With Stark, Baratheon, and Greyjoy getting more in-house/thematic draw effects, is there a need for strong neutral draw in the environment? I keep seeing that Val+TLS=broken, but what if Val were removed from the equation instead of TLS? Which houses would suffer the most from Val being removed from the metagame?(No, I'm not calling for the banning of Val, I'm just trying to see the other side.)
Need for Neutral draw in the Metagame?(OR, does Val break TLS?)
I think Baratheon would suffer it the most.
I can't tell which house would be the most damaged, but I think Martell and Lannister don't care about Val drawing power.
eloooooooi said:
I think Baratheon would suffer it the most.
why? they can't really use her right now (w/out tls). and if protecting your hand is soooo overpowered then all they need isTLS. with knights agenda and some of the other events bara would be pretty much right where they are right now if she didn't exist.
I think the answer to this is greyjoy. I'm not sure if they have any draw in the plot or marshalling phase, plus they can cheapen the deck enough to make her not be a discard mechinism.
Lars said:
eloooooooi said:
I think Baratheon would suffer it the most.
why? they can't really use her right now (w/out tls).
Oh, can't they? I thought I was using her in 80% of my matches (and having a pretty nice outcome) but maybe I was just dreaming...
Personally, I dislike neutral draw. I actually dislike neutral cards in general, but that's mainly because they can often redefine the metagame (i.e. Val) instead of balancing it (i.e. Varys), which almost always leads to NPE. That said, neutral draw can be created without upsetting the metagame, but it must be conditional. Even then it needs a lot of testing and may not as creative as in-House solutions. Generally, I find when people say neutral draw, they mean neutral, unconditional draw. Conditional vs. unconditional is the core of why many believe Val to over powered compared to other neutral draw in the game. Bay of ice requires you to win Initiative; if you don't, your opponent draws a card. Samwell Tarly is 1 STR, no icons and requires you to run Ravens (not really smart to depend on your opponent). King's Landing is 4 gold and requires you have more King's Landing locations than other player, and demands you run multiple Shadows cards to maximize utility (again, don't depend on your opponent).
To answer your question...it depends on what you're asking. Does the game need unconditional, neutral draw? Hell no. I'll probably stop playing the game if I ever see another Val-esque card printed. Does the game need more conditional, neutral draw? My short answer is no. I'd prefer if draw was added through in-House tech, but I'm guessing there's a decent chance we'll see some Maester-related draw in SoO. If balanced (easier said than done), it should be OK, but I think most players prefer to look at in-House draw before looking at neutral draw.
As for Val and TLS, the combo simply shouldn't exist. I'm not saying it's easy to set-up or easy to maintain. Regardless of those factors, it's just one of those things that shouldn't exist. But, I'm also a person that believes Val shouldn't exist...so bring out the ban hammer.
Tough to say which House gets hurt the most if Val goes. Lannister then Martell would probably be hurt the least. Targ, GJ, and Bara take decent hits for quite a few builds, but nothing that can't be amended through in-House draw (not saying it's there for everyone at the moment).
eloooooooi said:
Lars said:
eloooooooi said:
I think Baratheon would suffer it the most.
why? they can't really use her right now (w/out tls).
Oh, can't they? I thought I was using her in 80% of my matches (and having a pretty nice outcome) but maybe I was just dreaming...
if your using her with such a nice outcome w/out TLS, then whats the problem with TLS and her? (sorry unrelated, but trying to wrap my head around a few different aspect of val)
I'll try to use some actual examp[les of my expriences
my bara decks tend to be rush, i've also built the manditory asshai deck one of the problems I have with both is that the cards need to make it work are simply too expensive (rush relies on a lot of 4 gold characters, the decent asshai are at least 3x and lack a mil icon so a 2 claim turn can ruin your investment). Baratheon also doesn't have a lot of any phase events so you lose your events to val.
in rush one of the things I did was to focus on the non-uniques that make it work, therfore its less of a crushing blow if i lose one or two or three or four of them to reset. That made the average cost of the deck about 3.5 for characters. Bara's resources are fairly limited and yeah they cando a lot to lower one or two cards down in cost, but a lot of that is one shot and not sustianable, so you either overload with gold producers (which can kill a rush deck) or you work with the limited reducers and play 1-2 characters a round. now with val i have to be able to reduce those 1-2 characters a round to such a low number (i.e. and average of 1.5) that when i flip a 3.5 average cost character i can afford to play it. Sadly there aren't many 3.5 gold characters so i run the risk of discarding one of my 4+ gold characters and gaining nothing.
