i just listened to the eisode at work and came looking for a thread. valar was only a subset of the discussion. their main point was to run 3x of all your cards, including unique characters and locations or dont run them at all. the reasons were twoflod. 1. consistency and 2. saves for valar. there are a few answers. relating to cconsistency, running 3x of uniques results in dead cards. they acknowledged that characters die and having a dead character in hand is a wasted draw. there are other efficiency reasons. in the game characters die. you need a sufficient number of characters to play. more characters on the board is more ooptions. so are more cards in hand that result in seperate options. if i have 4 cards but they consist of 2 copies each of 2 unique characters, i effectively have 2 options as opposed to 1 copy each of 2 uniques and 2 non uniques which is 4 options. relating to saves, there are a few reasons this isnt as great as suggested. first, saves are responses. responses can be cancelled. there is quite a bit of cancel in the environment. second, terminal effects i.e. targ burn cannot be cancelled. going heavy on dupes for saves risks a big card advantage loss for that consistency in drawing your characters. that is why decks also have multiple ways to do essential things like draw. sorry this is all in one paragraph, but the forums do not like typing on a phone.
The Great Valar Debate of '12
HoyaLawya said:
i just listened to the eisode at work and came looking for a thread. valar was only a subset of the discussion. their main point was to run 3x of all your cards, including unique characters and locations or dont run them at all. the reasons were twoflod. 1. consistency and 2. saves for valar. there are a few answers. relating to cconsistency, running 3x of uniques results in dead cards. they acknowledged that characters die and having a dead character in hand is a wasted draw. there are other efficiency reasons. in the game characters die. you need a sufficient number of characters to play. more characters on the board is more ooptions. so are more cards in hand that result in seperate options. if i have 4 cards but they consist of 2 copies each of 2 unique characters, i effectively have 2 options as opposed to 1 copy each of 2 uniques and 2 non uniques which is 4 options. relating to saves, there are a few reasons this isnt as great as suggested. first, saves are responses. responses can be cancelled. there is quite a bit of cancel in the environment. second, terminal effects i.e. targ burn cannot be cancelled. going heavy on dupes for saves risks a big card advantage loss for that consistency in drawing your characters. that is why decks also have multiple ways to do essential things like draw. sorry this is all in one paragraph, but the forums do not like typing on a phone.
You're lucky you can even submit posts on your phone. I can't seem to get that working! :-)
Bomb said:
HoyaLawya said:
i just listened to the eisode at work and came looking for a thread. valar was only a subset of the discussion. their main point was to run 3x of all your cards, including unique characters and locations or dont run them at all. the reasons were twoflod. 1. consistency and 2. saves for valar. there are a few answers. relating to cconsistency, running 3x of uniques results in dead cards. they acknowledged that characters die and having a dead character in hand is a wasted draw. there are other efficiency reasons. in the game characters die. you need a sufficient number of characters to play. more characters on the board is more ooptions. so are more cards in hand that result in seperate options. if i have 4 cards but they consist of 2 copies each of 2 unique characters, i effectively have 2 options as opposed to 1 copy each of 2 uniques and 2 non uniques which is 4 options. relating to saves, there are a few reasons this isnt as great as suggested. first, saves are responses. responses can be cancelled. there is quite a bit of cancel in the environment. second, terminal effects i.e. targ burn cannot be cancelled. going heavy on dupes for saves risks a big card advantage loss for that consistency in drawing your characters. that is why decks also have multiple ways to do essential things like draw. sorry this is all in one paragraph, but the forums do not like typing on a phone.
You're lucky you can even submit posts on your phone. I can't seem to get that working! :-)
physical keyboard ftw
rings said:
While I actually rarely play the plot, and will even less now that First Snow is legal, I think it is good for the environment. It is both game-defining and a natural counter to many strategies that could get overwhelming.
But, while we are nitpicking:
1. It should say you can't save your own characters. Otherwise, like Threat, it many times becomes a one-sided reset with little set-up - mainly with GJ and their ever-increasing level of efficent saves. IMHO Valar is getting less and less effective for five houses (especially w/ Outwit and the lesser Art of Seduction) and better and better for Greyjoy. Threat should almost say "Targ Only" and Valar is getting close to saying "GJ Only". Another option would be printing better nuetral save options.
Quoted for truth. I'd maybe go with 4 houses (draw + gold, anyone?), but that's not completely true at all, since even Lanni will never get the same mileage out of Valar as GJ. I can't see why anybody would make a GJ deck without Valar, really. I'd like it there were some more resets in the game, that would better fit into the other Houses. Would make for more interesting games, IMHO.
Although, speaking of First Snow, I feel the new version is a bit of a lame duck, as a Reset. Not a bad plot, but not really a reset. The claim that it somehow hurts weenies is exaggarated in my opinion, since all the ridiculous 0-1 gold weenies (refugees, lost spearmen distinguished boatswains, carrion birds) don't really care a bit if they're bounced into hand. More like it just helps them not to overextend and thus get hurt by Valar or Wildfire. Mainly it just makes 2 gold weenies less efficient unless they have some comes into play abilities. Think of it this way: If your opponent setups 6 high strength Weenies (say Samwell, 2x Distinguished Boatswain, 2x Refugee and 1x Carrion Bird), would you rather Valar or First Snow?
rings said:
2. There needs to be a decent location removal plot. Sorry, Fleeing doesn't quite do it. I rail on this all the time, so sorry - but it always annoys me that there are at least 3 mass-removal character plots, a few efficent targeted removal plots, and about 100 little-to-no-cost events and character abilities...to match up against one sub-par location mass removal plot, no targeted removal plot, and a couple of playable events and one (maybe two with Saan) in-house character ability.
Too true. The game needs more location control options, both plot and in-house (neutrals are boring).