Stag Lord said:

Potentially immediately, considering that with FoW gone, you are free to play a Lord or Lady in the same Marshaling that you played Margaery and trigger the Responses on the Entourages you just chucked.

My own earlier point, which goes along with Stag's here, was that even if you don't use Margaery to have them replace FoW with RBD during Marshaling of Round 1, they're probably going to use that same RBD during Plot of Round 2. Either way, you're losing the same 4 cards, right? So why is Margaery-into-RBD-Round 1 supposed to be so much more devastating than waiting until the plot phase of Round 2 to get hosed by RBD in exactly the same way? You aren't losing anything by using Margaery, and depending on the 4 cards you keep - that you can now use! - after the RBD replaces the FoW, you could end up gaining quite a bit.

bloodycelt said:

Yeah, I kind of had a bee-line into that deck's Achilles' Heel. ~ Paper covers rock.

No response to my thoughts on what Narrow Escape brings to the table for the Seige FoW decks versus Valar?

Kennon said:

if its between playing 1 card from my hand and you having board or discarding 7 cards from my hand, drawing 2 more then playing 1 one of those (whileyou can't play any more) to keep you from board....i'll discard my hand just about every time.

ktom said:

Also note: Nobody expects plot screw, you can trip them up. If they built their deck around first turn fow (which in many cases you have to), then you just did

rock breaks scissors on them. Especially if Uneasy Truce or Power of Blood was your plot.

Lars said:

In the sheer card advantage numbers game though, that gives a sizeable lead to the other side as they still have cards in hand while neither of you has characters on the board, though possibly locations. Unless of course you're running Greg's Agenda. In which case things alter, but I'm still not sure how positively it alters things.

Kennon said:

Well, you'll need to draw it in your opening hand - along with the 1 or 2 Epic Battle events - you were hoping for. The more pieces you need to draw in your opening hand, the more fragile it becomes as a reliable strategy.

And Narrow Escape becomes your 1 card for the round - thanks to your own FoW. Essentially, your FoW/Narrow Escape combo means you get to play no cards this round while your opponent gets to play 1, which could make all the difference. Hope your flop was awesome because it is effectively all you are going to get this round. And that, of course, assumes that I don't look at it the way Lars did.

So sure, Narrow Escape could help make the first turn Valar easier for the Siege FoW decks to deal with, but I don't see it as creating a real advantage or strong counter to the Valar. Resetting the reset is not necessarily going to put you on top, especially if it is all you get to do that round. Personally, I like Narrow Escape as an anti-Siege deck card. "Go ahead and beat up on me during Challenges. Now I play Narrow Escape to get everything back - standing - before going into that Epic phase." If my plot was Uneasy Peace, how is this round working out for you beyond about 3 power?

Kennon said:

This assumes Lars doesn't throw RBD second turn - as he was likely planning to do against your Siege deck anyway. Your sizable card advantage just went from about 7-to-1 down to 4-to-1.

So I'm not really quitting, but man I sure did cause quite the discussion! For the record though, I think the plot just needs to be banned. I can't think of an errata that could be put on it and make it worthwhile. I understand that I'm probably in the minority, but oh well. The plot is just dumb and makes me not want to play certain houses.

As for the narrow escape, I think its dumb also. I mean if you are building a deck with FoW first turn then you probably have lots of cheap beefy dudes. If they Valar first turn then they are losing whatever characters they flopped, now have zero claim, and you have two claim. They have two gold, the same as you, but you are ready for the two gold. Valar just has seemed like a superdumb panic move to me. I mean play Valar second or third turn where you can dump your hand or something. Playing a valar and then only getting to play one card is just beyond pointless to me. Especially if they have something in shadows, which almost every fear of winter deck I've seen runs.

Stag Lord said:

Haha, ~I keep on forgetting "outsiders" are on these forums as well.

