I thought I'd get us back on topic by establishing a new thread with a relevant title. Please bear with the large blocks of quoteration.

Shenanigans said:

jack merridew said:

Fieras said:

goshdarnstud said:

I'd like them to take a look at the restricted deck and really think about if ALL the fury plots should be restricted. Or if any. Those plots are the furthest thing from my mind in most decks. Maybe if I need the keyword, but that's only in Stark and Greyjoy.

I would play a fury plots in 90% of my decks if they werent restricted. Thats the sort of thing FFG is trying to avoid.

Agreed, the Fury plots weren't put on restricted because they were overpowered they were put on the list because every single deck was running them. a high gold high initiative plot with a cool situational effect. yes please

it was done to create more creativity in plot deckbuilding

I see your point, but in that case why not restrict Loyalty Money Can Buy and Retaliation!, which seem to show up in every plot deck lately? Or if we're talking House-specific plots, how about To the Spears?

I don't honestly think any of those should be restricted, and I agree with the creativity in plot decks to a point, but with the power level/impact of the other restricted cards, the Fury plots seem a bit weak in comparison (post Stag-errata that is).

I'm not sure how much it was done to create plot-deck diversity, as the population of plots continues to increase, they'd be seen less frequently. Outside of allowing the "To Be A" events in a scenario where you don't care about the effect from a trait'd plot (and therefore the high stats become more keenly noticeable), what % of decks. Conversely, if they came off the list, would most deck lists that don't feature a trait feature Valar, Retaliation, Loyalty, Fury + 3? Are there any of the Fury's that _don't_ get played because your unlikely to get the effect/rarely face that match up?

I guess I'd like to see a split to a restricted list for plots and one for house decks... and include Valar. (Retaliation & Loyalty are popular, but by no means defining. You could restrict them if you wanted to get rid of _anything_ too ubiquitous, like Gathering Storm was). I'd like to make people run more Wildfire. If I was getting really ambitious, I'd just suggest an errata to make them hit all houses (or maybe all other) to solve that sort of imbalance, because I don't think it is some magical compensation for the varied effects. Though perhaps that might make Stark murder a bit strong. Oh, and I do so wish they'd made the errata for the Bara plot match the wording for Targ... parallelism people, it helps things make sense.

One item that hadn't come up in the earlier discussion was push/pull when choosing a Restricted card plot vs. card in the draw deck. At GenCon, 13 Furies were played (and I think 11 of them were Stark & Greyjoy) When the list came out, I think Fear was the card that disappeared from more decks than the relevant Fury, but if a split was enacted without adding to it, I wonder what percentage of decks would choose between the two options.

The restricted list was introduced with, " On the restricted list, you will find the cards that have been cramping tournament play and preventing the game from being as enjoyable as we all know it can be. Some of these cards are part of an overpowered combination, s ome have risen to the status of “auto-include” and are simply too pervasive in the environment , and some were printed to address a very specific situation that the game has since grown past. " And while I'm not in complete agreement with Stag Lord about the overage of resets (he's too attached to his characters), I think making people think twice about Valar is a good choice. Don't let everybody have that stand by for control without giving up some other options.

I'll be interested to see if they post the Top X decklists to the support page like they did last year. Out of the top 8, there were 8 Furies, 7 Valars (Staton being the exception with his rush) and 4 Fears. How many Top 16 decks featured a Fury this year? How often to Valar, Loyalty and Retaliation!(I often wonder why any deck _doesn't_ include this. How many times do you absolutely _have to_ go first? And if you're playing Bara, save a Knights of the Storm for that turn's marshalling) appear?

In the end, I think it would shake things up in a positive way, make deckbuilding more of a challenge and less predictable (unless it shakes out very quickly) come tourney season. I wouldn't suggest the switch without adding a couple more plots on the restricted side, but I'm not terribly worried about Martell being able to play Fear or Fury with whatever else they are running. The other discussions about Fury balancing are interesting, but I don't think terribly necessary.

Stag Lord said:

I guess I wondering if your thinking is to make a Fury more often played, or make Valar less. Functionally, Fury's only really restricted in Stark, Greyjoy (Bara, sort of) & Targ, who have to choose between it, Fear, Val and Narrow Escape, and in Targ's case it's not much of a choice (though the number of terminal effects to combo is growing). I don't think I'd see any Lanni or Martell deck choose it, and the only other variable that's been introduced lately, is the playability of the 'Cache out of house via Pale Steel Link.

