I am not a fan of Restricting Valar. It would instantly be my Restricted card for every deck I make. I remember in the late 5KE era when there was no Valar . Games were not as balanced IMO as when Valar was in the environment. A reset-less environment is really not all that fun for my playstyle.

It heavily favors Rush over Control and Combo. Wildfire doesn't even count as a reset IMO because people can save 3 cards and against many builds (like the Top 2 decks of CaliCon) Wildfire is virtually useless. I find it interesting that some of the proponents of banning Valar (Stag Lord, Staton and Fieras) are some of the most vocal Baratheon fans on the board. Hmm...

Stag Lord said:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this line, and I may be way off in my interpretation. From what I understand, I find this concerning enough to comment on...

I'm all for people debating their opinions, but I've grown so very tired of people using the boards to "push" for what they want. There has been so much of this happening the past while, and it's the main reason I don't enjoy the boards like I used to. It just feels like there is less debate and discussion, and more people thinking that if they are vocal enough about something, they'll change people's minds, or FFG will eventually listen.

With that out of the way, I like Valar.

I wouldn't cry if it got restricted, but it adds to my enjoyment of the game. I like feeling like nothing is safe. I like the decisions Valar forces me to make in multiple phases of the game. I love that it makes the intrigue challenge have more bite. I love when it gets cancelled, and you feel the whole game shift. I'd still enjoy the game without it, but I appreciate what Valar does overall.

I don't like that it feels like most decks need Valar to be competitive. That is the one thing about Valar I wouldn't mind moving away from. Moving Valar to the restricted list might accomplish that, but I still think people would feel they needed it enough to take it as their restricted card. I'd rather see something in-game that pushes us away from this feeling that most decks need Valar.

DJ26, just do what I do and knock everyones opinion equally

Valar should stay in the game. That is all.

Really DJ? you've been here for a long time - factions have always used these baords to push for what they think is best for the gaming experience. All the way back to teh forty card Stark murder decks....

Anyway - yeah: LT: I'm biased. I play Baratheon and I want TLS unrestricted and Valar on> I still think its better for the game and not just Baratheon, but i am advocating here. No question.

And aslo notice that its not just the Bara cult raising the question (we're just being vocal, as usual, about it). Maester Luke and Lone Wanderer are hardly house partisans and are at least willing to think about the question.

Stasis said:

Your point does't stand.

You are talking as if Valar was not in the environment, We are talking as if Valar was on the restricted list which means you could still keep your reset and take down the Bara Holy Trinity.. . . . . . Me i would play wildfire and fear and be very happy.

if your point was that Valar would be the only restricted card people would play it would be valid but the idea that because Valar was on the restricted list you wouldn't be able to beat a Bara deck is ridiculous

Deathjester26 said:

Jester, I understand what you mean as far as the boards, but I disagree (mostly ) With such a great community and lovely forum to discuss the game, people generally feel pretty comfortable expressing themselves here. Consequently, I think that since there's a fine line between passionate discussion and being demanding/pushy, I generally take what most people say on the boards regarding changes to the game as the former. I think it helps that by this point I've met a lot of the folks on the boards in person, and know them to be good folks. (Have we met? My apologies if we have and I don't remember.)

I like what you say about Valar,on both sides, and find your aguments for it to be the most compelling I've heard yet. I'm curious as to whether you have anything specific in mind as far as "something in-game that pushes us away from this feeling that most decks need Valar." I'm not the most creative individual, but I just don't see what, aside from a better reset or an easier cancel, could do so "in-game."

I still come back to my deck diversity wants. I'm no Baratheon lover or hater, but I do think that control (Martell, Lannister, and to a lesser extent Greyjoy) has been too dominant for too long (as long as I've been playing, from right around the LCG shift.) I think it's pretty fair to say that the easy availability of a strong reset like Valar has a lot to do with that. These three Houses can deal with and/or recover from Valar much more easily than the other houses.

Mathias, I agree; Valar should stay in the game. However, seeing the more rush-oriented/character-heavy Houses (Stark, Baratheon, Targaryen.) get an uptick wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion. Restricting Valar, perhaps as part of a restricted plot list, might just do that. Sure, we'll still see plenty of it, but not as much.

A rousing discussion folks; keep it up!

Yeah just to reitterate Shenanigans statement, this is some of the best discussion I've seen on these boards in years. I kinda see where DJ is coming from with his points too. I think what people are attempting to do here is get a conscensus for the forum members so that FFG can take that consensus and factor it into their final decision on a certain issue. I feel like FFG does take our opinions into consideration when making decisions, but it is just a consideration. They still make the decision that feel is the correct one, even if it is an unpopular one.