But yeah, apologizing for something you didn't even do doesn't really make much sense.

bloodycelt said:

You should have have taken the mulligan since Eddard can't be played on the flop (his text box is blank on Setup)

bloodycelt said:

Yeah, I suppose there would be many instances where the 10 power doesn't really matter as Bara/Martell really is all about resilience and rush, but sometimes one or two match-ups where it does matter can make the difference between winning or losing a tournament. The 10 power (or technically -5 power) I think is a bigger issue for decks that don't rush as fast (i.e. Lanni/Martell?) or aren't as potent (i.e. Martell/Greyjoy).

Staton said:

~Darn, was really hoping I had your last two games.

I'm actually a very big proponent of playing Valar first turn. I've won many games, including against Seige decks, because I played Valar first turn. A reason why it's often not worth waiting until second or third turn is because if you're opponent really has that much board advantage over you, it doesn't make sense to fight an uphill battle only to fall back down a turn or two later with Valar. You might as well start the slate clean. If you don't, you're wasting plots that would have helped you after your first turn Valar. Why blow your Fury when those characters will be killed anyway? Use it instead to build up your arsenal after you Valar. Your opponent having cards in the Shadows doesn't help, but whose to say you can't have cards in the Shadows?

This is what happened at the DC Regional in the final match against Dan and Erick. Dan was playing Targ-Wildling (prior to the -2 cost Wildling Agenda) and Erick was running his Lanni hyper-kneel. Dan had a very strong flop (six or so cards with about 5 characters on the board) while Erick had a flop of about three cards with one character on the board. After much contemplation, Erick decided to reveal Valar and Dan revealed Fear of Winter. Dan actually had control the first few rounds as he pumped out more characters, but Erick's control eventually kicked into gear. As the 6th and 7th round came up, Dan was going to be forced to play Valar (crippling his board position and ability to re-marshall) while Erick could continue to be aggressive with his remaining non-Valar plots. Since Dan played Valar 7th round, Erick went all out and the game was pretty much over (Erick very likely would have won even if Dan played Valar 6th round). Putting aside a critical 2-claim military challenge Dan accidentally goofed up in the third? round (he forgot about Toll Gate), Dan, Erick, Paul (RedTerror), and I came to the conclusion that Erick playing Valar first turn was the best play. Maybe if Dan didn't play Fear it wouldn't have been, but he did.

My point is that Erick had to fight an uphill battle from the very beginning of the game. He was going to have to Valar at some point within the first few rounds. By playing it first round he insured that he'd never have to fight against his own deck. I'm pretty certain Dan would have just kept characters in hand until Erick played Valar anyway. In this case, and I believe in many others, playing Valar first turn was the right thing to do.

FATMOUSE said:

You should have have taken the mulligan since Eddard can't be played on the flop (his text box is blank on Setup)

Not blank - just not active since setup is not specifically mentioned as part of his ability. And not applicable anyway since you are not playing him during setup.

People need to get away from this short-hand of "card text is blank during setup." If it was, how would a card like Obara Sand work at all?

@Fatmouse. If Erick hadn't chosen to play Valar first turn, wouldn't Dan then be given the choice of either laying out enough characters to overcome the control or hold characters until valar showed up? Either way, Erick is still having the advantage. Plus he could've gone first and potentially gotten a challenge off as well. I don'tk now, I just see valar as a bad play first turn.

ktom said:

I stand corrected. I'll try to remember that text is not active (unless noted otherwise) on cards during Setup.

Staton said:

Yes, Dan could and would have kept his characters in hand, but that's only a better reason to Valar first turn. Holding out on Valar doesn't mean you'll be able to kill more of your opponents characters. So Dan would have held out on characters, but Erick would have had to held out on characters as well. Erick's only character on the flop was a Weaponsmith. Even if he did go first (only City of Lies or Fury would have allowed that for certain, both of which are really a waste against Fear) and play another character, Dan had enough characters with enough strength to ward off any intrigue challenges. He probably would have let the military and power challenges go unopposed so he could steal the two power during his 2-claim power challenge. Erick would have realized this and probably not declare any challenges. Dan would have killed both of Erick's characters with a military challenge, and then go for the unopposed intrigue and power challenges. Erick may have won Dominance in this scenario, but let's look at the picture at the end of the first round:

Dan - 2 to 6 Power, 4 to 5 characters, 8 cards in hand

Erick - 0 to 1 Power , 0 characters, 6 cards in hand

Now if Erick plays Valar:

Dan - 0 to 2 Power (he can effectively only declare one challenge and dominance), 1 character, 8 cards in hand

Erick - 0 to 2 Power (potential unopposed and dominance), 0 to 1 characters, 6 or 8 cards in hand

How is Valar NOT the better choice? Not only did City of Lies and Fury not go to waste, but Erick was able to use them to rebuild his board presence, which he helped equalize with Valar. He could have played City of Secrets first turn, but who went first would be a toss up, and he'd still be in a scenario where he's forced to Valar within the next two rounds. Then he'd have to struggle to build up again only to face Dan's Valar a few rounds later. Again, why face an uphill battle only to knock yourself back down, when you can bring both players to a relatively equal footing and struggle from there?

After setup, the next most important part of the game, IMO, is first round plot selection. This is especially true with Fear around. Playing Valar first turn can often be an extremely foolish choice, but under the right conditions it can lead to your victory. I've done it to win, strong opponents (one of which who used believe playing Valar first turn was dumb) have done it to win, and I've seen others do it to win. Erick won the DC Regionals doing it, and if I'm not mistaken, Greg claimed to have won a game last year at GenCon because he played Valar first turn (it may have actually been against Erick). As Paul (RedTerror) always says at our NYC meet-ups, "V[alar] is for Victory."

Fatmouse, KTOM to be fair...

I doubt I actually flopped Eddard during setup since it would have been noted. (That happened at NYC If I recall, I do forget sometimes). But turn 1 was mostly eddard and a 0 cost limited location (forget which one), and he was in my hand at the time... regardless a mistake.

I've often thought of just wrapping my head in chicken and bread since my brain is obviously swiss-cheese.

As for first turn valar, it depends. I feel you should only do it if you have a second reset like westeros bleeds. After all, you have no opportunity to eat away at the opponent's hand. Valar only provides the advantage if the opponent doesn't have the cards in hand to get back, or if they have a lot of power on their characters. In many cases Threat from the North may be a better first turn play since it also prevents them from playing cheap characters early on.

I also feel that if you are playing control, you need to force the opponent to over extend themselves, and THEN valar. If you are playing rush you want to force the opponent to feel that he has no choice but to valar early, giving you control over the reset for the rest of the game.

A Lanni player could do valar turn 1 and then wildfire on turn 3/4 since he usually can get 2-3 repeatable kneel options which makes wildfire a 3-0 character advantage.

I have often found that the earlier the better with valar. IF you are holding on to it too long it often bites you in the ass (see alec and erick's semifinal game where erick's turn 7 valar, as he ran out of turns to avoid it, hurt him a lot more then alec). With my treaty deck if someone had more then 3 cards (and all military icons) valar first turn was a no brianer (no way could I give them up to 6 power that first turn when they only needed 10). In the one game I did play against siege I was almost kicking myself for not valaring 1st turn (thankfully he did not play Fow) and valared 2nd turn I believe.

At GenCon, I had TWO games with a first turn Valar - the first against Dobbler, the second against Erick. Both decks were wildling themed, and both times they flopped Val. (Dobbler also flopped Orell, but that was just gravy).

Rather than have to deal with, potentially, 3 extra cards a turn getting spat out at me, I just wiped her from the start. Plus, I assumed that both would be running multiple copies of her, so that's 1-2 cards in their decks that just turned useless.

Also, you don't need a second reset, such Widfire Assault or Westeros Bleeds (did anybody even run this at GenCon?), since odds are 95% of the time your opponent will be running a second character reset for you. (Of course, the metagame on this could change eventually) Not surprisingly, Erick's own reset hurt him in the semi-finals. I remember us briefly discussing whether or not it was worth running Valar as it was almost certain your opponent would be running it for you. We decided that against "beefier" match-ups (i.e. Wildlings) it was better to run it, but against control match-ups it wasn't. Erick concluded that control match-ups would be less of a concern and decided to run Valar.

