The game always needs a wrath. Restricting valar is stupid.

Darksbane said:

Autoinclude is ONE of the criteria, but not the ONLY criteria.

The problem that I see with restricting the Fury plots is that no one will actually pick them over a card like Val or Narrow Escape. With no real incentive to choose them over the other far more powerful cards on the list, they're effectively banned for most all players.

If we want to restrict cards just for showing up in the majority of decks, we need to put all of the Seas on there now. Probably also the +1 Gold limited locations for each house as well.

Yeah, if it was the only criteria, I guess we shall see rather soon every one of the refugees, and I think that won't be the case.

Excellent decision, FFG!

IMHO Valar is a necessary board reset in the game that should neither be banned nor restricted.

Kennon said:

Kennon said:

So I agree with Stag Lord: that's why Valar does not belong on this list. There is a lot more risk in playing it and managing its reward than most of these cards.

Mathias Fricot said:

It would still have it. Restricting isn't banning. Plus if Valar was restricted more decks might run things like Wildfire or Bleeds. It would diversify deckbuilding as you would have to make a choice if you want to run the extremely easy reset or other good cards.

Dobbler said:

I realize that, but I'd say that given the extreme majority of top tier decks which run valar, it meets other criteria too.

Sure it is possible for Valar to lose you a game but that is more the exception than the rule. And because it is so effective at what it does it skews the design and deckbuilding process. Any reset which gets designed or any of the currrent ones all have to be looked at through a prism of Valar because it is easy and has very few downsides.

I agree with bloodycelt in that this restricted list basically made most choices between Narrow Escape and Val (unless you are house Lannister or Martell). I personally expect the Fury plots to lose out almost every time as what they do is good but not unique and the effect can be replaced. Adding Valar to the list would have actually created some interesting choices and might have opened up deckbuilding by encouraging people to play with the harder to use resets instead.

So if Pyromancers Cache got unbanned and put on the restricted list, why didn't Compelled by the Rock get the same treatment? Even if Compelled was on the restricted list, who would choose it over the others? Seems like a no brainer to go on the restricted list.

Dobbler said:

Actually, I'd been wondering that as well. Or Blood of the First Men.

(Not even I would argue that Jaqen should be unbanned. Though ****, I want to see a new one.)

Dobbler said:

I guess because draw is firmly established as a Lannister trait, whereas attachment control is not.

Valar has no initiative, no claim. Those are two downsides.

I don't think it is on the restricted list because it is how these things work in a deck together that makes them so potent. Lots of high reward low risk cards together, thats what the restricted list prevents. Valar isn't one of these cards. Sometimes it hurts you more than it hurts your opponent. Sometimes you get forced into flipping it and you don't want to. Thats why it isn't a restricted card. The reason its in most top tier decks is because its an answer to board swarming that is consistent, not because it doesn't have risks.

Darksbane said:

Hey! I had neither Fury nor Fear in that deck (finite had both, in addition to 2 other restricted cards). Heck, I only had one restricted card in my deck! ~I totally deserve that BF trophy now for performing the best with a legal deck

Before commenting further, I just want to say a group of us met up last night and we were all extremely relieved that FFG finally did something . Pre-restricted was just too problematic, too abusive, and too demanding of specific deck builds if you wanted to win. I know some people didn't see problems with certain cards, but I can assure you - they were there. I think the restricted list will be a great boon for all the LCG's. Already a former player in our meta said that because of the list, he'll probably start playing again in the near future. The game still has it's kinks, but, in my opinion, this probably the best thing (game wise) that has happened in the history of LCG (3x was pretty huge too, but didn't really alter the balance of the game, just the size of everyone's wallets ).

Anyway, what the list is really about is balancing cards and opening up the metagame, which creates a more fun and interesting environment. It's not that the Fury's were broken, had balance issues, had a negative effect on the environment (this is unlike the other cards on the list), but by restricting them FFG opened up a slot in a lot of plot decks, which will increase the game's variety and decrease the level of predictability.

The reason why Valar doesn't belong on the list is because 1) it's balanced 2) resets (especially character resets) are integral to the balance and design of the game. When you have a game where you can have lots of resources immediately available, play just about as many cards as you want, and draw 2 or more cards a turn, you need a means of stopping players from exploding all their cards onto the board. Valar just happens to be the simplest means of punishing players for being overzealous.