I'd prefer to encourage a greater weight be placed on decision to include Valar. It's arguably the strongest effect in the game, to the point that they had to restrict it to 1 per plot deck back when you could run two of. There are only 3 opportunities to cancel it, and Narrow Escape is "soft" option. And it's weak stats are really a concern, or rather, they are not a deterent at all. Wildfire is not the same thing, but does inhibit the weenie rush, without functioning so flatly as a stopper. And if we see the reprint of First Snow of Winter (dear god, please let it be saveable, or remove the "printed" part of the STR math), we'll have a second option for that. If Valar's going to be your option to stop an uber'd up character, let's make that choice a little more significant.

Now I'm just rambling... anyone else have thoughts?

I generally agree with you Luke; as powerful/game-changing as some plots are, I find it difficult to justify putting in a Restricted plot. With the possible exception of a deck built around a game -breaking Fear of Winter of turn, I don't see any of the currently restricted plots as powerful enough to justify running them, especially when compared to the power level of many of the other restricted cards, many/most of which can be used to great effect for several rounds, sometimes even multiple times in a single round. I find myself even more in favor of a separate Restricted Plot list when we look at some of the non-Restricted plots, such as Valar, Loyalty, and Retaliation, which show up in many/most decks and can have very game-changing effects, certainly much more than the Fury plots (which I would keep on the Restricted List I think, for their stats alone.)

What sort of things would be on this list? Valar? Fear? Furies? Loyalty? Retaliation?

Fieras said:

Yes

At The Gates too, maybe.

And this is where I start to disagree with the(perceived) majority. I am OK with Valar being on the restricted list, because it is a very powerful effect that does not have an equal deterent(sp?) to running it, and therefore everyone runs it. Putting it on the restricted list is enough of a deterent where people will have to actively choose to use it, rather than putting it into 90% of decks as an afterthough. However, plots like Loyalty, At the Gates, Retaliation, etc aren't powerful enough that I think these plots need additional deterents. Sure they are used in the majority of decks, but that could easily be rectified as other comparable plots become available. This doesn't seem to be the case with Valar. Could you imagine trying to create plots with a comparable power level as Valar? Yeah, talk about power creep. However, creating plots with comparable power levels as the plots previously mentioned wouldn't really create a power creep effect, yet still make players actively choose between plots rather than using the same five all the time.

The problem seems to be the same as what you see with some of the less popular cards on the current restricted list: it amounts to a soft ban. And is there any way to avoid that with this proposed list? The list needs to be more than just the Furies and Fear of Winter, because then it's barely a decision; but if too much goes on the list, it might just end up being "Use Valar, the rest of these plots may as well not exist."

Hey someone who agrees with me! ~Well that's odd!

I don't disagree with you Staton; for the moment I'd just like to see the idea of a separate Restricted Plot list considered. What goes on that list is of course up for debate. I don't think Retaliation or Loyalty is near as powerful as Valar, but they're definitely worth talking about in any Restricted conversation if diversity of plot deck construction is actually a factor.

As far as power level, I would argue that Fear of Winter can be even more powerful than Valar, depending on how the rest of the deck is built and the opposition. Loyalty is probably more powerful than most give it credit for, particularly in melee, but even in joust, where it can effectively buy you a turn of respite, or at least soften the blow of a 2-claim plot (like Retaliation, as a random example )

As far as what else might be considered for a Restricted plot list...(just thoughts to provoke discussion)

- At the Gates might be one, although its errata was effective enough in taking care of I think.

- Fleeing to the Wall is popular, but probably not so powerful as to warrant Restriction.

- Outwit might eventually be a candidate, although I'd like to see it in action first. Some might call for

- Rule by Decree, powerful yes, but I wouldn't restrict it

- To the Spears; mentioning this will probably get me berated by the Martell players who are sick of getting restricted. However, it is both undeniably powerful AND shows up in almost every competitive Martell deck.

Shenanigans said:

• Fear of Winter is probably the best plot in the game. Restriction is necessary.
• Furies, well, it depends on how you look at them.
• Retaliation: I feel like this is good, but not so good that it needs restriction
• Loyalty: One of the best plots in the game. Is it autoinclude? Well, since I can't play a Fury or Fear of winter, I'd say so.
• Gates: This is still good. Should it be restricted? I don't think so.
• Fleeing: Shouldn't even be considered for Restriction. Its good, but its so situational.
• Outwit: Shouldn't be restricted. If you restrict valar, it loses a lot of value already, plus its situational, you have to guess right, and you need a crest.
• Rule by decree: I agree. Why would you restrict it?
• To the spears: Lets give Martell a break for the time being. This isn't broken. It's good, but you lose initiative most likely.

I really don't favor Valar being restricted, but if FFG is ever convinced to do so, then there had better be 2 different restricted lists.