Very interesting discussion, with good points all around. ~Except Stag Lord's.

1. I like the seperate list for plots. I am all for variety, and truth be told you see 5-6 plots as 90% of all plots played. And, I can't even blame FFG (not that I usually do) since they are super-hard to balance (~don't worry, I won't go into my 'hard to balance plots, impossible to balance agendas' rant again).

2. I think Valar should be part of the environment. I just would also like to see other options for mass-removal - Mathlete's plot, Winter Storm were old ones, or new ones like a plot that effectively has three military claim but only hits weenies/allies/non-uniques or something like that.

3. While we are at it, why are locations so unbreakable (plot-wise) and characters are? Really? There should be a couple more options on this side, since there is exactly one location removal plot I can think of. Catastrophe I loved. Something that just zaps a location 3 cost or less if you win two challenges. Return a character to hand to return a location to hand. Stuff like that. I never have figured out why characters die so often (like the books) but locations don't (unlike the books).

If I remember correctly, the World Champion's deck did not have Valar and neither was it a control Deck. Yes Control decks are powerful and pretty prevelant but look at the last few tourneys. Gen Con- Bara Maesters, hardly a control deck. Control decks do not win by turn 3. Cali Con- Top two were power rush Bara treaty to the south and Bara Maesters. Ohio- Didn't a Martell Maester won? I do not know it was control or more of a rush. The fact of the matter is that both Bara Maesters that won and one being the WC did not run Valar. It seems to me that not all decks need Valar to win. They ran other removal cards like Threat from the North so why not restrict that one as well? It has cannot be saved, claim and better initiave (Btw I am not advocating restricting this card)There are a lot of ways to get around Valar. You can save from it, it has crap initiative, crap claim and it can be cancelled now. It is a very balanced card and also nedly. I am thinking we are seeing a knee jerk reaction to this card but I don't know why. If you take away or restrict it other plots/cards of mass removal (Westeros Bleeds, Archmaesters Wrath, Threat from the North, Wildfire) will take precedent and soon we will be crying for them to be restricted. This is a slippery slope we are going towards. Though this is just my 2 cents worth.

rings said:

rings said:

I could not agree more with this. i would love for more specific reset plots, Targeting specifically allys, non-uniques, charcters without attachments, non lords, and so one. i think there should be trait specific resets to choose from

thekingg said:

How can it be a knee jerk reaction when this card isn't anywhere near new?

I am talking about the reaction for placing this card on the restricted list...Apparently I didn't edit it enough

Even though this card is not new it seems like this type of reaction to the card has become more emotional and new from my point of view.

The last few months people are kinda all over the place with errata-ing, restricting and banning stuff. At least thats my impression and I really don't like it because I don't know how much the devs listen to this stuff (Prince's Plans/ TLS never saw competitive play).

That said. My opinion to the Valar discussion:

Restricted list - No

Other reset plots - Yes

First Snow of Winter reprinting will probably actually give a power bump to Stark and Baratheon. They seem to rely more on 3 STR characters whereas the other houses run a lot of sub 3 STR guys.

The sheer amount of saves in the environment is due to Valar being there, I think. I don't think you'd have so many saves in the game if Valar wasn't there. There aren't enough plots that are worthy of restriction right now, I guess you could make a reach and if it's a plot-only restricted list you could put some plots on there that are very common but not overly powerful.

The greatest thing Valar brings to the game is that it prevents a case of "whoever flops the most / best characters in setup wins". Valar is not a case of solely control decks vs. aggro decks. Aggro decks can find themselves desperately needing it as well - against other aggro decks and control decks.

This game doesn't have the delaying mechanics that other games have that prevent the board from being flooded. It's much easier and faster to get a ton of characters out and the only thing that stops it is Valar.

rings said:

I really like this idea, Matt. I loved the 5KE search plots that weren't reciprocal, but were conditional on accomplishing something during the turn... much like the Furies or the inverse of Battle of Oxcross. There's so much room for exploring that design space... and removal or draw effects that aren't revealed would be great. And get around immunities.

@Stag Lord, you are absolutely right that people have been using the boards to petition for change since they've existed. In an effort not to hijack the thread I'll just say, it feels more people are doing it, and in more threads.

@Shenanigans, the passionate debate slips into pushy for me when people continue to express the same ideas, without supporting them. I think this thread is doing a good job of avoiding that.

