Does the "Immune to Events" descriptor make a character immune to plot effects? This discussion came up in the context that a plot card like Valar Morghulis in the Stark deck from the core set is kind of useless if not. Can't find clarification in the big rules document, so give me a hand, thanks.

As a secondary concern, if "Immune to Events" doesn't make you immune to plot cards, can anyone justify to me why I would ever keep Valar Morghulis in my plot deck unless I planned to play no characters on the first turn and use it at the beginning of my second? It would be one thing if I could "skip" it, but the fact that you're forced to use all seven of your plot cards before you can start back at the top seems to make it just as dangerous to me as to my enemies.

AsaTJ said:

Plots are not events, so any character with event immunity would not be immune to plots.

VM is actually used by many people in a variety of decks. The idea is to time it when it hurts your opponent more than it hurts you or win the game before you are forced to use it yourself if you are able to maintain board control.

ASoIaFfan said:

I guess that is precisely the problem... seven turns came and went, and there was no point in that span when it would have hurt anyone on the board more than it hurt me. I guess I'm confused why they would put it in a deck that includes such military dominance cards as Host of the North. I suppose if your backbone is characters like Eddard with Stalwart you could end up coming out ahead, it just seems like something that would be of much greater use in any House's playstyle other than Stark.

AsaTJ said:

For the core set decks, I agree with you. It's much more relevant when you start building your own decks. If you don't like doing that or just want to stick with the core decks for some reason, then I'd recommend swapping around some of the plots. Keep in mind that some of the plots are intended for melee (multiplayer) as well and as such will seem quite non-sensical in a joust (head to head). "Condemned by the Realm" is one such plot.

I'd really love to start building my own decks, but I'm stuck with the problem... kind of going off topic here... that if I were to buy, say, Lords of Winter and make a Stark deck, all of the sudden I can't play with my same group of friends because it would be my one awesome deck against three inferior starter decks. And unless I want to give them my starter decks to build off of (which would prevent me from being able to hand those to newbie friends in the future), they need to invest in their own starter set AND a house expansion to get on the same level as me. The business model, while I'll admit still kicks CCGs' butts, seems very illogical for making the jump from treating it like a 4-player board game to actual 60-card-deck play.

AsaTJ said:

I would suggest buying a second core then you could make 60 card decks, and not be too stuck on one house being too far ahead of the others. Also you would be able to move Valar around easier since you would have 2 copies of each plot.

Play a few characters
Valar
Play more characters

Valar Morghulis is actually the MOST USUALLY played plot of ALL ever printed.

It's played in like 9 decks on 10 of every house...

That is becouse it is the most radical RESET, that comes usefull when you have bad luck and the opponent has an edge on you.

That means not only when you have less chars then him, but also when he have chars that are really troumbling you for some reasons (maybe they have a very strong ability, or they have a lot of power tokens on them thanks to Renown) and you have not other ways of killing them.

If you will buy some expansions and start to build advanced decks, son or later you will notice that a reset is almost allways required in every deck, and if you haven't it you are in serious troumble every time the opponent gains a bit of advantage over you.

Anyway, if you really don't like it, in the core set there is a "soft" version of it (Wildfire Assault), so if you start making decks with the core set, I suggest you to put it in every deck that does not includes Valar.

I agree with you that, in starter decks, probably Stark is the deck that needs it less, but still it is one of the most powerfull plots ever.

If you and all your friend have a core set each, I suggest you to unbuild starter decks and make one deck of 60 cards each, using plot and neutrals from all the cards.

I also suggest you to take at least the expansion of your favorite house... It will improve your game A LOT, giving a lot of possibilities and variety to your deck (and adding the deckbuilding part to the game that, with prebuilt decks, you are missing at the moment).

Playing only with the core set, you are tasting only like 30% of the game. I know that for someone buying expansions can be expansive, but I think that at least the preferred house box is affordable for everyone after some time, and it really improves a lot the game.

At this point in time, I'm the only one who has spent any money on this thing, which I guess is the problem. Since our beginnings as a group (which happened to be in the land of White Wolf roleplaying games ) I've always sort of been the one to introduce new stuff, and it takes me a while to wear down their penny-pinch reflexes to get them invested. I'll get there...

Anyway, so Valar is just accepted for the risk it presents? As in, if you rock the world for seven turns, then have to play it when you're king of the world, it's considered worth it to have had it in there in case things went south (which they probably now will for sure?) Just seems odd to bet against yourself that way. It's like marching into battle with a nuclear bomb that can be detonated when needed, but even if you when it's going to go off at some point anyway.

*if you win.........

Most decks win way before turn 7. Valar presents a small risk and sometimes heavy Military decks (like stark) runs without it but it is as close to an auto include plot as there gets.

Huh. Must be how new we all are to the game, but we've never had a game end in less than seven turns. XD

AsaTJ said:

Yeah, and it can be a drag when you're the only one spending anything on good new games for the group. It may really be worth getting a second Core Set and then letting the other players put together 60 card decks for their houses. Deck building is half the fun of the game, and is likely to be the part that makes them interested in their own collections.

Also, no surprise, the more cards you have and the more synergy you can get between the cards of your deck, the fewer turns games will tend to go, but that's I think pretty far from basic core starter decks.

AsaTJ said:

There are a few CPs that have very good cards for every House and will allow you to add cards without unbalancing the decks too much. I would recommend starting with Refugees of War, Ancient Enemies, and possibly Sacred Bonds. Then probably start on the King's Landing cycle, though this will help Lannister a bit more than the other Houses.

AsaTJ said:

My game group is new as well. We have come to the conclusion that Val is in the stark deck for balancing purposes. We think without that card in there the Stark deck is a tad bit stronger than the other 3. Then again, we've only played 3 games so don't crush me if I am wrong.

I'm not sure I'd say that it's better, it just seems to be easier to figure out how to use it. We've never had anyone win with the Lannister deck, and I think the reason for that is that it takes a lot more planning ahead and strategizing. Stark is the easiest deck to win with when you don't know what you're doing.