What is a lot more reliable is the one extra card a turn with the knights agenda. I much prefer the knight agenda sprinkled in with the renown event, renly, and or the epic event, all of which draw and relate to my rush theme wihtout costing me an additional 2 gold or extra protection (read that doesn't also protect the rest of the key parts of the deck).
i find the asshai deck to be very explosive in the first couple of turns, but the lack of a sustainable military presence to be the falal flaw, val doesn;t really help over come that flaw and doesn't fix the deck.
If you take val out of the equation the problems bara have remain the same with her in the environment.
i guess she is essential to a bara wildlings deck, but thats not really a house issue.
Great thread.
Yeah, I think we all agree that the TLS + Val combo is a problem...whether banning Val is the correct solution probably depends more on how you view TLS' effect. (TLS' effect affects many other cards too, so if you think that's a problem, then simply banning Val wouldn't work.)
On your main point, I agree that neutral draw should be minimized. In fact, I think resources should primarily be provided by in-house cards. A Sea Road here and there isn't bad, but the better the resource provided (higher gold/influence, draw, etc.), the more important it is for the card to be in-house. I feel this way because resources largely define the way houses feel, at least as much as in-house card effects/abilities. Think about Greyjoy...the resource curve is very low, few cards in hand, and little or no influence required. That leads to a MUCH different experience from Lanni, which requires a lot of gold and card draw, and Targ, which needs gold and influence. Printing neutral cards that provide equal access to these resources makes the houses feel more similar and less distinctive. It also makes balancing the environment much more difficult.
In terms of which house Val is most important to, I vote Targ and Greyjoy. Targ has some great draw, but it usually takes at least 2-3 rounds to get it going. Since Targ doesn't have an effective rush build (no renown), it means you're going to basically going to start out fast but then hit a plateau until you can get sustainable draw or effective recursion going. Val helps A LOT with this; she won't help much if you draw her late game, but early game she will help jump start your sustainable draw engine. In fact, I suspect that of all the decks I build, Val is most critical in my Targ decks.
Greyjoy doesn't have a ton of draw, but with the winter/choke build, you don't need a lot. Also, the saves mitigate the lack of card draw. Moreover, Longship Iron Victory has got to be one of the most efficient sources of draw if you actually get it out early, even if it does trigger after Marshalling. So while Val is incredibly useful with all the low-cost characters a GJ winter deck runs (the only GJ decks I see in competition these days), I wouldn't say she's a critical component in the deck.
Stark has some decent draw these days, and search to fill in the gaps. In a long game, Stark will likely need more draw and Val can fill in the holes, but I think what Stark has in-house is typically enough for most games. Like Greyjoy, she's useful but not critical.
I really have no clue about Bara, but my impression is that characters tend to cost a bit more and are overall more resilient...two factors that make Val less crucial (though I'd say she's still useful in Bara).
Val is obviously less helpful/necessary in Lanni and Martell, though I still throw a copy in those decks just in case. It can help in the mirror match ups.
Twn2dn said:
Great thread.
Yeah, I think we all agree that the TLS + Val combo is a problem...whether banning Val is the correct solution probably depends more on how you view TLS' effect. (TLS' effect affects many other cards too, so if you think that's a problem, then simply banning Val wouldn't work.)
On your main point, I agree that neutral draw should be minimized. In fact, I think resources should primarily be provided by in-house cards. A Sea Road here and there isn't bad, but the better the resource provided (higher gold/influence, draw, etc.), the more important it is for the card to be in-house. I feel this way because resources largely define the way houses feel, at least as much as in-house card effects/abilities. Think about Greyjoy...the resource curve is very low, few cards in hand, and little or no influence required. That leads to a MUCH different experience from Lanni, which requires a lot of gold and card draw, and Targ, which needs gold and influence. Printing neutral cards that provide equal access to these resources makes the houses feel more similar and less distinctive. It also makes balancing the environment much more difficult.
In terms of which house Val is most important to, I vote Targ and Greyjoy. Targ has some great draw, but it usually takes at least 2-3 rounds to get it going. Since Targ doesn't have an effective rush build (no renown), it means you're going to basically going to start out fast but then hit a plateau until you can get sustainable draw or effective recursion going. Val helps A LOT with this; she won't help much if you draw her late game, but early game she will help jump start your sustainable draw engine. In fact, I suspect that of all the decks I build, Val is most critical in my Targ decks.
