I joined a new meta recently that contains several tourney hardened veterans of the game (where I have only been playing a few months). I was discussing strategy with them to try and learn as much as I could. They mentioned that nearly every tourney plot deck they have played with/against uses Valar Morgulis. I was a bit surprised to hear this given that it could work against you if you are down to it being your last plot and you are winning.

Would people here agree that this is a standard Plot to include in all decks? Could Westeros Bleeds be used as an alternative? Do most tourney matches end in under 7 rounds (thus the likelihood of being forced to use it is much lower) ?

Valar really is in most every deck, Westeros Bleeds needs 4 influence to work and you have to draw it, Valar is just waiting in your plot deck as a way to reset the board if your opponent(s) lays down wayyy too many characters

that being said. . . . . .screw Valar

One of the most difficult decision to make in a joust game is when to play Valar (I'm still figuring that one out), but it's pretty much auto-include. In melee it is much less used (melee is quite a different game).

Its pretty tough to do well without valar. There are definitely alternatives, but they usually require a higher level of deck building to compensate.

As a new player, valar will give you a big advantage.

Agree with the others. And in case you're curious, you can read about which plots players ran most commonly (up until June of this year) in the June issue of Thrones Times: http://cardgamedb.com/index.php/thrones-times.html/_/thrones-times-v1/

It does vary a bit by meta. In some places you may find Wildfire Assault a more popular reset plot than Valar, but it's pretty standard to assume it will be in a minimum 40% of the decks you face at any tourney, and possibly depending on your meta's preferences.

I ran a Stark Siege deck at the joust at Stahleck, and wasn't running Valar. I never missed it - the only time when I would have Valared, my opponent played Outwit. I generally had board position. Not every deck can afford not to run Valar, of course - Stark Siege often finds it doesn't need a Valar because it's so good at killing things/not being killed that a reset is not really neccessary. That being said, I think every other Stark Siege at Stahleck was running Valar, and my opponents did use it against me to good effect.

I thought it is stupid plot when i started gaming in GOT LCG. However now I consider it a very valuable tool which gives you a chance to recover from being swarmed by opponent.

Remember this game has no other mechanism that would stop other decks from growing endlessly if they gain economic advantage in initial rounds and some draw.

For example: what would happen if there's no Valar and opponent plays 3 Northern Cavalry Flank (1 in setup , 2 in round 1) - you would be toast.

Tomdidiot said:

Joseph (Bolzano) didn't. I'm not sure it would have made a difference in the game against me.

That's the thing with Valar, anyway. Everybody feels they need to run it, and I don't disagree. But how often does it really change the outcome of a game? In the sense that before Valar, you were bound to lose, and because of Valar you turn it around and win? Sure, sometimes it does, but not that often in my experience. Sometimes you can also use it as an offensive weapon (my favourite use of it). But mostly, when you play Valar, you're grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to turn around a lost game, and it rarely works.

To put it bluntly, in four of five cases when you play Valar, it essentially means you've given up.

It's quite funny. For me as Veteran was very difficult to accept Valaar after playing years in CCG without such bg reset. Now after couple of months playing with CCG it seems that Vallar is like additional rule in a game. How I could play this game without it?

Interesting topic. Also good timing I just few days ago played a game with the core set decks. Was playing Baratheon against Stark. After first turn it came to me that I had no way of winning the game anymore as the stark player had gotten big upper hand and had robb stark on the table, while I have all the power on my characters. I had no valar and wildfire wouldn't have helped and baratheon doesn't ave any targeted kill effects so he just could have used robb over and over to kill my renown characters. With valar this game could have been a lot different as the Stark player couldn't have over extended the board completely with more powerful characters and intrigue would have mattered more.

For me I feel the game really needs valar and you should always think hard if you are using it or not. It can be used very aggressively (in a save heavy deck your valar can destroy the game completely for the other). Also this is why Narrow escape and outwit are very important as they can screw the valar player completely since they are stuck with 0 claim plot with only few resources.

As someone said before it will take skill to know when to play valar and when to hold it. When your deck can abuse this fact it doesnt usually need valar itself (when you are forcing your opponent to valar).

I play valar mostly on everyone of my decks just incase my opponent gets the god draw or is trying to over flood the board with characters.

Ratatoskr said:

Part of the issue though is that for many experienced players, they know you will reveal a Valar if that player overextends. Thus, the experienced players does not generally overextend -- waiting with cards in hand to repopulate their board position once Valar is revealed. The fact that they know you'll flip Valar when things look bleakest means that the experienced player will be several steps ahead waiting for that very play. Hence, often it is the expectation of the Valar (and taking actions to pro-actively thwart the impact of the Valar) that will in the "4 out of 5 cases" make it be unsuccessful.

Ratatoskr said:

Wow, I don't agree with this at all, especially if you know a Round in advance that you will be playing Valar; you can only drop one or two guys to prevent unopposed challenges or trigger some effects, hold your guys for after the Valar and then flood the board even if you don't have a claim. Valar can also totally change board position if you can kill anyone who has Renown or Infamy and has a bunch of power on them. I can think of plenty of games where I knew on Round 1 that I would probably be playing Valar on Round 3 and have held back characters as a result...

Skowza said:

Also disagree. Often times I valar when I have more saves the opponent. Valar also helps me when my control deck is getting behind.

Fieras said:

Nothing like dropping a Valar with Greyjoy and controlling Tarle an Iron Mines and an Iron Cliffs

I'm with Jack. Screw Valar - been hating this Plot since 2003 (May be my new sig line)

But until is Restricted - there is pretty much no reason not to run it in a tournmaent deck. Gives you the best military clim you are likely to ever get and doesn't take a lot of brains to play.

Ratatoskr said:

Have to say that I agree with this 100%. I play much more melee than I do joust, but I've found that in both environments that a player who actually plays Valar seldom ends up winning the game. Often, they will slow down or (occasionally) speed up their demise. Setting back up again with zero claim and only 2 gold puts you behind from the get go. A much more versatile plot to have in your plot deck is Wildfire Assault.

I don't believe there's no place for Valar. I think that decks that are specifically set up to take advantage of it can use it to good effect. But in most cases, by the time you choose you play it you're usually praying for a bit of luck.

I admit that I prefer wildfire assault to Valar due to the better stats and the "cannot be saved", but now I'm running Valar because I found out how to use it to my advantage with a basic Martell deck: using it together with "He calls it thinking" to get rid of an annoying opponent charcater with a dupe (and with wildfire the opponent could choose that character to be saved), and/or together with Arianne (especially if she has Rusted sword) to raise the claim to 1 for one challenge. The first situation can be very useful!

Or you find a way to reveal Valar outside of the normal time (before plots with Bran or Citadel Law, allowing you to reveal a plot with better stats; after you lose a challenge with Bungled Orders).