27 replies to this topic

[ToucanPlay]

So, Naval Superiority. I've been drilling my brain these last few days trying to decide whether I should make room for it in my Greyjoy deck. It's clearly a nice plot, and in the current meta it has a pretty good chance of hitting a kingdom or edict plot. You can also set up for it, playing it when Marched to the Wall or Confiscation is expected.

 

However it can also miss. And when it does, it hurts. A lot. So is it worth running?

 

Initially, my thoughts were "Ok, it's a plot that rewards skill, and my ability to predict plots. I trust myself to do this, so I'll play it". However, in reality it turns out like "Ok, this smart player, who knows NS exists, might play a kingdom or edict plot this turn. Or maybe he will expect it, and play something else. Here goes the coinflip!"

 

In my games, it ended up being more of a crapshoot, which is the exact opposite of what I wanted to achieve. In the end, it seems that running a safer, more reliable plot is just better, if you are trusting your deck and your skill to carry you to the win (which is the better approach IMO).

 

Anyway, I'm interested in opinions. Do you guys run NS? In what decks? At which point in the game do you play it?

[ooo]

I'm 100% on the side of it being an unnecessary crapshoot.  Unless you feel for some reason like your deck can't win without taking that big risk of NS misfiring then you shouldn't play it.  I'd rather have 7 plots that I know will deliver an impact when I play them.

I also feel at the moment like there's some groups where NS is played heavily in their meta and they're having a great time mindgaming each other.  When you come to a tournament and you're playing a stranger and you've no idea what Plots he's playing or when he's thinking of playing them then NS will get a lot worse.

You feel super-clever when you wreck A Noble Cause with it turn 1, but when they play Calm Over Westeros instead you virtually threw the game because you've got a ****** 1st turn while they're leaping ahead.  If you're confident of your deck you shouldn't need to have to flip coins like that.


BTW I ran the numbers on plots being played - NS hits 51% of all plots played in the 70+ decks I looked at.

[JoeFromCincinnati]

I think it has very limited use. Yes, it can totally ruin a marching orders or Noble Cause. You can kind of hurt a Call the Banners, but most of its gold production will remain pretty much intact.

 

Marched to the Wall is only 4 gold anyway, and its main purpose is during first turn to discard your valuable lone character from set up, or to get rid of their milked unique. Either way, they still get what they wanted out of the plot. Same with Confiscation. People run it to unmilk their unique, not for the 4 gold.

 

Plus, as you said, there is a relatively high fail factor. Calm Over Westeros, A Game of Thrones and Fortified Position, 3 plots that are very common against the Greyjoy and Baratheon dominated meta, are unaffected by it and leave you very stunted.

 

The only time I'd really consider it a win is if you hit on a Marching Orders or Noble Cause. I don't know anyone who is running marching orders, and Noble Cause is used, 90% of the time, on the first turn (At least in the games I play), and if you're using NS on turn 1, you're pretty SOL too, basically making the first turn a complete wash.

 

Right now, there are a hand full of must includes:

Wildfire Assault

A Noble Cause/Call the Banners (perhaps 2 or even 3 here, depending on your gold scheme)

Marched to the Wall

Confiscation

 

Fortified Position and Filthy Accusations are also common as counters to Baratheon and accompaniments to Baratheon, respectively.

 

Then, if you're running a defensive, Martell or Lannister deck, you run at least one of Game of Thrones or Calm Over Westeros, or both.

 

In an offensive deck, you run at least one of Sneak Attack or A Storm of Swords or both.

 

There just isn't room in any plot deck I build for a 'maybe sometimes kind of beneficial but mostly a wash at best' type card.

[szczudel]

If you have set up Roseroad it is not that bad even when it does not hit.

Real skill is to predict when to hit with it - first or second round. If you feel you have generally stronger setup than opponent - it is time to strike. Of course one Roseroad can make that hit useless especially during noble cause (Kingsroad follow veeery often). Bit still this is, in my opinion a must include in competetive deck.

 

You can always hit with Sneak Attack as opening and force opponennt to use some high gold plot in second round. Also after Wildfire assault is nice window for NS.

[JCWamma]

Personally I feel people are playing it wrong, looking to "force" an advantage when for me it's best at locking one in, denying an opponent the tools to come back against your strong board position. Then if it doesn't hit the loss for you is lowered, but if it does hit it can be seriously game-winning.

[ooo]

Personally I feel people are playing it wrong, looking to "force" an advantage when for me it's best at locking one in, denying an opponent the tools to come back against your strong board position. Then if it doesn't hit the loss for you is lowered, but if it does hit it can be seriously game-winning.

 

Yeah, that's absolutely what it's for.  But that niche purpose "when you're ahead it MAY help you stay ahead" is why it's so often my 8th or 9th plot, not my 7th.

[ktom]

Watch your meta. Are they consistently and predictably revealing Kingdom or Edict plots in round 1? Then use Naval Superiority and punish them. Otherwise, get good at predicting when Heads on Spikes will show up.

[ktom]

Assuming people are using Heads on Spikes a lot, of course. (That's really what it comes down to: what plot are you trying to hit with this thing? Does it show up enough? Can you predict it?)

[szczudel]

@Ktom. I will never pay attention to meta. Tournaments - it is what I prepare each my deck. Deck must be universal or it does not exist for me. When I will start playing in meta I will not change attitude. What is the point of bending to your gaming-group opponents? Will I play against them when games will be for stake? Doubt it.

