I haven't really tried to build a Stark deck in the past and was looking through Dabbler for ideas... one of my first searches was for characters with Stalwart, and it seems like they are few and far between. Aside from core Eddard there are only 2 characters that have Stalwart, 1 of which exists solely to boost other Stalwart characters (and himself)? Granted, I don't know much about Stark builds, but the other house specific keywords are far more abundant, any thoughts on why there are so few?

Unless the character is really good, Stalwart hinders more than it assists, and the designers are probably afraid of putting Stalwart on really good characters.

I think it is because Stalwart is so good.

But in all seriousness, there are very few cards with the other house keywords as well, I think there are three cards with printed infamy, the only character being Jaime (Core). The most abundant is ambush, I think, and it appears to be the most flexible. Intimidate is the most enjoyable to use in my opinion - unopposed is always fun. With all the events that stop you from winning a challenge (Burnings, Feigned Retreats, the lanni and targ ones) vigilant might not event activate anymore, especially with the high concentration of Martell in the joust meta. Vengeful is good, as I have been victimized by the "kneel darkstar to stop the unopposed intrigue challenge, putting House Dayne Reserves to satisfy claim, and stand darkstar" followed by a counterattack. Building a deck around it means you have to actually lose challenges though.

As for stark, I find stalwart extremely useful in a melee with lots of resets flying around. I am always wary of being what I call "Stalwart Locked" though - when you are forced to draw the same two stalwart characters every turn because they keep being killed. When your opponent can force your draw, they have an advantage. Regardless, they give some security in a melee when you know that if you wrath you are guaranteed two characters on the draw. I was in a melee that had 6+ wipes (everyone was running Valar) and wish I was running them then. As to it being a hindrance, that depends on the game situation (what I described above is definitely a hindrance, but using it sweep and recuperate faster works well late game). So ya, thats my two cents.

...Spoiler...

The thing I find so daft about Stalwart, is that the only Core Set card, and the most common card to find it on is Ned. If he's so stalwart, then how come he gets his head chopped off before the first book has even finished. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the character, but the keyword just doesn't seem to fit.

Because he personally killed Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning.

Mighty Jim said:

Don't you undesrtand? He's head was discarded due to claim of intrigue challenge

Yeah I would say it is because of the tower of joy that he has the stalwart keyword.

Mathias Fricot said:

How do you know that wasn't Howland Reed? - If he doesn't appear in the next few books and clear up A LOT of loose plot ends, I'll not be happy

It says somewhere that Howland Reed saved him from death (presumably at the hands of Ser Arthur), and that he did kill Ser Arthur. I don't have my books with me at university, but I can link you to a reference for it...

http://www.towerofthehand.com/books/101/007.html

I will re-read to confirm over christmas.

I've already thought about it too. I'd like so much if there were more cards with stalwart! However, until now, there are only the cards we already know! Maybe someday!

Shadows Arya sort of has stalwart... where's the Rickon Stark card? Maybe he'll have it

MORE SPOILERS!!!!

A Game of Thrones tells us that Eddard killed Ser Arthur Dayne (in single combat?), but I believe in Clash that the Reed children inform us that had it not been for Howlan Reed, Eddard would have died. No details are given about the fight, save that the comments about Eddard winning were told amongst the servants at Winterfell. Eddard apparently didn't care to talk about the event (shame, maybe, or perhaps he didn't want to call anymore attention to the death of his sister and the fact that she gave birth to a child *coughJonSnowcough*).

JerusalemJones said:

I think you mean Jon Targaryen, right?

Know out of Wedlock he wouldn't have been Targaryen, unless formally acknowledge by Rhaegar... who apparently died before being able to do any such thing. His name would have been Snow, Sand, or Waters depending on whether the name is given based on where their mother lives, where they are born, or where their father lives.

Your right, I am operating under the assumption he has be legitimized - either by Stannis or (more likely) by Robb. Formally acknowledgment by Rhaegar wouldn't even have done it, it needs to be by royal decree - and Rhaegar died before Aerys so he never held the seal.

I'm pretty sure a father can always legitimize his own natural born child and name him heir if he chooses. I believe the King and royal decree is the only way for a bastard to be legitmized by someone other than their father.

Mathias Fricot said:

I know its off topic... i have read the books but probably i missed that.

I know that Jon has to do with the Martells from the tale that says under the Hollow Hill... but how you reach to this conclusion?

Yusaku said:

[sPECULATIVE SPOILER ALERT]

It's a popular held speculation, Yusaku. It hasn't been revealed directly in the books. Rhaegar had taken Lyana and when Ned found her there was blood everywhere. The speculation was that she had given birth to Rhaegar's son who many believe was Jon Snow. The thought is Ned allowed the story about him having a child out of wedlock with Ashara Dayne in order to protect Lyana's secret, since Robert Baratheon would have most likely killed any child of Rhaegar's due to his intense hatred of the man. Remember, her dying words to her brother Ned were, "promise me, Ned." - words that haunted Ned until his own death.