Greyjoy doesn't have a ton of draw, but with the winter/choke build, you don't need a lot. Also, the saves mitigate the lack of card draw. Moreover, Longship Iron Victory has got to be one of the most efficient sources of draw if you actually get it out early, even if it does trigger after Marshalling. So while Val is incredibly useful with all the low-cost characters a GJ winter deck runs (the only GJ decks I see in competition these days), I wouldn't say she's a critical component in the deck.
Stark has some decent draw these days, and search to fill in the gaps. In a long game, Stark will likely need more draw and Val can fill in the holes, but I think what Stark has in-house is typically enough for most games. Like Greyjoy, she's useful but not critical.
I really have no clue about Bara, but my impression is that characters tend to cost a bit more and are overall more resilient...two factors that make Val less crucial (though I'd say she's still useful in Bara).
Val is obviously less helpful/necessary in Lanni and Martell, though I still throw a copy in those decks just in case. It can help in the mirror match ups.
I find Val is very important to the Bara Rush deck that relies on Loyal Guards, Body Guards, Dupes, etc. As long as you are playing Seat of Power and Narrow Sea , make sure you trigger those before you trigger Val (In case you flip one of the high cost dudes), but there has been several times where I spent 0 Gold on Val's three triggers and great solidified the staying power of my characters on the board.
Dobbler said:
I find Val is very important to the Bara Rush deck that relies on Loyal Guards, Body Guards, Dupes, etc. As long as you are playing Seat of Power and Narrow Sea , make sure you trigger those before you trigger Val (In case you flip one of the high cost dudes), but there has been several times where I spent 0 Gold on Val's three triggers and great solidified the staying power of my characters on the board.
Yes, and if you run Royal Entourage, it doesn't hurt you one bit if they end up on your discard pile.
Not to mention event recursion with Pyre of the False Gods, Shadow recursion Blackwater Bay, and character recursion with See Who is Stronger. Val has plenty of room for multiple Bara builds.
FATMOUSE said:
Not to mention event recursion with Pyre of the False Gods, Shadow recursion Blackwater Bay, and character recursion with See Who is Stronger. Val has plenty of room for multiple Bara builds.
Don't mention See Who is Stronger! It will just give Kennon more reason to bring that card up during the podcast!
I've gotten far away from loyal/royal guards. they just don't help make the deck more consistient. if i jump out all over you and your only recourse is a reset then I probably don't need val any way.
What is more the case these days is that most decks are just as fast at setting up what they want to do early game that there is more then just a reset to worry about. Lanni kneel has always been just fast enough to stop bara rush. Martell has enough delaying tactics or can outrush you with viper and taste for blood. Things like Burning on the Sand, the targ power win event, and 2 claim plots are enough to slow bara down that relying on one or 2 key characters dosn't work if you don't win by turn 3. Heck white raven is searchable by a plot and crushing to bara (~expcet of course the oh so preveleant winter/wall/nightswatch builds...)
I haven't seen a good bara recuserion deck. I'm not trying ot crush kennon's hopes and dreams, but seriously its not like we are talking about targ here......King Robert, pyre, and see who is strogner vs. 3x street waifs, LDC, and to be a dragon....
dobbler brings up using seat of power/narrow sea to 'fuel' val. thats well and good for that turn....what about next turn after you have discarded them? what happens when you discard one or both of them, hit an event, an attachment, and a dupe? thats a lot of wasted resources. Do you play the cards in your hand first and use the locations on them and risk losing the high gold character? do you ignore the cards in your hand early game and hope they are they when you run out of locations?
Lars said:
dobbler brings up using seat of power/narrow sea to 'fuel' val. thats well and good for that turn....what about next turn after you have discarded them? what happens when you discard one or both of them, hit an event, an attachment, and a dupe? thats a lot of wasted resources. Do you play the cards in your hand first and use the locations on them and risk losing the high gold character? do you ignore the cards in your hand early game and hope they are they when you run out of locations?
It honestly depends on the situation (board presence, what's in hand, gold and reducers available, etc) and the deck. I always say players should "practice" using Val in a new deck to optimize her use. Once you understand how she works with your deck, you can use her accordingly.
Simply my experience: Val was the glue to Bara rush to get them setup. You can pick it apart all you want Lars, but my rush deck was so very, very much better with Val.
If Val/TLS becomes a big problem, it wouldn't be too hard to errata Val so that the discard is from your deck rather than your hand - leaving both essentially intact.
However, if you active Val with money to spend, or some reduction effect as mentioned, you risk to see Royal Entourage, who will eat your ressources with small gain. I usually prefer only to active her with 2 gold, and look for 0 cost card, copies of characters on play or Royal Entourage for the discard pile.
Dobbler said:
Twn2dn said:
Great thread.