Why would you want to put the 2nd reset timing in your opponent's hands? To me that gives the opponent a significant advantage.

bloodycelt said:

In games that last longer than 7 rounds, the 2nd reset timing often gives your opponent very little advantage. If anything, it can hurt your opponent more than it can hurt you (i.e. Dan and Erick's game at the DC Regional and Alec and Erick's game at GenCon). Games going past 7 rounds are generally won by the player with the best draw engine, not who has control of the 2nd reset timing. If your deck isn't geared to pull a rush after a first turn Valar or maintain control and then flourish after the 7th round, then your opponent having the 2nd reset timing may hurt you. However, most strong decks and players will be able to pull off one or the other.

Again, I'm not saying first turn Valar is always the right choice. Often is isn't, but I've seen it win games too many times to have it's practice be discredited.

You mean an opponent would put valar in his plot deck if he did not have saves or a good enough draw engine to put it to good use?

On the first turn the opponent can recover from a first turn valar, wouldn't you rather save it for the killing blow. eat his hand so he's got nothing in play and 2 cards in hand (after draw). While you saved your important characters.

bloodycelt said:

Yes, because pretty much everyone uses it as a "just in case I need it, or this has gone too far" plot. Having saves and a good draw engine are nice for your deck, but players don't run Valar because they have those things. Just for clarification, I said whoever has the better draw engine tends to win. Both players can be drawing extra cards, but the player that draws more tends to win in a 7+ round match-up.

bloodycelt said:

True, but they can pretty much do this any turn if they out-flopped you. Also, it's a bit difficult to recover from a first turn Valar if Fear of Winter is revealed.

bloodycelt said:

If you have 1 or 2 characters in play, and your opponent has 4-6 or a character like Val, Valar is going to be a killing blow. Your opponent's board advantage will prevent him from playing more characters until he needs (i.e. Until you reset).

bloodycelt said:

How do you plan on eating away at his hand? If anything your hand is likely going to be the one that will be eaten. How do you plan on saving for your important characters, when you have to marshall characters to catch up to your opponent's board advantage? Then you're going to Valar a turn or two later because your opponent still has board advantage against you?

But again, and maybe I'm not emphasizing this enough or elaborating on this point sufficiently, Valar first turn is SITUATIONAL. If you believe you can catch up or surpass your opponent in board presence, then you shouldn't Valar first turn. Valar is an equalizer, but if you can get hold of equal footing by other means, then chances are you should. For example, if you flop The Red Viper and your opponent has out-flopped you, you probably shouldn't reveal Valar. There's even more reason to not reveal Valar if you have saves in your hand (i.e. Dupes, Bodyguard, Iron Mines, etc.). Instead, you're probably better off revealing Power of Blood. Once you get your saves out, if you feel that you still can't get to equal ground then you should now probably play Valar. Doing so may even give you the edge because you still have powerful characters like the Red Viper in play.

Here's another example of first turn Valar being the optimal choice. I was playing GJ Winter and flopped Marauders, Wendamyr, and a location or two (Gatehouse?). My opponent was running Martell Summer and had a stellar flop: Red Viper, 3 Orphan of Greenbloods, a Sea, and perhaps 0-cost limited location. It was a great 6-7 card flop. With Fear being so popular and my opponent having such a great edge, I highly expected him to reveal Fear of Winter. What did I do? I played Fury so my characters could simply lose their icons and get beat down by the Viper....I'm kidding, I played Valar saved Wendamyr with himself and used Risen from the Sea on Marauders. He marshalled a Refugee or Dornish Paramour (all he could do, since he played Fear). Next turn I played Fear to wipe his board clean. Third turn I made it Winter and added another Marauders to the board. Between Winter and saves, the game was pretty much over at that point. I won one or two rounds later. I contributed that win entirely to playing Valar first round because I knew my opponent would play Fear.

I've said what I've had to say on this matter. If people remain unconvinced that certain situations exist where first turn Valar is optimal, that's their loss, not mine.