It forces them to think, "Should I really play these two guys in my hand, or should I hold them back. Play them now and they'll help me in challenges, but if he resets I'll have a more difficult time regaining board position." This is unlike the Fury's, which was practically an auto-include but offered very little to balance the game. All the other cards on the list have balance issues and are they to help balance them.

Between saves, plots like Power of Blood, Many Powers Long Asleep, etc. Valar is more than fine. It's doesn't just punish your opponent. There are risks the player running it must be willing to endure. MANY games at high tournament levels have been lost because of those risks, but people continue to play the plot anyway because the reward is generally worth it.

Were Valar restricted, players would simply not run the other cards on the list because it's the best way of keeping overly aggressive gameplay in check, and if they chose to not run Valar it simply means they chose to run Wildfire instead. In fact, that's what would happen if Valar was banned. Everyone would just run Wildfire, which is what people did back in CCG before rotation (they also ran Winter Storm). So plot decks are still as predictable pre and post Valar banned. Because of the potential for very fast gameplay, resets will always be part of the game, and it's why we'll never see Valar banned, restricted, errata unless another plot reset is printed. Valar is fine, reprint Outfox and all will be more than good.

Dobbler said:

Double post!

I think others have got the right of it. Draw is Lanni's thing, and not being able to run Castellan (or the other restricted cards) seems like a decent means of balancing an otherwise unbalanced card. Compelled on the list would limit your card selection as well, but i think Compelled was just too good of a form of attachment control for Lannister. It's arguably better than any of Targ's attachment control, and attachment control is Targ's thing.

Maybe we'll see some Lanni attachment control down the road? Probably just more balanced and less powerful.

FATMOUSE said:

I agree that it is good attachment control. However, my first impression is that I'd still choose Cache, Castellan, or NE for a Lanny deck before I ever choose Compelled by the Rock. So if a Lanny player wants to sacrifice all those other cards to run Compelled, then I have no problem with it.

Dobbler said:

Yeah, I was just thinking about that, but 1) I don't think any competitive player would really ever do that (choose Compelled over the other few) 2) i think FFG is trying to take the restricted list seriously and not just, "Oh why the heck not, tack on another!" 3) It means FFG doesn't want Lanni to have attachment control or Lanni will be getting some form of in-House attachment control in the future.

agree with fatmouse. I see pyromancer now as an OOH draw engine and I love this. No lanni player will "not use" castellan for this one so I will try Pyromancer in other decks.

My stark siege now have to be redone completely (was based on fear + narrow escape + val)... have lost lot of power... well... I love this cause it push me to use mind... ;-)

as already said I think all of us have in mind "some card to add - someother to change". Let's try to have this list always updated as the meta speak. This is far more good than ban

Ps I agree in not having Blood Compelled and Jaquen back anyway.

~I guess Blackfish should be banned then since he draws cards and that is a Lanni thing?

I don't think Compelled is either strong enough, or out of their wheelhouse enough to be a worry. To be honest, I don't think anyone would run it considering the other three Lanni-specific cards.

Anywhoo...I love it. Just love it. Many times I think things are too drastic on the banning, but something needs to be done. This is a very elegant solution, even better than the different lists that YGO has (the only thing remotely decent about that game - and yes I had to know it due to owning a gaming store once).

Valar has tons of drawbacks (well, only that it is two-sided, has low income, no initative and claim, your opponent can pretty easily get around it, and you can get beaten by your own Valar...other than that I mean). As the list soemone was nice enough to compile, it is played heavily, but not as heavily as the Fury plots (but on par with Winter which I understand - that is harder to plan around however and is a 2/4/2 not a 2/0/0). To be honest, I lost more games to the rock/paper/scissors nature of the Furies than Valar.

I do see the points about someone showing a first turn Fury - then you know there will be no Narrow/etc. But there is Wildfire and Threat, other ways to control swarm.

I really think it hurts the houses that have house-specific cards on their (other than the Furies). Martell and Lanni mainly. Stark loses either Val or their Fury (which is fine). Bara loses probably Narrow. Etc. Makes deck-building much more of a challenge.

I have babbled enough. Again, great idea, and I am pretty confident that it will be used very well.

P.S. I won't use Castellan for sure - 3 cost allies, bleh.

Targ just got a nifty 3 gold draw attachment!

Gualdo said:

Yeah, I think there's a decent chance we might see players running Pyromancer's over Val if they are going for draw. I'm inclined to say that's a problem, but when you consider you can't run any of the other cards on the list, it's probably ok. We'll see.