Yeah, I think we all agree that the TLS + Val combo is a problem...whether banning Val is the correct solution probably depends more on how you view TLS' effect. (TLS' effect affects many other cards too, so if you think that's a problem, then simply banning Val wouldn't work.)
On your main point, I agree that neutral draw should be minimized. In fact, I think resources should primarily be provided by in-house cards. A Sea Road here and there isn't bad, but the better the resource provided (higher gold/influence, draw, etc.), the more important it is for the card to be in-house. I feel this way because resources largely define the way houses feel, at least as much as in-house card effects/abilities. Think about Greyjoy...the resource curve is very low, few cards in hand, and little or no influence required. That leads to a MUCH different experience from Lanni, which requires a lot of gold and card draw, and Targ, which needs gold and influence. Printing neutral cards that provide equal access to these resources makes the houses feel more similar and less distinctive. It also makes balancing the environment much more difficult.
In terms of which house Val is most important to, I vote Targ and Greyjoy. Targ has some great draw, but it usually takes at least 2-3 rounds to get it going. Since Targ doesn't have an effective rush build (no renown), it means you're going to basically going to start out fast but then hit a plateau until you can get sustainable draw or effective recursion going. Val helps A LOT with this; she won't help much if you draw her late game, but early game she will help jump start your sustainable draw engine. In fact, I suspect that of all the decks I build, Val is most critical in my Targ decks.
Greyjoy doesn't have a ton of draw, but with the winter/choke build, you don't need a lot. Also, the saves mitigate the lack of card draw. Moreover, Longship Iron Victory has got to be one of the most efficient sources of draw if you actually get it out early, even if it does trigger after Marshalling. So while Val is incredibly useful with all the low-cost characters a GJ winter deck runs (the only GJ decks I see in competition these days), I wouldn't say she's a critical component in the deck.
Stark has some decent draw these days, and search to fill in the gaps. In a long game, Stark will likely need more draw and Val can fill in the holes, but I think what Stark has in-house is typically enough for most games. Like Greyjoy, she's useful but not critical.
I really have no clue about Bara, but my impression is that characters tend to cost a bit more and are overall more resilient...two factors that make Val less crucial (though I'd say she's still useful in Bara).
Val is obviously less helpful/necessary in Lanni and Martell, though I still throw a copy in those decks just in case. It can help in the mirror match ups.
I find Val is very important to the Bara Rush deck that relies on Loyal Guards, Body Guards, Dupes, etc. As long as you are playing Seat of Power and Narrow Sea , make sure you trigger those before you trigger Val (In case you flip one of the high cost dudes), but there has been several times where I spent 0 Gold on Val's three triggers and great solidified the staying power of my characters on the board.
Dobbler said:
Twn2dn said:
Great thread.
Yeah, I think we all agree that the TLS + Val combo is a problem...whether banning Val is the correct solution probably depends more on how you view TLS' effect. (TLS' effect affects many other cards too, so if you think that's a problem, then simply banning Val wouldn't work.)
On your main point, I agree that neutral draw should be minimized. In fact, I think resources should primarily be provided by in-house cards. A Sea Road here and there isn't bad, but the better the resource provided (higher gold/influence, draw, etc.), the more important it is for the card to be in-house. I feel this way because resources largely define the way houses feel, at least as much as in-house card effects/abilities. Think about Greyjoy...the resource curve is very low, few cards in hand, and little or no influence required. That leads to a MUCH different experience from Lanni, which requires a lot of gold and card draw, and Targ, which needs gold and influence. Printing neutral cards that provide equal access to these resources makes the houses feel more similar and less distinctive. It also makes balancing the environment much more difficult.
In terms of which house Val is most important to, I vote Targ and Greyjoy. Targ has some great draw, but it usually takes at least 2-3 rounds to get it going. Since Targ doesn't have an effective rush build (no renown), it means you're going to basically going to start out fast but then hit a plateau until you can get sustainable draw or effective recursion going. Val helps A LOT with this; she won't help much if you draw her late game, but early game she will help jump start your sustainable draw engine. In fact, I suspect that of all the decks I build, Val is most critical in my Targ decks.
Greyjoy doesn't have a ton of draw, but with the winter/choke build, you don't need a lot. Also, the saves mitigate the lack of card draw. Moreover, Longship Iron Victory has got to be one of the most efficient sources of draw if you actually get it out early, even if it does trigger after Marshalling. So while Val is incredibly useful with all the low-cost characters a GJ winter deck runs (the only GJ decks I see in competition these days), I wouldn't say she's a critical component in the deck.