As far as an in-game solution for Valar, I don't like silver bullet cards. I would like to see a plot cancel that is more generally available to any deck type (something like Outfox), but I don't think that silver bullet cards like this would push the meta far enough away from Valar.

So what does Valar do for people that makes people play it so often, that other resets don't do? If we can answer that, maybe we can come up with some solutions. I can only answer that question for myself, and I'm sure other people have other reasons for using it so frequently.

Simply put, Valar allows me to get rid of any unprotected problem characters. I don't play it much in melee, unless I have a lot of saves in my own deck. I do, however, include it in every joust deck I build that is not designed to win by turn 3.

Against other control builds, it helps keep the number of pesky characters on the table low. Either they hold some back until after Valar, or they foolishly put too many down and Valar gets rid of them. This gives my intrigue challenges more bite pre-Valar. However, everything it does for me here, it does against me as well.

Against Bara power rush, I try my best to only play Valar once I know it is going to get rid of something good (something more than a bunch of dupes). I need to rely on other cards to remove the dupes, and slow down the rush. I really only try to use Valar as a final blow. Otherwise, I feel Valar pushes me further back, instead of helping me catch up.

Valar really shines against other aggro builds like Stark Siege, or weenie decks that flood the board. They don't have the ability to save enough of what they have played, and don't draw enough to replace what they lose.

Creating new cards with the idea that they will replace Valar seems dangerous. They will either be too effective by themselves, or even worse in combination with Valar.

I think FFG has done a fairly good job of creating several cards that make Valar less powerful since the beginning of the LCG (the duping ability of Bara, saves from GJ, Power of Blood, Narrow Escape, Targ recursion, etc.). I'd prefer to see more of these types of cards, or even plots that might not cancel Valar, but allow you to counter it very well. Just throwing out ideas, but maybe a plot that lets you draw for each character you control that is killed or discarded from play while it is revealed. Good God's Own Kiss was cool back in the day.

rings said:

Huzzah for that man!

Give us some kind of City of Soldiers and/or Marched to the Wall type effects for locations.

I get that Greyjoy is the best at location zapping, but surely that shouldn't make them quite so untouchable by other houses.

Also, big +1 on the 5KE plots thing; they look awesome (in a Nedly and Tournament Abusable kind of way). I love the idea of having more 'Military Battle' plots that reward you for, well, uh, for actually winning military battles.

And finally, +1 on Good God's Own Kiss. It looks like the most busted thing that I can possibly imagine... but like it might be pretty good fun at the same time.

thekingg said:

Brooks, hard to compare the recent winners to Valar. They can (could?) run Threat for one-sided, unsaveable resets...so don't need Valar (one thing Maesters don't have, is a really good protection vs. Valar - which is a plus on the Valar side I agree).

I don't disagree with your point, just how you got there. ~It is like saying 'well, GJ decks can win without knights, so any knight related card must be balanced' or the such...

jack merridew said:

I agree with this too... more options for reset would be nice, likewise with the points about location removal. I always found cards like Winter Storm or Winter Has Come to be superior to Valar in more ways and would love to see cards like those come back. Maybe if you could choose out of five or so reset plots, there could be a case for a plot deck restrict list.

~ Oh Rings I disagree... Knights are extremely broken and should be banned.

In all seriousness, I think just because a card is powerful it shouldn't all of a sudden be put up for consideration for Restricted/banned. Then again I played in the past where there was a lot of "broken" cards. It just requires me as a deck builder to think of those scenarios when I build a deck. I think all the changes FFG made so far have been good and good for the game, I would also like to see the Laughing strom taken off the list ...~wait he is a knight he should be banned .

I'm really glad we've got this flowing... it's been a while since we had this kind of constructive multi-sided discussion that didn't boil down to bi-directional rants. (Someone needs to zombify Corey's agenda thread). >

Ahzrab said:

Just to reiterate the point where I initiated the thread: I wouldn't consider Valar for a restricted list without creating a second one for plots. I do realize I hadn't thought about the concept of a "soft ban" on all other restricted plots, and I'm gaining a new appreciation for that position. Apparently I can't recall most of my other commentary, but I'm not actually sure I agree with this point. I've always been partial to the "possibility" of character-lite/less decks, and they need them. I'd sooner have 2 of them on (so you had to make the choice between, say, Valar and First Snow), than throw a slew (are there enough to even use that term?) of them on this theoretical list.

On the other end of the scale (and this is a project I've never gotten around to working on), what plots to people never see? Nm... I think I'll start a new thread for this.