coould also change val too "if not, remove the card from play"...gets around her other 'side benifit' too.

I still would like to see something like Market Street (was that isn't name - something with Market). 1 cost, draw a card if you have initiative. Very powerful neutral draw (to be honest, I would like to see it cost 2 at least, and not be any phase since that was 2 cards each turn you had iniative), but not 100% consistent.

I have played a lot of games, and Val just makes every deck better. I see people's point on Targ (a little), but when she hit the table, she instantly becomes the most hated character on the table it seems. Bara rush is actually very synergetic since it runs a lot of low cost characters/attachments/etc. and they have little outside draw mechanics.

Dobbler said:

I guess this is the part we disagree on. You see val has helping you win by turn three because she gave you a save for a character you already had on the board with a power of blood in plot deck. Where as I see it as the character on the board with the ability to protect it won you the game. You had no need to draw into that extra save.

Baratheon has always been about outlasting based on saves....val doesn't add any saves nor does she make the saves come out at the right time. She can just as easily get in the way of getting the character you need on the board (by discarding it, but playing her first, drawing into the save wihtout the right character to put it on etc, etc) as she can get the save for the character once she is one the board. Thats why I don't find her adding consistiency to the deck

I will say my martell/bara deck sort of had the right combination to take advantage of val. Having a save on a few key characters early meant you could lock in the win. Granted Targ and Wildings beat the living **** out of it. And crazy voltron decks using Joff or Beric... grr.

rings said:

Market Street

Flavorless and is too strong in my opinion. I think it would emphasis Initiative too much as well. Bay of Ice seems to already do the trick in a less over-powered way.

Lars said:
coould also change val too "if not, remove the card from play"...gets around her other 'side benifit' too.

Whether you draw or reveal, the card taken from the top of your deck is never in play...unless somehow it is

ktom said:

Hmmm, so if Aegon's Hill instead read:

"...place it in its owner's discard pile."

Would you consider the card to have been discarded from hand?

EDIT: Boo-hoo to a bad quote system

FATMOUSE said:

ok remove the card from the game

Lars said:

Its not so much the sacves hting (though they help) as the filter effect - letting Barartheon quickly get to its win condition. anything that shortens your deck up (like Blockade runner) is money in a rush deck.

Yeah - the Val+LTS thing worries me. ktom's solution is brillaint - get around TLS hand protect ability and both would be fine.

Huh, Val adds saves for me all the time it seems. Between Bodyguard, Loyal Guard, dups...she is pretty consistant in my experience.

I have never liked the 'she could discard the wrong card' logic. Again, there is just as much chance she could mill you right into the card you needed, and who doesn't like under-costed draw?

Good thoughts though on the removed from game.

Stag Lord said:

I'd like to think ban is more elegant

FATMOUSE said:

Agree. ktom's proposition requires changing her whole ability (which I think FFG will not do). The other (poor) solution is clarification "you must discard regardless of other effects".

I think the "remove from game" errata would be a bad idea. This fundamentally changes the role of the effect, in my opinion. For houses that already have significant access to draw, this errata would probably do very little. But for Targ and Bara, which have relatively poor access to draw (at least in terms of what's competitive) but receive support for recursion instead, Val would become much worse. In other words, although the errata would address the TLS + Val problem specifically, it would disproportionately hurt houses that already lack draw. (Remember, not all Bara decks are rush builds, and some rely heavily on recursion.)

I think we're getting off focus. If the concern is TLS + Val, then why errata Val? Val is much more vulnerable than TLS to card removal effects. Moreover, TLS has an ability that generates concern about balance far beyond the combination with Val. Why create collateral damage to fix the combination when TLS will, as printed, continue to create similar issues with new cards down the road?

Separately, to explicitly address the questions raised by this thread: Is new neutral draw needed? No, but much more in-house draw is (at least in certain houses). On the other hand, is there too much neutral draw in the environment? Well, not really...Val is a bit strong, but she's all there really is unless you play shadows tech with King's Landing. For the time being, I think Val (unfortunately) fills an important hole for certain houses.

Yup, Dobbler will hate to see me bring it up again, but a remove from game errata would total destroy a recursion based Baratheon deck like my See Who Is Stronger deck.