Stark has some decent draw these days, and search to fill in the gaps. In a long game, Stark will likely need more draw and Val can fill in the holes, but I think what Stark has in-house is typically enough for most games. Like Greyjoy, she's useful but not critical.
I really have no clue about Bara, but my impression is that characters tend to cost a bit more and are overall more resilient...two factors that make Val less crucial (though I'd say she's still useful in Bara).
Val is obviously less helpful/necessary in Lanni and Martell, though I still throw a copy in those decks just in case. It can help in the mirror match ups.
I find Val is very important to the Bara Rush deck that relies on Loyal Guards, Body Guards, Dupes, etc. As long as you are playing Seat of Power and Narrow Sea , make sure you trigger those before you trigger Val (In case you flip one of the high cost dudes), but there has been several times where I spent 0 Gold on Val's three triggers and great solidified the staying power of my characters on the board.
It's definitely obvious that Val plays an important role in equalizing the playing field. That said, in the long term, I'd like to see cards like this phased out in favor of in-house mechanics. If Crone wasn't such a terrible card (horrible stats, with an Ally trait as the kicker), she'd be a perfect model for what an in-house draw mechanic should look like. Same thing with Fishmonger's Square - if discard mechanics were better, that card might actually be pretty awesome. Golden Tooth Mines on the other hand seems like a bad method...way too easy.
ktom said:
If Val/TLS becomes a big problem, it wouldn't be too hard to errata Val so that the discard is from your deck rather than your hand - leaving both essentially intact.
Doesn't draw entail a card going to your hand though? I also think it's less being a big problem game-wise, than it is principally problematic. Some combos just shouldn't exist. I feel this is one of them.
What is the point of making more neutral, unconditional draw cards? We may as well just change the rules to "draw 3."
Dobbler said:
Simply my experience: Val was the glue to Bara rush to get them setup. You can pick it apart all you want Lars, but my rush deck was so very, very much better with Val.
and how many major tourney's did you bring it too let alone win? you always saw better ideas and went with that i'm guessing. I'd also further guess that loyal guard et al only helped if you had a specific character on the board. Drawing into loyal guard doesn't help you rush on little bit without that one character on the board.
Lars said:
Dobbler said:
Simply my experience: Val was the glue to Bara rush to get them setup. You can pick it apart all you want Lars, but my rush deck was so very, very much better with Val.
and how many major tourney's did you bring it too let alone win? you always saw better ideas and went with that i'm guessing. I'd also further guess that loyal guard et al only helped if you had a specific character on the board. Drawing into loyal guard doesn't help you rush on little bit without that one character on the board.
I'm a control player, I always play control at tourney's. That will never change, but that isn't the question is it?
The question is "Is Val Good for Baratheon", and in all my experiences, ABSOLUTELY. I had a Bara Rush deck that was a ton of fun, it was an iteration of Bloodycelts Bara/Martell deck, with uber characters Red Viper, No shadows Robert, Renly, Eddard. And Val was huge to that deck. She would often flip over the dupe, bodyguard, loyal guard I needed to protect one or more of my characters on the board. I had a first turn win with that deck and several second turn wins. Getting a save on the board often meant I didn't have to waste a Power of Blood early and I could go with a more proactive plot to win the game.
Considering Baratheon's lack of consistent draw, I just don't see how she doesn't help them immensely in ANY of their builds. Everyone has already mentioned recursion, which is obviously a side benefit to her.
FATMOUSE said:
ktom
said:
If Val/TLS becomes a big problem, it wouldn't be too hard to errata Val so that the discard is from your deck rather than your hand - leaving both essentially intact.
Doesn't draw entail a card going to your hand though? I also think it's less being a big problem game-wise, than it is principally problematic. Some combos just shouldn't exist. I feel this is one of them.
ktom said:
FATMOUSE said:
ktom
said:
If Val/TLS becomes a big problem, it wouldn't be too hard to errata Val so that the discard is from your deck rather than your hand - leaving both essentially intact.
Doesn't draw entail a card going to your hand though? I also think it's less being a big problem game-wise, than it is principally problematic. Some combos just shouldn't exist. I feel this is one of them.
It would be more involved than simply saying "discard from your deck," but the language could be crafted appropriately.
Instead of "discard it" I guess it could say "place it on top of your discard pile." That would work, right?
FATMOUSE said:
Instead of "discard it" I guess it could say "place it on top of your discard pile." That would work, right?
I'm thinking something more along the lines of a "put it into your hand (and play next action) or discard; cards revealed in this way count against your draw cap" formulation.