Interesting discussion. I wonder what would come of the scene if Valar saw less play than it does. Training a lot of new players, as I do, I see a lot of non-valar games. I also see 1 or 2 "valar haters". They wine about how much it sucks every time a valar is played. But, as a 2 year vet, my projection would be that, without valar, the game would very much revert to a military heavy beat em up. That's what happens in these noob, non-valar games. Hordes of creatures out there the first week, then everyone's playing direwolf/siege or dragons/heir no intrigue. Frankly, you get empty hands and a mindless slug-fest. The threat of valar, in my opinion, sets the mood of aGoT perfectly, and inspires more creative and strategic play.

anavasoothed said:

I feel like one of the first concepts a new player needs to learn is how not to overextend. Valar keeps a balance to the game. Without valar (with the exception of a few decks), whoever takes the lead keeps the lead.

Now, that being said, I think that if valar was added to a restricted list, it doesnt mean that many less people would play if. It would just hyper-restrict every other plot on the list.

Valar shapes the game - and this is Game of Thrones, people - everybody dies. I'd say Valar is one of the defining (if not the most defining) card of the LCG - don't mess with Valar.

While I could see the argument for a plot-deck restricted list, I just really don't think we're there yet.

Valar Morghulis is a game-defining card. The entire balance of the game rests on that card, if you make it restricted there might be 1% of total decks that don't include it, and those will be hyper-aggro. However, even in a hyper-aggro deck it can be necessary, because you're likely to get pounded on intrigue challenges and if they Valar your board and then play out a bunch of characters, you're going to need it.

I don't like the idea of Valar being restricted. First Snow of Winter reprinting is going to have a huge impact on the game - namely in deck construction - but even that wouldn't warrant Valar being restricted in my opinion.

When I first started playing about six months ago with just a core set and a deluxe expansion or two - I didn't like Valar at all. Now that I have the entire card pool and know how to build decks, I don't view Valar as an issue at all. It really defines Game of Thrones and without it the game would lose a lot of flavor and I think the card pool would need rebalancing.

Fully agree. I hate Valar but it is at that moment game defining card. Putting it to restrictated list means ban all other cards. There is almost no way to not play this card. I can imagine some builds without Valar but even in those you can have bad luck and bad board position so reset must be in every plot deck.

Anyway I thnk thay will return to rotation. I started playing 2 months agot and I remember how much time I needed to familirize with the game, to analyze each chapter pack and extension to take decision buy not buy and how many. I had this time but what should do people they don't. I didn't mention how difficult was to buy everything and how much it cost.

i would play Wildfire and be much happier overall

I don't agree with the Wildfire discussion.

Valar banned and Wildfire as the only reset would be a Baratheon player's wet dream. Knight of Flowers, Robert, and Melisandre out and no Valar legal... talk about turn 2 wins all the time.

You wouldn't even need saves in your deck, or Maester Lomys. Baratheon would be extremely powerful in that type of environment - every slot opened up by saves you don't need would go toward options to prevent Martell challenge control or whatever else, making the deck ridiculously powerful. Baratheon Power Rush is the only deck I'd play in a Valar-less environment.

Stasis said:

We aren't talking about valar being banned.

People in this thread are postulating the idea of Valar not being in the environment. Regardless of whether that is due to rotation or banning, it doesn't matter, my point remains the same.

Stasis said:

Not to just repeat Fieras, we're not talking about banning or rotation in this thread (although I'll admit the thread are starting to bleed together a bit in my head.)

I think most people are right in that if Valar were restricted, (either generally or on a separate plot list) it would still see tons of play. I still think your point stands though Stasis, Baratheon Rush would see quite an uptick.

I don't agree with the majority that Valar needs to be such a prevalent part of the environment. The point that was made about teahcing people not to overextend is a good one, but I think it's mostly applicable because of Valar. Is there any other card that must be planned for so thoroughly? The other resets (Wildfire and Westeros Bleeds) are workable, but Wildfire is more palatable for most decks (aside from Weenie decks) and Westeros Bleeds requires a significant resource commitment. I guess one could include Valar Dohaeris as a reset, but I wouldn't call it a good one.

And no, I don't want to ban Valar or see it vanish; I just think restricting it, particularly on a separate restricted plot list, would open up the environment to a LOT more decks and deck diversity, while still allowing for players to use it. Seeing as control is the current king of the mountain, and has been for a while, and seeing as Valar is so key to control's dominance (versus rush) why not open up the environment a bit?

I have to admit, I'd be interested to see FFG experiment with restricting it for six months.

Either it'd make no difference, other than turning the restricted list into a quasi-ban list for a short while... or the " perhaps we'd find workarounds " camp would be proven right and the meta would diversify.

Neither seems like a particularly bad experience to go through on a temporary basis. Does it?

Well FFG doesn't have to experiment with it. Why don't we just start running weekly play nights or monthly tournaments with Valar being restricted, whether it be on a separate plot list or just adding it to the list as is now. FFG takes input from these boards, whether they read it directly or hear from prominent board members, they take the discussion into consideration.