I think Blood isn't on because efficient Wildings are too good, and not being able to have Val in a Wildling deck is kind of lame. That and I don't think FFG just wants to throw everything on it all at once (if it's thought about other cards). Also, we've already been told in one of the articles that a new Jaqen is coming out. In fact, you can see him inside the Days of Ice Fire cardboard box (the one with Dany).

rings said:

~If Compelled only worked if the Lanni player did an in-House thing, like after drawing a card, it would have been totally fine and balanced.

Paying gold to discard could be fun and cool.

FATMOUSE said:

FATMOUSE said:

"Were Valar restricted, players would simply not run the other cards on the list because it's the best way of keeping overly aggressive gameplay in check, and if they chose to not run Valar it simply means they chose to run Wildfire instead. In fact, that's what would happen if Valar was banned. Everyone would just run Wildfire, which is what people did back in CCG before rotation (they also ran Winter Storm). So plot decks are still as predictable pre and post Valar banned. Because of the potential for very fast gameplay, resets will always be part of the game, and it's why we'll never see Valar banned, restricted, errata unless another plot reset is printed. Valar is fine, reprint Outfox and all will be more than good."

Except there is a reason to run Wildfire if Valar was restricted, currrently given the fact that very few decks run WF over Valar it would seem most consider Valar a better choice overall. I'm not saying we should limit resets, in fact I think there need to be more house specific options to reset. Valar IMO is high reward low risk, a neutral autoinclude, and it is almost always better than other options to reset (WF, Bleeds, Dohaeris lol). How is that balanced compared to other cards which do similar things? Low claim and initiative? Renown still works, unopposed still works and Valar mostly gets played when your board position is so crappy or opponents so good that claim/initiative wouldn't matter anyway. And you can anticipate your own valar much better than an opponent and can design the deck to be able to work through it.

edit: I hate these forums quoting system

Has anyone thought that maybe they gave us this as an answer to our questions about rotation?

I can see that by including specific cards on this list they could keep broken combos and stuff way down and potentially not ever have to rotate. Just restrict a card or three every year or so and occasionally move a card or two to the banned list from the restricted list?

It seems like a definite possibility to me at least.

If Valar was put on the restricted list... all that would change is removing the choice of anything but valar. I'm sorry, but valar is just TOO useful.

I do think eventually they will need multiple lists... not all cards are equal, and if it gets too big... most of them would be effectively banned.

bloodycelt said:

We were talking about multiple lists on cardgamedb. I do think that the list would be better suited to seperating plots from deck cards, especally once there gets to be more cards on the list.

Penfold said:

I totally agree. This puts off the rotation decision for quite some time...possibly (the power level issue is much more easily dealed with). However, the barrier to entry for new players is still tough - and you HAVE to have new players.

I still see something with blocks or the such SOMEDAY. You can't have new players being almost required to buy 4-5+ years back to have a tourney deck *shrug* That is one place where LCG helps AND hurts - you can't readily get singles to make your Lanni deck using cards all through multiple years.

I think the bigger question is whether FFG will let older pack go out of print. They are reprinting Call of Cthulhu at present,they could easily do the same with some of the earlier sets. They could also make future Deluxe Expansions that reprint specific cards from the older CPs.

Also, I haven't seen that the number of previously released sets has led to new players not getting into the game. My newest players tend to start with the latest packs, and buy backwards when they discover cards that they want to buy. And I'm still able to order packs all the way back to Clash of Arms cycle (just got 3 in this week).

It's hard to say, though. Different people think different ways.

Back on topic, I really like the idea of the list, and I like that they added the Fury plots. I don't think I've built a non-Neutral Faction deck since Ancient Enemies was released that didn't run the Fury ploy, and I know for sure all my LCG decks run them. Now, I have to make some decisions about what to include. And I'm finding that in some decks, getting rid of the Fury can actually be a benefit under the new rules. I'm pretty sure that I will be removing Fury of the Kraken to add Pyromancer's Cache to my Greyjoy deck. And I've usually built decks without multiple restricted cards - I' ve only one dck that ran three of those cards, and that was a Martell Knights deck that used Fury, Val and Narrow Escape. Now it will likely be just NE.

Kudos to FFG for a new and innovative way to avoid bannings and set rotation. Now it's time to see how it works in the field.