I am new to the game, and the impressions that I'm getting with some of these Locations doesn't compute with the decklists I'm seeing.

Take this location list for a Stark deck, for example (not mine):

3x Great Keep

3x Narrow Sea

2x Crossroads

1x Godswood

1x Lord Eddard's Chambers

1x Winterfell Castle

1x Street of Steel

1x Street of Sisters

===============

14 Locations total, 13 of which are actual gold/influence (resource-based) locations.

This seems about right as in my decks I've been running 15 resources and usually feel over my curve in both gold and influence. I've been thinking about bringing it down to something like 13 or 14 instead depending on the deck.

3x GREAT KEEP:
0 cost, Limited, +1 gold.
---Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this seems like a near staple at 3 for Stark decks. Adding Gold to your gold pool is always useful. The earlier these come into play, the more cumulative value you get from them. Being Limited doesn't hurt them much, it just keeps them from being completely broken.

3x NARROW SEA:
0 cost, 1 Influence, possibility of a one-time discount of 2, but only on in-house characters.
---Sorry, but these discount cards don't seem very good to me. Especially ones of this kind. Even at zero cost, it seems like there's better ways to get influence on the board. The discount only works on in-house characters and since you only get to do that once, your additional card investment might get wasted by a board wipe, giving your opponent a higher net card advantage afterward. I get the appeal of being able to marshall out three of these on setup and not having to wait a round to get the benefit of a card like gold producers, but there seems to be better ways to do that too (fiefdoms?).

2x CROSSROADS:
2 cost, +1 Gold, 1 Influence
---These are really good. They pay for themselves after two turns. Since they don't 'kneel' to give you the gold, the influence is always there when you need it. That said, they are strictly worse than the unique locations that can be played as attachments (such as Khal Drogo's Tent) due to costing 2 gold instead of 1. This seems like a 'filler' resource rather than a staple, though it's close.

1x GODSWOOD:
2 cost, during the Marshalling phase you can kneel it to discount the cost of a Stark character by 2.
---Discount card again. It can only be used on Stark crested characters, so it's useless on a turn where you are not going to marshall out a Stark-crested character. It doesn't have any uses outside of being a discount for two. That said, I'd probably play it above Narrow Sea. Nothern Fiefdoms seem to be a better discount card all around because you can use it on any Stark card rather than just characters, plus they can be used (alternatively) for influence.

1x LORD EDDARD'S CHAMBERS:
1 cost, unique, +1 gold, 1 influence, can play as an attachment to your House card.
---Why, oh why are people only playing one of these in their deck lists? Why not play three? Being able to play it as an attachment on an indestructible card is pretty amazing because it gets around cards that target or partially board-wipe locations, and it's not likely to get hit by attachment hate. This seems like more of a staple than Great Keep.

1x WINTERFELL CASTLE:
3 cost, All Stark characters you control get +1 str
---This seems like an auto-include in a Bear Island deck that prefers weenies, but not necessarily anywhere else. That's all I'll say here.

1x STREET OF STEEL:
0 cost, limit 1 per deck, kneel it to discount the cost of a character with a military icon by 1.
---Even if every single character I had had a military icon, I just can't see myself playing this.

1x STREET OF SISTERS:
0 cost, limit 1 per deck, kneel it to discount the cost of a character with a power icon by 1.
---Even if every single character I had had a power icon, I just can't see myself playing this.

So anyway, that's the general impression I'm getting with locations and it's leaving me quite confused. Maybe I'm disregarding the strength of zero cost non-limited locations too much. If I am, please set me straight.

I'm counting 13 locations in your list, twelve of them resource ones, but whatever. I agree it's probably a bit much. Rule of thumb says you should have around 10 resource providing locations in a 60 card deck. That's a sound basis to work with. Oh, and I'm not a fan of Crossroads. To expensive IMO.

Gazic said:

Nope this definitly isn't good location - something that pays for itself after 2 turns is very bad when game lasts around 4 turns.

Gazic said:

Generally, you underestimate the importance of good setups. That's what makes the Seas so good. Non-limited 0 gold cards are very important. Good setups equal card advantage, and card advantage equals win. Also, you might get to use the Sea only once, but you can use it right away to get board advantage, whereas you need three rounds to get your money's worth out of the Crossroads.

The reason people play only one copy of the chambers is that it's unique.

And I really think you need to reevaluate the Streets. The reason they're limited to 1x per deck is that they're so good. They cost zilch and are non-limited, and you'll be able to use them almost every round.

Great info! Thanks for the fast responses.

Fleeing to the Wall is used heavily in my meta. 10 locations seems light, especially when 3 of those locations get discarded from play. I guess that's why people prefer high income plots?

Fiefdoms vs Seas:

Is Seas so good that it's considered a staple and I should be running three? Is it better than Fiefdoms? Should I even bother with fiefdoms or did I misjudge that card, too?

Crossroads:

Should I just not run this? What about something like Fallow Fields?

Unique Locations as attachments:

If I play Lord Eddard's Chambers as an attachment to my house card, then I play another as an attachment to that attachment (Can I even do that?), I guess I still only get +1 gold and 1 influence. Is that correct?

Fiefdoms are huge, especially in Targaryen and Martell who need the influence for their shenanigans. Even the other four houses benefit from it, since it practically pays for itself on the spot. What would it be better? Pay, let's say, 2 gold to put a 2 gold character on the table or pay 1 gold, put the Fiefdoms, then kneel the Fiefdoms and pay just 1 gold to play that particular character? In both instances, you paid 2 gold, though in the second case you played a character and a location; a location very handy in your next rounds as well, since it provides influence or reduces the cost of in-house cards (not just characters) you play.

Both Fiefdoms and Seas are great cards, especially for influence-heavy houses.

Gazic said:

Fleeing to the wall is even worse than you think- it gets rid of all BUT the 3 chosen locations. So 7, in the example given. It's definitely a rough card, but it hits both players. If you are seeing it a lot, it's probably best to build your deck around it.

Gazic said:

Seas are pretty close to a staple, yes. IDK that you should say "Seas OR Fiefdoms"- both have their place, and it depends on the deck whether you need both. Like Serazu said, decks that need the influence like the fiefdoms for both their uses. On the other side of the coin (no pun intended), I've rarely seen fiefdoms used in Lannister, because they have so much other gold production and no use for the influence.

Gazic said:

A bit of it depends on your deck, but generally they aren't that good, as others have stated above. If you need the money, fiefdoms are better- they are cheaper, and basically have the same net effect (+1 gold is the same as -1 cost to a card of the house you are playing), and if you need the influence there are more efficient ways to get it (you'll find that there aren't a ton of things that cost exactly 1 influence).

Gazic said:

All of the Chambers (each house has one) are unique, so you can't have two in play, regardless of whether it is played as an attachment or a location.

PERFECT! Thank you!! Now to go forth and remake my deck.