 

I might use NS on purpose once or twice, not to punish but to teach a lesson so that my gaming group will improve with me.   

[JoeFromCincinnati]

@Ktom. I will never pay attention to meta. Tournaments - it is what I prepare each my deck. Deck must be universal or it does not exist for me. When I will start playing in meta I will not change attitude. What is the point of bending to your gaming-group opponents? Will I play against them when games will be for stake? Doubt it.

 

I might use NS on purpose once or twice, not to punish but to teach a lesson so that my gaming group will improve with me.   

The Meta isn't necessarily defined by your play group.

 

The Meta is what is winning at tournaments, what is in every deck, what many people are running.

 

For example, it is universally thought that Greyjoy and Baratheon are the class of this core set.

 

Meta-ing your deck for those two would consist of including Game of Thrones and Calm Over Westeros for most decks, Possibly Fortified Position etc.

 

Right now, the meta is not looking like Kingdoms and Edicts will be as dominant as wars and schemes.

[ooo]

@Ktom. I will never pay attention to meta. Tournaments - it is what I prepare each my deck. Deck must be universal or it does not exist for me. When I will start playing in meta I will not change attitude. What is the point of bending to your gaming-group opponents? Will I play against them when games will be for stake? Doubt it.

I might use NS on purpose once or twice, not to punish but to teach a lesson so that my gaming group will improve with me.

You say some very odd things at times, then make huge definitive statements at others.

"You must play Naval Superiority in every competitive deck" then "I never pay attention to the metagame"

o_0

[sparrowhawk]

Personally I feel people are playing it wrong, looking to "force" an advantage when for me it's best at locking one in, denying an opponent the tools to come back against your strong board position. Then if it doesn't hit the loss for you is lowered, but if it does hit it can be seriously game-winning.

This^.

If I'm a military aggro build and I have you on the ropes, why do I overcommit into Wildfire? Nope, I just want a bit of gold to play my non-characters. My main priority is to continue applying the MIL pressure with initiative and to not to see you come back with an economy plot like Noble Cause. Or to play Marched when you've got nothing. It's about prolonging the board superiority. This was covered in the post below.

http://www.cardgamed...ssion/?p=207295

[szczudel]

As habesjn have cought. I had different understanding of "meta". I heard it in so many contexts I developed different meaning of this word.

Simple as that.

[RedSquadronK]

I've been running it in my Night's Watch deck and while it hasn't completely screwed me over, it also hasn't been very effective against my opponents. A big part of that is I'm just not very good at predicting when to play it. I will say the saving grace of the plot for me is the high initiative so it still gives some benefit even when you whiff (like I usually do).

[OldShrimpEyes]

Surprising nobody, Wamma has nailed it again. This plot is a crapshoot if you are trying to force and advantage, but it can be the finishing blow to a downed opponent.

[Geoman15]

I think this plot will probably be more useful in melee games...

[chem2702]

Isn't it in the same bag as Heads on Spikes? By that I mean that you are primarily taking a punt?

 

On the Heads on Spikes thread I mentioned that I only really use the plot in a deck where my primary strategy is to empty the opponent's hand as quickly as possible. To do this, a possible deck would be to run Lannister (high intrigue including Cersei and Casterly Rock) possibly bannered with Bara (Rhllor and Seen in Flames) and Heads on Spikes x2. Even this was a strategy that wasn't reliable for me so I don't run the deck often anymore, nor am I running Heads on Spikes often anymore.

 

I think Naval Superiority could work in a deck designed to accumulate lots of gold and steal/discard lots of gold from the opponent. Location hate would work well here, as would Meagre Contribution, as well as running loads of gold producing cards. With only the core set cards, I don't think this would really work yet, but I think it will likely become a staple in Greyjoy decks (in particular) once they can include more location hate and more gold-producing cards.

[Vanzig]

The difference from Heads on Spikes is when you "miss" Heads on Spikes, it's still giving more benefit than it deserves with 4 gold, 7 initiative, and a forced enemy discard of an often crucial event/location/attachment.

 

When you miss Naval Superiority, you're screwed with only 2g and no effect on enemy board-state and no effect on enemy hand.

 

HoS is the much safer, more idiot-proof card to use. It doesn't even matter what plot the other person plays that turn, they all suffer from losing cards and with a normal deck being 50-65% characters, it has a decent chance of getting 2 free power in addition to killing 1-3 character cards (via dead dupes for uniques in deck)

[chem2702]

Yeah, good points.

 

Heads on Spikes is safer in that you still get a benefit if you "miss". I guess I was just referring to the chance element of the plots.

[Kingsley]

You feel super-clever when you wreck A Noble Cause with it turn 1, but when they play Calm Over Westeros instead you virtually threw the game because you've got a ****** 1st turn while they're leaping ahead.  If you're confident of your deck you shouldn't need to have to flip coins like that.

 

I think Magicdave has it here for sure. If Calm Over Westeros didn't exist, I might play Naval Superiority - almost all the econ plots other than Calm are Kingdom or Edict, after all - but Calm Over Westeros means that even when your read is completely correct and the opponent is going econ, you might still get screwed by playing Naval Superiority. Cards that are reliant on good reads are always a bit questionable outside of a local meta, and cards that are reliant on good reads and don't even consistently reward those reads are IMO quite weak.