety on that deck. Kevin who made it to the final table in melee with me has been playing Baratheon rush here as well. I've also had some good luck with Greyjoy rush lately, though my deck still needs some streamlining. Combo decks on the other hand.... lets be honest, it's not that there haven't been any viable combo decks since you came back. It's more that there've been what? 2 combo decks in the history of AGOT? The Gossiping Bard was quickly errata'ed to stop the combo, which leaves the infamous 'Septon' deck as the only truly 'viable' combo deck in the game's history that I can recall.

~Also, don't think I didn't notice you not compliment me on the discussion.